They call it plausibly deny ability. The speech Obama gave was written and rehearsed. He talked about change and calling it one thing (change didn't make it change). This gave him the cover he needed to call Palin a PIG. Just like he flipped Hilary off. He is a Chicago thug politician. Bill Clinton can see one, it takes one to know one.
search
- search
Recent Posts
- Obama is slick - He did call Palin a pig and refer to McCain an old fish
- Dominate Liberal Mass Media
- What is the real risk to America?
- This is why this war will take generations to win.
- Vouchers for schools is the solution
- To many people in prison - legalize drugs and you solve half of this problem
- Liberalism in our institutions
- Illegal Immigration hurts us all in many ways
- Government Control of anything is not good.
- INDIVIDUALISM
recommended blogs
liberal to conservative
- communist party
- socalism
- Mother Jones
- The Nation
- Fairness & Accuracy in Media
- CNN Programs - Anchors/Reporters - Paul Begala
- Paul Begala
- Carol Simpson
Reference; Newseum Panel on Second Bush Administration 11/8/2004 - Molly Ivins
- Maxine Waters
- Howard Dean
- Micheal Moore
- Barney Frank
- Ralph Nader
- New York Times
- Newsweek
- Time Magazine
- Natioal Education Association
- Diane Degett
- NPR
- Bill Moyers
- ABC
- NBC
- CBS News
- PBS
- Freedom Forum
complete archives
What is the real risk to America?
We have to watch for our soverigncy to be taken in International Treaties. Take a look at this example!
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
BUILDING A BRIDGE TO NOWHERE BUT OBLIVION: USG Funding Of UNCLOS & UN Environment Program Will Undermine US Sovereignty
BUILDING A BRIDGE TO NOWHERE BUT OBLIVION **
The UNCLOS has not been properly researched and scientifically investigated by the U.S. Executive and Legislative branches. Neither have these organs of U.S. government closely examined whether the UNCLOS's environmental regulatory rules can: 1) advance sound environmental policy; 2) ensure objective, balanced enforcement free from the political influence of special interests’ having philosophical/political and economic leanings antithetical to free markets and the protection of private property rights; and 3) guarantee that the Rule of Law, NOT the Rule by Law, is the order of the day - i.e., that Rule of Law is NOT undermined, circumvented or usurped to support a system of unaccountable supranational power where top-down rather than bottom-up Global Governance reigns.
As a result of inadequate executive and legislative branch research and oversight of the UNCLOS and its relationship to the burgeoning United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), U.S. policymakers have remained largely unaware of how the U.S. State Department continues to fund and seek future funding for these organizations/institutions - despite the fact that such funding can be and, in some cases, is actually being employed against U.S. national sovereign interests. For one thing, the UNEP is the multilateral environmental treaty-making machine of the UN, which the European Union, specifically, France and Germany, aim to enlarge and reform into an International Environmental Organization with vast powers to facilitate global environmental regulatory and economic governance over U.S. affairs, based on other than free market, private property, rule of law and scientific principles.
It is therefore surprising that the U.S. State Department has actually funded the UNEP in the neighborhood of $42.17 million from 2004-2007 ($10.94 million – 2004, $10.91 million – 2005, $10.16 million – 2006, $10.16 million – 2007), has estimated that actual 2008 UNEP funding will be $10.42 million, and has recently requested additional 2009 UNEP funding in the amount of $9.52 million – for a total of $19.94 ($20) more million, for a grand total of actual, estimated and projected UNEP funding for 2004-2009 of $62.11 million! [1] Adding insult to injury, the U.S. State Department has also, on at least two occasions, sought federal budget line funding for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the International Seabed Authority (ISBA). These funding requests were submitted FY 2006 $3.1 million (ITLOS - $1.9 million + ISBA - $1.2 million) and just recently FY 2009 $4.9 million (ITLOS – $3.6 million + ISBA - $1.3 million)! [2]
What is the sound rationale justifying the U.S. Department of State's appropriation of monies to the UNCLOS [a treaty not yet ratified], to the tune of approximately $5 million dollars? If the monies are being allocated to the UNCLOS, where other treaty parties hostile to U.S. interests are 1) refocusing and reshaping the UNCLOS into a more communal, centralized social system and 2) planning to utilize the interrelationship between the UNCLOS and the UNEP to promote the development of a global governance system that compromises U.S. national sovereignty, are we not undermining ourselves by building a “Bridge That Leads to Nowhere”, but oblivion?
**[THE ITSSD WISHES TO THANK CLIFF KINCAID OF AMERICA'S SURVIVAL (http://www.usasurvival.org ) FOR BRINGING THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT'S PROPOSED FY 2009 BUDGET LINE FUNDING OF THESE UNCLOS BODIES TO OUR ATTENTION]
[1] See U.S. State Department “Summary and Highlights - International Affairs Function 150 Budget Requests”, ‘Contributions to International Organizations’, FY 2009 at p. 92, at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100014.pdf ; FY 2008 at p. 109, at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/80151.pdf ; FY 2007 at p. 88, at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/60297.pdf ; FY 2006 at p. 90, at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/41913.pdf .
[2] See U.S. State Department “Summary and Highlights - International Affairs Function 150 Budget Requests”, ‘Contributions to International Organizations’, FY 2006, supra at p. 92; FY 2009, supra at p. 96.
The UNCLOS has not been properly researched and scientifically investigated by the U.S. Executive and Legislative branches. Neither have these organs of U.S. government closely examined whether the UNCLOS's environmental regulatory rules can: 1) advance sound environmental policy; 2) ensure objective, balanced enforcement free from the political influence of special interests’ having philosophical/political and economic leanings antithetical to free markets and the protection of private property rights; and 3) guarantee that the Rule of Law, NOT the Rule by Law, is the order of the day - i.e., that Rule of Law is NOT undermined, circumvented or usurped to support a system of unaccountable supranational power where top-down rather than bottom-up Global Governance reigns.
As a result of inadequate executive and legislative branch research and oversight of the UNCLOS and its relationship to the burgeoning United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), U.S. policymakers have remained largely unaware of how the U.S. State Department continues to fund and seek future funding for these organizations/institutions - despite the fact that such funding can be and, in some cases, is actually being employed against U.S. national sovereign interests. For one thing, the UNEP is the multilateral environmental treaty-making machine of the UN, which the European Union, specifically, France and Germany, aim to enlarge and reform into an International Environmental Organization with vast powers to facilitate global environmental regulatory and economic governance over U.S. affairs, based on other than free market, private property, rule of law and scientific principles.
It is therefore surprising that the U.S. State Department has actually funded the UNEP in the neighborhood of $42.17 million from 2004-2007 ($10.94 million – 2004, $10.91 million – 2005, $10.16 million – 2006, $10.16 million – 2007), has estimated that actual 2008 UNEP funding will be $10.42 million, and has recently requested additional 2009 UNEP funding in the amount of $9.52 million – for a total of $19.94 ($20) more million, for a grand total of actual, estimated and projected UNEP funding for 2004-2009 of $62.11 million! [1] Adding insult to injury, the U.S. State Department has also, on at least two occasions, sought federal budget line funding for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the International Seabed Authority (ISBA). These funding requests were submitted FY 2006 $3.1 million (ITLOS - $1.9 million + ISBA - $1.2 million) and just recently FY 2009 $4.9 million (ITLOS – $3.6 million + ISBA - $1.3 million)! [2]
What is the sound rationale justifying the U.S. Department of State's appropriation of monies to the UNCLOS [a treaty not yet ratified], to the tune of approximately $5 million dollars? If the monies are being allocated to the UNCLOS, where other treaty parties hostile to U.S. interests are 1) refocusing and reshaping the UNCLOS into a more communal, centralized social system and 2) planning to utilize the interrelationship between the UNCLOS and the UNEP to promote the development of a global governance system that compromises U.S. national sovereignty, are we not undermining ourselves by building a “Bridge That Leads to Nowhere”, but oblivion?
**[THE ITSSD WISHES TO THANK CLIFF KINCAID OF AMERICA'S SURVIVAL (http://www.usasurvival.org ) FOR BRINGING THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT'S PROPOSED FY 2009 BUDGET LINE FUNDING OF THESE UNCLOS BODIES TO OUR ATTENTION]
[1] See U.S. State Department “Summary and Highlights - International Affairs Function 150 Budget Requests”, ‘Contributions to International Organizations’, FY 2009 at p. 92, at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100014.pdf ; FY 2008 at p. 109, at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/80151.pdf ; FY 2007 at p. 88, at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/60297.pdf ; FY 2006 at p. 90, at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/41913.pdf .
[2] See U.S. State Department “Summary and Highlights - International Affairs Function 150 Budget Requests”, ‘Contributions to International Organizations’, FY 2006, supra at p. 92; FY 2009, supra at p. 96.
Vouchers for schools is the solution
It was only a matter of time until even the Dems figured out that choice in education is the only way to go . The education unions are over. We can no longer protect bad teachers at the expense of our kids. This is a matter of national security.
Source: TownHall.com
Inner City Kids Benefiting From School Choice
By Dr. Matthew Ladner
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Democratic activist Steve Barr, founder of the Rock the Vote campaign, has dived into school reform in Los Angeles. Predictably, this has run him straight into the teeth of opposition from the education union. Barr has been busily kicking out those teeth.
A girl touches the hand of U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) during a visit to an elementary school in New Orleans February 7, 2008. REUTERS/Carlos Barria (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008 (USA)
| Related Media: |
 VIDEO:
Students Recall History from the Steps of The Lincoln Memorial
|
 VIDEO:
Students Fight Obesity with Imagination
|
Barr’s Green Dot is a group of charter schools with a strong record of accomplishment with very disadvantaged students. Public school teachers in Watts have been using a California law to secede from the dysfunctional Los Angeles district to join Green Dot as charter schools. The education establishment in the city, led by the education unions, has fought Barr every step of the way. But so far, Green Dot is winning.
Barr is no union buster; his schools have school-level associations. Barr’s take-no-prisoners style, however, includes no patience for urban schools that systematically fail kids. Barr will not tolerate tenure or other impediments to quality learning.
Barr makes it clear, in sometimes colorful language, that the purpose of state education spending is to educate children, not to provide job security to underperforming adults. He told LA Weekly, “Where are these … (expletive) teachers going to go? Where are these lifetime benefits going to go? What will happen to all of these groups protecting their interests and their jobs and their construction contracts? The political puzzle of this is really fascinating. But I have no doubt that within five years, you’re going to see our impact. And it’s going to be huge.”
Green Dot Schools in the toughest neighborhoods in Los Angeles have an average high school graduation rate of 80 percent. The first two Green Dot schools also had high percentages of graduates attending four-year accredited colleges and universities. The school model focuses on getting resources away from bureaucracy and into the classroom and an unflinching commitment to academic achievement.
Susan Estrich, manager of the 1988 Dukakis presidential campaign, blasted the Los Angeles school board for trying to stop Green Dot. Estrich describes the dire need:
The graduation rate at the local high school, one of the absolute worst in Los Angeles, is 3 percent…Green Dot was ready to go in Watts. It had the money to open the schools. It had the support of the community. It met all of the legal requirements for its charters to be approved. Indeed, the School Board staff advised the members that their only legal option was to approve the charters... But who cares about the rule of law when the teachers’ union is saying no?
TV personality Drew Carey recently filmed an internet program on Green Dot’s takeover of Locke High School in Watts for the Reason Foundation. Approximately 75 percent of 9th graders entering Locke do not graduate in four years, and less than five percent of Locke students go on to four-year colleges. In the 2003-2004 school year, there were three sex offenses, 17 robberies, 25 batteries, and 11 assaults with a deadly weapon at Locke. In the “no good deed goes unpunished” world of dysfunctional public school districts, the principal who tried to turn the school around was hounded by the unions.
Barr is not alone as a Democrat defying the prerogatives of the education unions. Democrats for Education Reform is a new group that is making a big splash. In 2007, the group held an event in which U.S. Representative James Clyburn (D-SC) stressed the importance of parental choice and innovation in education. Clyburn, the House Majority Whip and the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, supports both charter schools and private school tuition tax credits for middle-class families.
At an earlier event held by the group, Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. discussed “alarming dropout rates” and the dangers of a “monopoly” filled with failing schools. “We must explore options,” he said. “Every option for every American child so that every child might have the high-quality education they deserve in their lifetime…We need more competition in the system.”
Jackson Jr. mentioned that his parents sent him to the elite St. Albans Episcopal School in D.C. when he was a child. He said he plans to push the envelope to make Democrats approach education with a more open mind.
The big tent of education reform keeps getting bigger. The relationship between liberals and education reactionaries is under obvious strain. As Churchill once said, “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
To many people in prison - legalize drugs and you solve half of this problem
I've said for years we need to legalize drugs. This does a number of good things. Start with national security. It takes the profits out of the drug trade and out of the hands of terrorist and gangsters. By legalizing drugs and regulating drugs the crime related to the drug trade would be eliminated because the prices will come down. By releasing people in jail for non violet drug related crimes you let 1 million people out of prison. This stops the need to build more prisons and makes room for serious criminals. The courts will be freed up from all the drug cases and treatment centers can be set up. The enforcement dollars used by the DEA and local law enforcement can be used to track dangerous criminals and terrorist. The risk of overdose will be reduced because the drugs will be pure and doses would be known. It creates a new tax base. There will be a certain amount of derelicts in society no matter what we do. This is a shame but if drugs were legalized these people can be identified and helped.
This article makes a point but it misses the real point.
Rule-Breakers, Inside and Out
The Hill
March 3, 2008
America’s jails and prisons are bursting at the seams and new ones are being built at an amazing pace to house violent, non-violent, white collar and miscellaneous miscreants being shuttled through our courts at an ever-increasing rate. Governors in state after state are wondering just how to pay for the prisons they’re being forced to build and those who run our prisons and jails are hard-pressed to find qualified correctional officers to guard the growing army of inmates under their control.
Just last week, figures released by the government revealed that more than one in a hundred adults in this country are serving time in jail or prison. That’s the highest percentage of citizens of any nation in the world and it’s growing.
People are incarcerated for breaking society’s rules or laws both to punish them and to protect the public from them, and to let others know that those who break the law will pay for doing so. When they leave the courtroom for prison, victims and prosecutors often breathe a sigh of relief, knowing that at the very least they won’t be preying on the innocent while they’re locked up. Everyone hopes that by the end of their incarceration, miscreants “will have learned their lesson” and return to society determined not to repeat their mistakes.
The evidence suggests otherwise. While incarcerating dangerous and career criminals reduces crime just by keeping them off the street, prisons don’t do a very good job of rehabilitation. This should be of greater and greater concern these days because in the next few years literally hundreds of thousands of prisoners will be released and the fear is that a very high percentage of them will end up terrorizing someone before being rearrested and sent back.
Our prisons house more than a few men and women who cannot be saved, but many can. In failing them, our prisons are failing the society building these human warehouses.
A few weeks ago, I joined a number of others testifying before the House Judiciary Committee supporting changes in a law known as the Prison Litigation Reform Act or PLRA. The PLRA was passed in 1996 to deal with a flood of frivolous lawsuits filed by prisoners complaining about just about everything. The new law made it far more difficult to file such suits by requiring, a) that prisoners exhaust all administrative remedies available to them before going to court and b) denying prisoners access to the courts under any circumstances unless they could demonstrate actual physical injury as a result of the alleged mistreatment.
The law worked in the sense that it cut down on prisoner’s lawsuits, but it had the unintended consequence of virtually insulating prison officials from external oversight and denied prisoners access to the courts for all but the most grievous mistreatment. Even prisoners raped by rogue guards have been denied access to the courts because they couldn’t demonstrate real physical injury resulting from the rape.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Bobby Scott (D-Va.) held the hearing to see how the law is working and what might be done to eliminate the unintended consequences without once again opening the courts to thousands of frivolous or even malicious lawsuits.
The witnesses testifying urged a number of reforms. The most important were eliminating the physical injury requirement, which allows guards and prison officials to ignore a prisoner’s rights and their own rules because they know they can do anything they want short of inflicting observable physical injury; softening the requirement that a prisoner “exhaust” an administrative review procedure that is often run not to remedy abuses but to keep prisoners “in their place.”
Any other governmental agency that promulgates rules governing its own behavior must follow those rules, but it is well documented that prison officials can and often do ignore their own regulations because prisoners have no recourse and no one on the outside can do anything with the knowledge either. Prisoners who ask that the rules be followed are simply told the written or official rules don’t matter.
Most prisoners may not be rocket scientists, but they learn a lesson from all this. They realize that while they are in prison for breaking society’s rules, those with real power can and do act exactly as they please in flagrant violation of the very rules they are paid to enforce and observe.
That’s a lesson we shouldn’t be teaching.
Liberalism in our institutions
Source: TownHall.com
Unacceptable
"Made in China."
Or so reads the tag on the navy blue "Pentagon United States — Dept. of
Defense" cap purchased for this columnist on the main concourse of the
Pentagon at the Fort America concession.
Bring back Murrow
Turned off by TV news? You're not alone.
We've just finished reading a scathing critique of network news by
Jeffrey M. McCall, professor of communication at Indiana's DePauw
University and author of "Viewer Discretion Advised: Taking Control of
Mass Media Influences."
It was this time last year, the professor notes, that Federal
Communications Commission Commissioner Michael Copps criticized the
television news industry for giving the public "too much baloney passed
off as news."
"Sadly, the evidence since that speech indicates that Copps'
critique remains quite valid," Mr. McCall writes. "From superficial
coverage of elections to hyped-up coverage of celebrity scandals, the
broadcast news industry continues to give the citizenry a news agenda
that degrades the conversation of democracy."
And how have the news networks reacted?
"NBC is countering the decline in journalistic effort with an
increase in razzle-dazzle," he finds. "Evening anchor Brian Williams
was a guest host last fall on 'Saturday Night Live.' NBC executives
were delighted with the stunt, one of them saying, 'It showed a side of
his personality that some viewers may have warmed to.' "
(Perhaps we will warm up to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton now that she appeared on the same comedy show over the weekend).
"The most recent NBC novelty is the new voice that introduces Williams'
'Nightly News.' It is none other than Hollywood actor Michael Douglas,
recruited by Williams himself to open the show," Mr. McCall adds in his
Op-Ed column, which first appeared in the South Bend (Ind.) Tribune.
It's so pitiful, he points out, that on a certain "day last
June when oil prices dropped $2 a barrel, the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs stepped down, the space shuttle launched, and former national
security adviser Sandy Berger surrendered his law license for stealing
government documents, the story that dominated cable news was Paris
Hilton's release from jail."
Still, he says, there's hope:
"Former NBC journalist Maria Shriver recently told NBC she
wouldn't return to the network from her current hiatus. She cited the
media excesses in covering the death of Anna Nicole Smith last year as
the major factor, saying 'It was then that I knew the TV news business
had changed.' "
Reagan reruns
Feeling left out for missing the Reagan Revolution? Not to worry, the Gipper is back.
Ronald Reagan's voice "will soon be heard across the land again," says
Duke Blackwood, executive director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential
Library and Foundation. He says a series of 30 nonpolitical segments of
Mr. Reagan's many radio commentaries, in which he clarifies his vision
for America, will begin airing around the country on April 28.
"Ronald Reagan Speaks for Himself" is aimed at the several
generations of Americans who never heard him speak on issues such as
the economy, immigration, abortion, terrorism and taxes.
Consider this
Percentage of Democrats who rate their mental health as "excellent": 38
Percentage of Republicans who do: 58
— Harper's Index, March 2008
Tough being Israel
King Abdullah II of Jordan, who has arrived in the United States for
meetings with President Bush, made this eye-opening observation during
a speech to the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs at Princeton University:
"Fifty-seven countries are not at peace with Israel today.
Fifty-seven countries out of 193 countries in the world. Fifty-seven
countries with a total population greater than Europe and the United
States combined.
"Fifty-seven countries, representing one-third of the members of the United Nations."
By John McCaslin
Monday, March 3, 2008
A
policeman patrols Tiananmen Square in Beijing March 2, 2008, in front
of the Great Hall of the People, the venue of the National People's
Congress or parliament. Some 3,000 delegates to the annual meeting of
China's parliament, the National People's Congress, will meet in
Beijing's Great Hall of the People on March 5 for about two weeks.
REUTERS/Jason Lee (CHINA)
Related Media:
VIDEO:
Polite Rappers From China
VIDEO:
Nikkei Jumps, China Slumps
Illegal Immigration hurts us all in many ways
Source: Town Hall .com
Judges Getting the Message About Illegal Immigrants Four children including two brothers
were killed, and 12 others were hospitalized with injuries, in
Minnesota last week when a van reportedly ignored a stop sign and
barreled into a school bus. The driver of the van, who did not speak
English or have a valid drivers license, was charged with homicide.
Authorities described the driver as an illegal immigrant using a
phony name. She had pled guilty in 2006 for driving without a license.
For years, courts and lawyers have intimidated towns from
protecting themselves against the invasion of illegal immigrants. In
2006, Escondido, Calif., backed away from its housing ordinance to
curtail leases to illegal immigrants and even agreed to pay $90,000 in
legal fees to plaintiffs challenging the law.
Last summer, a federal court slapped down an attempt by
Hazleton, Pa., to penalize employers and landlords who hire and lease
to illegal immigrants. Hazleton had been hit by an influx of illegal
immigrants and victimized by some of their shocking crimes.
But in August, Newark, N.J., no stranger to violence, was
shaken by the brutal murder of several college-bound teenagers who were
harmlessly enjoying music at a playground. The victims were black, and
the perpetrator was an illegal immigrant from Peru who had been
previously charged with raping a 5-year-old girl but had been released
despite his obvious illegal presence in this country.
Another imported crime is driving the wrong way on highways,
with headlights turned off, in order to escape detection while
smuggling drugs or people. Several deadly crashes resulting from this
practice have been reported.
The American people's outrage at violations of the law by
illegal immigrants was heard loud and clear by the U.S. Senate when it
defeated the amnesty bill last year. Now, even judges may be getting
the message. In December, a federal judge in Oklahoma upheld an Oklahoma
law requiring state contractors to determine and verify the immigration
status of new hires. U.S. District Judge James H. Payne threw out a
legal challenge to the law.
In January, U.S. District Judge E. Richard Webber emphatically
ruled against illegal immigrants who had sued to overturn a similar
ordinance enacted by Valley Park, Mo., a town near St. Louis. The court
upheld the ordinance, which was directed at employers who were hiring
illegal immigrants.
The third strike against illegal immigrants came in February
when U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake rejected each and every argument
challenging a new Arizona law that imposes penalties on businesses that
knowingly hire illegal immigrants. He dismissed the claim that federal
law somehow ties the hands of state and local governments seeking to
protect their own citizens.
These three decisions in three different parts of the country
included both Republican- and Democratic-appointed judges. In the term
loved by the mainstream media, there is now bipartisan judicial support
for state and local legislation against illegal immigrants.
University of Missouri at Kansas City Law professor Kris Kobach
says these decisions give "a green light to other communities" seeking
to pass similar ordinances.
Hazleton, Pa., Mayor Lou Barletta vigorously supported his
city's ordinance cracking down on illegal immigrants. Despite being
vilified by liberal Pennsylvania newspapers, he won nearly 95 percent
of the vote in his Republican primary for re-election last year.
But that wasn't all. In the same election, Barletta also won
the Democratic nomination on a write-in vote, defeating the leading
candidate in the Democratic primary by a stunning 2-to-1 margin.
In the Arizona case, the court noted the research of George
Borjas, an economist at the Harvard University Kennedy School of
Government, who concluded that hiring illegal immigrants depresses
wages for legal workers because illegals accept lower pay without
benefits. Those hardest hit are uneducated legal workers, who in
Arizona alone lost $1.4 billion in 2006 in the form of lower wages.
The nine months between now and the November election give
states, cities and towns ample time to do what Congress has failed to
do: protect U.S. citizens against the lawless entry of illegal
immigrants. That means penalizing employers who hire illegal immigrants
and landlords who lease to them.
It is long overdue for public officials to rid the United
States of imported crimes and to stand up for legal workers, especially
the poorly educated ones who need an entry-level job to start building
their lives. Now that a green light has been provided by the courts,
states and cities should proceed full steam ahead to protect their
citizens from illegal immigrants.
By Phyllis Schlafly
Monday, March 3, 2008
A Pakistani immigrant, right, who didn't want to give his name, talks
to the media on Wednesday, Feb. 6, 2008, in Barcelona, Spain, about how
the police broke into his apartment on Jan. 19, arresting Rafqat Ali,
background right. Rafqat Ali, who was one of two men arrested by
Spanish police on Jan. 19 as terrorist's suspects and later released,
but Ali has accused police of beating him and holding him in a darkened
cell for hours. (AP Photo/Manu Fernandez)
Related Media:
VIDEO:
Driver in Accident That Killed Deputy Is Undocumented Immigrant
VIDEO:
Officials: Fatal Crash Driver Illegal Immigrant
Government Control of anything is not good.
Source : TownHall.com
Beware Democrats' Centralized Energy Control Scheme Are you one of those people thinking there may
be a positive “strategery” in enduring four years of President Barack
Obama? It will be such a disaster that it will inevitably lead to a
Carter-to-Reagan renaissance, right? Think again. We don’t have the
luxury. If you aren’t listening to what Obama and the Democrats are
saying about “Anthropogenic Global Warming” it may be time for you to wake up. My blood ran cold while reading the recently released “Climate Change Legislation Design White Paper”
prepared by the Democratically controlled U.S. House Committee on
Energy and Commerce. Ostensibly a discussion of the appropriate role of
each level of government in addressing climate change, the paper leaves
no doubt that the Democrats are committed to “a mandatory, economy-wide
climate change program” that mandates “the efficient use of government
and societal resources.” We’re not just talking curly fluorescent light bulbs here folks. This troubling paper finds that, “State, Tribal, and local programs could significantly improve the efficiency of societal
resources used to achieve the necessary greenhouse gas reductions.” In
other words, all of us advocates for protection of “societal resources”
(group-think for “private property”) should get our best grip because
more government “help” is on the way. One regulatory idea that excites the Democratic staff is that,
“Transportation emissions are highly correlated with vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), a parameter that state and local governments are
particularly well-positioned to affect.” Suggesting that mandatory
reduction of per-capita VMT would be an excellent experiment for local
government. Holy Cow! Thankfully, Rep. Joe Barton, R-TX,
the ranking member of the Committee, gets it. He has been a voice of
reason, even taking Speaker Pelosi to task for spending taxpayer
dollars to buy so-called carbon credits from the Chicago Climate
Exchange supposedly to offset carbon use at the Capitol. Even the Washington Post
eventually revealed the dubious nature of such programs. Barton
continues to point out the folly of crafting solutions before we know
the cause of climate change. If you think these ideas are only the exuberance of a handful of
liberal Democratic staffers, think again. Respected think tanks have
weighed in on this issue. The Council on Foreign Relations Independent
Task Force of Energy and U.S. Foreign Policy, chaired by John Deutch
and James R. Schlesinger, reports
that energy independence is unachievable without more government
intervention. As a result, the Task Force concludes that we must
embrace a “substantial federal excise tax on gasoline” to encourage
less driving, stricter CAFE standards, and cap gasoline consumption
adopting a system of tradable vouchers which would “redistribute income
among consumers.” That sounds like rationing, or worse. The report also notes that mandated shifts to mass transit could
reduce oil dependence. In my minds eye, I am seeing the first video out
of North Korea with masses of North Koreans walking in sub-freezing temperatures on sidewalks along roadways with no automobiles! At any rate, the report only acknowledges in passing that current
higher energy prices are “…unleashing remarkable forces for innovation
in this country. Entrepreneurs are seeking new ideas for products and
services, such as batteries, fuel cells and biofuels. Private equity
capital is seeking opportunities to invest in new energy
technologies….” Good God, is it “remarkable” to these folks that the
free market that has made America the greatest economy on earth is
actually capable of dealing with this issue if simply allowed to work? The Brookings Institution has joined in with “The Geopolitics of Energy: From Security to Survival”
heralding that we must “radically change” how we use and conserve
energy, stating that, “Avoiding destruction of the planet through the
emission of greenhouse gases is one of the most complex challenges … we
have ever created for ourselves. Our very survival is at stake.” Even though some conservatives may groan, McCain’s support for a reasonable “cap and trade” solution to limiting CO2 emissions is based on a free market approach. As McCain puts it, “The debate is between the carbon tax and cap and trade.” Obama’s support of a scheme that requires all industrial CO2
emitters to purchase a permit to do so, in essence a carbon tax,
signals his support for a more all-encompassing foray into centralized
energy control. The key issue is energy control. Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, a well respected anthropogenic global warming skeptic, wisely observes that,
say what you may about global warming consensus, “The power to tax and
ration energy is the power to control the world—to have life and death
control over every human being on the planet. No government should ever
have this power.” So, to those (Bill Cunningham and Ann Coulter included) who think a
little “dance with the devil” is not all bad, the prospect of very bad
climate change “solutions” over the next four years should bring them
back to reality.
By Johnnie B. Byrd
Monday, March 3, 2008
An
enormous iceberg (R) breaks off the Knox Coast in the Australian
Antarctic Territory, January 11, 2008. Australia's CSIRO's atmospheric
research unit has found the world is warming faster than predicted by
the United Nations' top climate change body, with harmful emissions
exceeding worst-case estimates. Picture taken January 11, 2008.
REUTERS/Torsten Blackwood/Pool (ANTARCTICA)
Related Media:
VIDEO:
Europe Looks to Alternative Energy
VIDEO:
Ancient Antarctic Ice Tells Future
A Hard Look At The Fair Tax
This presentation is intended to review and raise issues with respect to Federal legislative proposal H.R. 25 (109th):
Fair Tax Act of 2007, the “Fair Tax”. Because the title of the proposed
legislation prejudices the discussion, this presentation refers to this
proposed legislation as H.R. 25. Summary of H.R 25: * Elimination of all Federal individual and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, and the Federal estate and gift taxes * Implementation of a tax exclusive flat rate national sales
tax of 30% on all goods and services sold at retail (ensuring that
goods and services are only taxed a single time).[1]
Exports would be exempted from the national sales tax. Property
purchased for investment would be exempted from the sales tax. Retail
purchases of goods and services by government would be subject to the
30% sales tax. * The flat rate national sales tax would be administered by
agencies organized in the individual states, sales tax administrating
authorities. If a state or states choose not to administer the flat
rate national sales tax, the Federal Department of the Treasury would
become the sales tax administrating authority in such states. In all
events, Treasury would have general rule making responsibilities. * All lawful residents would receive a monthly “prebate”
intended to be equal to the sales tax on cumulative expected monthly
purchases at the poverty level. Unlawful residents would not receive
the prebate. The prebate would be paid by the Social Security
Administration acting upon information provided by sales tax
administrating authorities. * H.R. 25 significantly revises the definition of self employment income for social security benefit calculation purposes. H.R. 25 – Conclusions Impacts on Taxpayers Impacts on Social Security Benefits – Self Employed Administrative Decisions & Impacts The very notion of initially and annually registering 300,000,000
lawful citizens, providing a monthly check to each and believing this
can be accomplished confidentially, efficiently and without fraud has
at least a touch of unreality to it. H.R. 25 could not be implemented until (1) a sales tax
administrating authority was established and successfully organized and
staffed in every state, (2) every lawful resident given a legitimate
social security card, (3) every lawful resident registered
confidentially and without fraud, and (4) this information transferred
to the Social Security Administration and reviewed for duplicate social
security numbers and general fraud issues. Economic Certainty & Likely Economic Impacts Legal Uncertainty Other H.R. 25 – Intended Results & Apparent Philosophy of H.R. 25 H.R. 25 would replace the Federal income tax, payroll taxes and the
estate and gift taxes with a flat rate national sales tax. After
reimbursing (in advance) lawful citizens for the estimated sales taxes
levied upon the dollar value of estimated necessary retail expenditures
at the estimated national poverty level, all lawful citizens would pay
a flat rate national sales tax on all purchases of retail goods and
services. Unlawful citizens would not receive a prebate. H.R. 25 represents a philosophy of tax collection without any attendant social or economic policies. H.R. 25 – Purchasing Power vs. the Tax Rate There has been a significant amount of discussion regarding the proposed sales tax rate in H.R. 25. H.R. 25 proposes a 23% “tax inclusive” sales tax rate. Sales taxes
are not traditionally described in a “tax inclusive” manner. Sales
taxes are traditionally described in a “tax exclusive” manner. A “tax
inclusive” sales tax rate is a percentage of the total register price.
A “tax exclusive” sales tax is a tax calculated on the purchase price
before the tax is added. As shown below, a 23% “tax inclusive” sales
tax rate is equal to a traditionally described “tax exclusive” sales
rate of 29.87013%. H.R. 25 Tax Inclusive Rate: Purchase Price With Tax $129.87 Tax - 23% of "Register" Price - Tax Inclusive Method 29.87 Purchase Price of Product Without Tax $100.00 Equivalent Tax Exclusive Rate: Purchase Price of Product Without Tax $100.00 Tax - 29.87013% of Purchase Price - Tax Exclusive Method - Traditional 29.87 Purchase Price With Tax $129.87 This paper refers to the tax rate as proposed in H.R. 25 as 30%
(rounding 29.87013% to 30%) so that the tax rate may be more accurately
compared and contrasted with other sales tax rates which are
traditionally described on a tax exclusive basis. Using the traditional
“tax exclusive” rate of 30% will neither increase nor decrease the tax
shown for any transaction; it provides only clarity in presentation. The important point of this discussion is not to dwell on the
appropriate description of the tax rate, but to understand the impact
of H.R. 25 on purchasing power. The following chart contrasts the
purchasing power to the individual buyer of his or her purchasing
dollars of (1) H.R. 25 on income previously taxed under the current
Internal Revenue Code, (2) the current Internal Revenue Code using
three separate average tax rates, and (3) H.R. 25 on income after the
implementation of H.R. 25: Purchasing Power Purchasing Power Purchasing Power Of
Dollars Of Dollars Earned Of
Dollars Earned Earned &
Saved Under The
Under Before Implementation Internal Revenue Code H.R. 25 Federal Federal Federal Federal Federal Tax-Rate Tax-Rate Tax-Rate Tax-Rate Tax-Rate 15% 34% 15% 23.00% 34% Pre-H.R. 25 Earnings $1,000 $1,000 Federal Taxes Paid 150 340 Cash At Implementation 850 660 H.R. 25 Tax on Purchases 195 152 Purchasing Power Current Gross Income $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Federal Taxes Paid 150 230 340 230 Purchasing Power $655 $508 $850 $770 $660 $770 Calculating the impact on an individual’s purchasing power is
difficult because every Federal income tax return is different and
average rates of tax can be difficult to calculate. To determine
relative purchasing power of future income and receipts one needs
determine the gross income of the individual and actual purchases at
retail. Individual calculations for the impact of H.R. 25 would require
the following analysis: Total Gross Income From All Sources Total Gross Income From All Sources Including Social Security, Insurance Including Social Security, Insurance Reimbursements, Tax Exempt Income, etc. Reimbursements, Tax Exempt Income, etc. Less: Less: Federal Income Taxes & Federal Withholding H.R. 25 taxes on Retail Purchases of Goods Taxes & Services (calculated with either a tax inclusive rate of 23% or a tax exclusive rate Purchasing Power - Current Law Purchasing Power - Under H.R. 25 The concept of purchasing power vs. raw data clearly confuses the
strongest supporters of H.R. 25. The following is copied from the
Fairtax.org website: The FairTax benefits retirees who depend mostly on Social Security. For older, low-income households, the FairTax generates a major
reduction in remaining lifetime taxes. Again, the reason is that the
elderly not only continue, under the FairTax, to receive the same real
Social Security benefits, they also receive the FairTax prebate. The
average Social Security benefits for a retired couple living solely on
Social Security are $18,776. The FairTax prebate for this couple is
$4,697 which is $381 more than the FairTaxes the couple would have to
pay if they spent the entire $18,776 on taxable consumption. Every word of the above paragraph is accurate. However, the
inference that the result is good for this retired couple is incorrect.
Under H.R. 25, the purchasing power of the retired couple referred to
in the example is actually decreased under H.R. 25 from $18,776 to
$18,704. Per Fairtax.org Website Social Security $18,776 Purchases Possible With $18,776 $18,776 Prebate 4,697 H.R 25 Tax 4,316 Total Income $23,473 Purchasing Power of $18,776 $14,460 Prebate $4,697 H.R 25 Tax 4,316 Excess Prebate $381 Comparison of Purchasing Power Current Law: H.R. 25 Social Security $18,776 Social Security $18,776 Prebate 0 Prebate 4,697 Purchasing Power Under Current Law Total Revenues $23,473 Without the Prebate $18,776 Total Purchase Price With $23,473 $23,473 H.R 25 Tax 5,399 Purchasing Power of $23,473 $18,074 Reduction in Purchasing Power $702 Percentage Reduction in Purchasing Power 3.74% Note that if this retiree is also spending funds from savings, the reduction in purchasing power is enhanced under H.R. 25. H.R. 25 - Impacts Impacts on Taxpayers * At implementation, existing savings will have diminished purchasing power of 30%. * At implementation, high earning citizens with deferred
income from such items as pension plans and stock options would have
immediate increases in purchasing power. * At implementation, investors would have the ability to sell
investment assets without Federal taxes. The proceeds of such gains
would be immediately available for reinvestment without any Federal tax
consequence. * At implementation, citizens would be able to make unlimited
gifts without tax consequences and estates of any size would be able to
be passed from one generation to the next without Federal taxation. * At implementation, all of the social and business
incentives, benefits and disincentives included in the Internal Revenue
Code disappear: * Incentives * Benefits * Disincentives * At implementation, those individuals who have deferred
income from Federal income taxes and who would be subject to estate
taxes upon receipt of those funds or death, would permanently avoid
those taxes * Ongoing, many, if not most, retired individuals receiving
social security and currently paying Federal income taxes or spending
cash savings would have diminished purchasing power. * Ongoing, for high income earners and the very wealthy, it
would be virtually impossible for there not to be a reduction in
Federal taxes * Ongoing, the purchase of a home built after implementation of H.R. 25 would cost 30% more for a family than an investor. * Ongoing, existing alimony agreements would become a serious
problem. Such agreements contemplate increased buying power for the
payor of alimony through tax deduction and decreased purchasing power
for the recipient through the payment being taxable income. Impacts on Social Security – Benefits Calculation For Self Employed Individuals · H.R. 25 modifies the definition of self-employment income: Gross payments received for taxable property or services Less: Gross payments made for taxable property or services (without
regard to whether tax was paid pursuant to section 101 on such taxable
property or services) Less: Wages paid by the self employed person to employees of the self-employed person Self Employment Income * Self employment benefits would be calculated differently for
the self-employed following implementation of H.R.25. Income calculated
in a traditional manner would no longer be the basis for social
security benefits for the self employed. * Self-employment income for social security purposes would
exclude all self-employed individuals who are selling non-taxable
products or delivering non-taxable services, resulting in a total loss
of social security benefits * Self employment benefits would decline should a
self-employed individual purchase equipment for the underlying
business, thus discouraging the self-employed from investing in their
businesses, a concept clearly at odds with any steps designed to expand
the economy Administrative Decisions & Impacts * Each State would be faced with a series of difficult
decisions with respect to whether it chooses to become a sales tax
administrative authority and/or makes changes to its own method of
taxation. Each of these decisions would include both political and
financial implications. There is no assurance that a single state would
determine to become a sales tax administrating authority. Where a state
determines not to become a sales tax administrating authority, the
Federal government would assume that role. * In states that determine to eliminate their existing income
taxes and piggyback these revenue requirements on the new national
sales tax, sales tax rates could exceed 43%. (In a California city with
a current sales tax of eight percent, if California terminated its
income tax and substituted a new flat rate state sales tax of 6%, the
combined local, state and H.R. 25 rate would approximate 44%.) * In states that determine to maintain their existing state
income taxes, there would be no reduction in compliance activities
regarding the income tax and there would be increased compliance
requirements under H.R. 25. The administrative costs of maintaining an
income tax at the state level without the existence of a Federal income
tax would be very substantial. * Because H.R. 25 requires state and local governments to pay
the national sales tax and because the states would lose their ability
to borrow funds at favorable tax exempt rates, it is possible that
state legislators would have no interest in doing anything to make the
process of implementing H.R 25 easy. Economic Certainty & Likely Economic Impacts Legal Uncertainty · Proceeding with a new form of Federal taxation without a
constitutional amendment to assure that the methodology is
constitutional would be foolhardy. Without a constitutional amendment,
surely to be challenged under the Constitution is the ability of the
national government to tax purchases by the states. Challenges might
also be offered on constitutional grounds with respect to the ability
of the national government to impose a national sales tax and the
exclusion of illegal residents from receiving the prebate. · State & local legal issues could be raised including
the relationship of taxing authorities with Immigration Customs &
Enforcement. Would the state sales tax authorities attempt or be
required to inform Immigration Customs and Enforcement of the location
of families which included unlawful residents. Challenges might arise
with an interpretation of the law to be effectively requiring national
identity cards. · State and local legal issues might be raised as to the
propriety of providing prebate benefits to legal residents who are not
citizens. · There could be a plethora of international legal issues including treaty enforcement and unfair trade issues. Other · Charging a sales tax on purchases by the Federal
government and subsequently paying two levels of administrative fees to
collect this tax would increase the cost of Federal purchases by the ½%
fees. · With the elimination of payroll taxes and income taxes,
adding employees to payroll lists for purposes of increasing individual
social security benefits would come without cost to employers. The
Social Security Administration is neither staffed nor sufficiently
experienced to audit for such issues. Immediate Loss of Buying Power – The current purchasing power
of after-tax savings would immediately decline by 30%. Cash that would
have purchased $1000 of goods and services would now only provide for
$770 in purchases of retail goods and services. Loss of assets – Any current holder of long term tax exempt
debt would immediately sustain a dramatic decrease in the value of
their assets. Without the tax-free advantages of state and local debt,
new investors would dramatically discount the value of existing long
term state and local debt. Immediate Increases in Buying Power - For taxpayers with
deferred ordinary income (various types of pensions, deferred salary
plans, stock options etc.), there would be an immediate increase in
purchasing power. Upon implementation, a corporate executive who is the
holder of qualified stock options with a value of $2,000,000 would see
an increase in purchasing power of over $200,000 after exercise of the
options. Should that person choose to reinvest those funds, the
increase in investing power would be $700,000. (Under current Federal
income tax law, the executive received the options without any taxation
and with the expectation that upon exercise of the options, he or she
would pay income taxes at ordinary income tax rates.) For individuals with pension plans or investment retirement
accounts, under the existing Internal Revenue Code, there are penalties
as well as Federal income taxes if they take access to those assets
before age 55. These penalties would disappear as the funds could be
immediately accessed without Federal tax. For individuals who receive
the funds after age 55, the funds are currently subject to income taxes
at the time of receipt. With implementation of H.R. 25, these
individuals would be able to receive these funds, for which they had
previously received a reduction in federal income taxes, tax-free.
These taxpayers would also receive the earnings that these funds had
previously generated without taxation. Generational Wealth Increase – Accumulated wealth is
currently taxed in the United States through the estate tax upon death
and via the capital gains tax when assets are sold at a profit. With
the current estate tax, there is no estate tax on net assets of
$1,500,000 or less. The estate tax rate on net assets over $1,500,000
begins at 18% and rises to 45% until the taxable estate reaches
$2,000,000. The estate tax rate increases to 46% on net assets over
$2,000,000. With basic estate tax planning, a couple with assets of
$3,000,000 escapes all Federal estate taxes. H.R. 25 would eliminate
the estate tax in its entirety. The ability to move money from
generation to generation is an issue That should be more deeply considered. For individuals that have invested in real estate for their entire
lives, because of existing Federal income tax rules, many have never
paid Federal income taxes on the appreciation of their assets. For
these individuals, the only tax to which they would currently be
subject is the inevitable estate tax. Their increase in both buying
power, investment power and the ability to pass wealth tax-free through
generations explodes with the end of gift and estate tax. For those with untaxed gains in investment assets, there would be an
instant ability to generate gains and pay no Federal taxes prior to
reinvestment of the proceeds. For example, assume a taxpayer purchased
a stock in 1980 for $100,000 and that stock is now worth $500,000.
Today, if that individual sold that investment, he would pay a Federal
capital gains tax of 15%, $60,000. If the income tax were repealed,
that person would have the entire $500,000 to reinvest. None of these benefits would accrue to America’s low income taxpayers. Impacts of H.R. 25 - Ongoing Prebate - H.R. 25 provides that all lawful residents receive
a monthly check, a prebate equal to the Federal income taxes imposed on
the expected retail purchases of an individual at the poverty level. The prebate provides a national sales tax exemption at precisely the
poverty level. H.R. 25 provides this prebate to all lawful residents
regardless of income or wealth. No amount is provided for unlawful
residents. Wealthy would receive exactly the same prebate as America’s
poorest legal residents. H.R. 25’s flat rate national sales tax rate, for a two adult
household, would indirectly exclude taxation on $1700 of monthly retail
purchases and services by delivering a monthly prebate check or making
an electronic deposit of $391. For each additional member of the
household, an additional $287 of retail purchases would be excluded
resulting in an additional $67 monthly rebate amount. All purchases of retail goods and services would be taxed at the
national flat-tax sales rate of 30% with the expectation that the
prebate amounts would be used for the purchase of necessities. There is
no mechanism to ensure that the prebate would be spent on sales taxes
for the necessities of the individual or his family. There would be no
assurance that a child would not go hungry and the funds spent on
books, drugs, alcohol or chocolate bars. Impact on recipients of Social Security - Under current law,
social security benefits for married couples are untaxed until the sum
of their other taxable income (interest and other pensions) plus
one-half of social security equals $32,000. As income grows, up to 85%
of social security can be taxed. The purchasing power of a couple, totally dependent upon Social
Security, receiving $18,776 of social security income decreases by
3.74% under H.R. 25. If that couple has other income, the impact of
H.R. 25 is a further diminution of their purchasing power. Middle
income retirees would see their purchasing power reduced significantly
from their income and by a further reduction of 30% on any of their
savings that are expended for retail goods and services. With respect
to the taxes on their pre-H.R. 25 savings, these taxpayers would be
subjected to double taxation at the Federal level. For many social
security recipients, H.R. 25 decreases purchasing power. Impact on High Wage Earners - At the highest income levels,
current Federal income taxes approximate thirty percent (after
deductions for state income taxes). If a hypothetical athlete or actor
earns $50,000,000 from salary and endorsements, his or her approximate
Federal income taxes would approximate $15,000,000. (Contrary to urban
legend, it is virtually impossible to avoid this tax unless the athlete
or actor is donating significant amounts to charity.) To pay the same
amount of taxes with a national sales tax, the professional athlete or
actor would need to make, after H.R. 25 sales taxes, retail purchases
of over $38,000,000. It is axiomatic that an individual who already
owns his home and a few favorite toys is unlikely to annually have this
amount of retail purchases of goods and services. As a result, the high
wage earner is going to have a dramatic reduction in Federal taxes paid
and will have funds far in addition than under the current Internal
Revenue Code to invest. Impact of H.R. 25 on Relative Position of Home Buyer and Rental Residence Investor – H.R.
25 provides that the purchase of a new home by a buyer with the intent
of occupying the home for his or her family is subject to the flat rate
national sales tax. H.R. 25 provides that an investor purchaser of that
same residence would not be subject to the flat rate national sales
tax. That taxpayer would charge his renters the flat rate national
sales tax. The result is that the investor buyer would have a 30% price
advantage in competing with the home buyer for new residential
property. The purchase price for the investor would be $300,000; the
young couple would pay $390,000. Impact of H.R. 25 on Personal Tragedy – The current Federal
income tax allows a deduction for casualty losses in excess of 10% of
income and medical expenses in excess of 7.5% of income. Through these
deductions, the taxpayer who has a casualty (Katrina / San Diego fire)
effectively receives a deduction in his or her Federal taxes. Under
H.R. 25, there is not a reduction in taxes and the citizen must pay an
additional 30% sales tax on the lumber to re-build his home after a
major fire and/or the wonder pill that is keeping his child alive. This
is contrary to the historical spirit of America. Tax Planning for H.R. 25 (and before) Tax planners will be attracted to H.R. 25 like bees to honey. In the initial planning to decrease taxable income in the final year
of the current income tax system and in making retail purchases
proceeding the first year of the national sales tax, tax planners would
puncture expected Federal revenues in both years. Final year of the Federal Income Tax - Every taxpayer in the
Untied States would be attempting to do the maximum tax planning
possible in the final year of the Federal income tax. Such efforts
would include completely legitimate actions such as: * Prepayment of state and property taxes * Prepayment of contributions for the next year * Prepayment of medical expenses * Acceleration of any business expenses that might be deductible – maintenance, repairs etc. * Deferral of all sales of property where there would be a
taxable gain. Anyone contemplating the sale of any property at a gain
(including securities) would, if at all possible, wait until the
Federal income tax was eliminated before executing the transaction.
Transactions where the purchase would occur for the purchaser and the
income would be deferred for the seller would be the item of the day * Deferral of salary and other income through the use of any
device possible including Rabbi trusts, late payments of bonuses etc. * Maximization of depreciation methods * One particularly elegant tax planning device would be the
legal payment to a self employed retirement plan. This payment is due
on April 15th, at the time of filing the personal tax
return. A taxpayer in the 34% tax bracket could make this payment, a
maximum of $40,000 on April 15th and reduce his or her taxes by $13,600. On April 16th, that person could retrieve the money from their retirement plan tax-free. * Corporations would defer their dividends to avoid the income
tax on their shareholders in the final year of the Internal Revenue
Code. * The list, while not endless, would be very extensive and totally legal. With the expectation of the demise of the Internal Revenue Service
and a unique reduction in the number of audits by the Internal Revenue
Service, there would be the expectation of increased fraud in the final
year of the Internal Revenue Code. After Adoption of H.R. 25 - For wealthy U.S. individuals,
H.R. 25 would encourage them to purchase and keep assets overseas.
There would be a 30% price advantage to a villa in Mexico or a castle
in Ireland versus a second home in the United States. Other big ticket
assets such as yachts etc. would also be best kept and purchased
offshore. Every possible ambiguity would be resultant in plans to avoid a
national sales tax. The Treasury would need to continue to propose laws
and write regulations to insure that the intended Federal revenues were
collected. Tax lawyers and accountants would be there every step of the
way to attempt to reduce, legally, their clients’ taxes. Impacts on Social Security – Self Employed Self employed individuals currently receive social security benefits
based upon their self employment income. Self employment income for
social security purposes is currently calculated in a manner identical
to the calculation of taxable income for Federal income tax purposes.
H.R. 25 calculates self employment income as gross payments for taxable
property or services less the sum of gross payments for taxable
property or services and wages. This appears to be a mistake of significant proportion. The application of H.R. 25, as proposed, would eliminate any
consistency between the historical calculation of earnings from self
employment and that required under H.R. 25. The proposed change in the
rules could be viewed as inappropriate by both retirees and current
self employed individuals. Any business that was selling products for
re-sale would have no gross payments received for taxable property and
therefore no self employment income, regardless of the business’s
actual income. In a growing business, where the profits are poured back
into the business to buy more equipment, the self employed owner would
be garnering no social security benefits. If self employment income was calculated in the traditional manner,
the taxpayer would be required to calculate taxable income under the
current Internal Revenue Code after implementation of H.R. 25. This
would require the continuance of the Internal Revenue Code and the
continuing requirement of a calculation of taxable income for the self
employed. It would result in the promise of lesser compliance costs and
the elimination of the Internal Revenue Code being inaccurate. Administration Decisions & Impacts The Administrative Processes - Requirements It is uncertain whether the administrative tasks required by the
Federal government including the Social Security Administration and the
participating states can be accomplished in a timely and fraud free
manner. It is uncertain whether the costs of implementing and
administrating H.R. 25 would be less than, equal to, or greater than
the current costs of the Federal government and the states of
administrating the current Federal income tax. The costs of collecting
the Federal taxes under H.R. 25 (1/2 of one percent) would approximate
the entire 2008 budget of the Internal Revenue Service. With increased
costs for the Social Security Administration along with the possibility
of states attempting to preserve their state income tax codes,
administrative costs of implementing the tax system could easily grow
under H.R. 25. There will be both increased and decreased compliance costs for individuals dependent upon their specific circumstances. Sales Tax Administrating Authority Social Security Administration Social Security Numbers – The first step in the process of
receiving the prebate is the receipt of a social security card. Social
security cards are legally produced only by the Social Security
Administration. The processing under H.R. 25 would be exceptional in
that every lawful child of every illegal resident would be eligible for
the prebate. The requirement of an unlawful resident applying for a
social security card for his or her lawful children (born in the United
States) is problematic. The relationship between the Social Security
Administration and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would
need to be vetted and clarified. The relationship between ICE and the
sales tax administrating authorities would need to be vetted and
clarified. As at least two of these entities would be Federal agencies,
there could be enforcement opportunities with respect to immigration
matters. This would be a serious issue in the United States Congress
and many cities and states. Social Security Administration – State sales tax authorities – information, systems, costs etc. – The
system requirements of integrating information systems with fifty
separate sales tax administrating authorities would be daunting and
expensive. Each state would need to have a system that was integrated
with the Social Security Administration and the Social Security
Administration would need to be able to move payments from state to
state as citizens moved from state to state. The Social Security Administration relies upon the Internal Revenue
Service to audit for fraud in the self employment context. The Social
Security Administration relies on the requirement of payroll taxes to
insure that extra individuals are not added to payrolls for the purpose
of collecting social security benefits. Without the Internal Revenue
Service and without payroll withholding, this dynamic of ensuring a
fraud free social security system would be lost. An entire system of
auditing and enforcement would therefore need to be developed and
implemented by the Social Security Administration. Prebate Administration – Annual Registration and payments to 300,000,000 lawful residents H.R. 25 Sales Tax Collection Administration Collections – State sales tax authority The sales tax administrating authority would be required to register
each seller in the state using federally produced forms, collect the
funds from each seller each month and transfer the money less a one
quarter of one percent fee to the Federal government. The sales tax
administrating authority would be charged with insuring that all sales
taxes are paid and with auditing the payors. As discussed previously,
the auditing task would include determining who owed use tax on items
such as houses being converted from investment to personal use and
whether houses were rented at fair market value to family members. Administrative requirements – Taxpayers Sellers of taxable goods and services would be required to report
their sales and pay taxes at least monthly. These reports and payments
would be made to the state sales tax administrating authorities. These
reports would be required from sellers, including service providers and
the self employed. There have to be serious issues with any
expectations that small and individual, part-time service providers
will comply with these rules. At the lowest income levels, there would
be little hope for compliance and a belief that services provided by
unlawful residents would result in payments under H.R. 25 would seem to
be incorrect. Wage earners – Each wage earner would be responsible for
attaining social security cards for all legal residents of his or her
home and annually registering the family with the sales tax
administrating authority. These individuals would have a significant
reduction in paperwork. Self employed lawful citizens - The Administrative Processes – The political decision making process Would a State Agree to become a sales tax administrating authority? The implementation of H.R. 25 in each state would require each state
to make very significant and politically charged decisions. The
timeliness of these decisions would determine the time line for
possible implementation of H.R. 25. The delay of a single state in
making its determination and entering or not entering into an agreement
with the Federal government to be a sales tax administrating authority
would slow the implementation date of the program. A national sales tax
with only forty-nine states ready to begin operation is a non-starter.
The implementation of H.R. 25 could only begin on a January 1st. H.R. 25 assumes that each state would desire to administer the
national sales tax (inclusive of its requirement to annually register
every lawful resident). H.R. 25 assumes that the Federal and state
governments are capable of registering every legal resident and
delivering a monthly check or deposit to each legal resident with
competence and fraud-free. If this author were asked for a recommendation by any state as to
whether that state should become a sales tax administrating authority,
my opinion would be that there is dramatic downside and absolutely no
upside to a decision to become a sales tax administrating authority.
There is not a single compelling reason for any state to accept the
responsibility of being a sales tax administrating authority. There is
no significant profit to be made by the state, and there is the
possibility of a significant loss as the result of the initial and
annual registration of lawful residents. There is the possibility of
failure to accomplish a confidential and fraud free registration and
the accompanying political and legal fallout there from. There is the
possibility that simple participation in this process would have
significant negative state-wide political consequences. Would a state repeal its existing income tax? Regardless of whether a state determined to be a sales tax
administrating authority, the state would be required to consider
whether it should or could continue to administer its own income tax.
Without a state eliminating its own income tax, the promise of a
reduction in compliance costs and activities for the residents of that
state are lost. In states which continued their income tax, the
residents would be required to complete state individual and corporate
tax returns nearly identical to the current Federal income tax return
along with beginning to comply with the requirements of H.R. 25. Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have state income
taxes. Virtually every state relies on the Federal income tax system in
some major part to administer their state income tax system. Most state
individual and corporate tax returns begin with the Federal taxable
income of the individual or entity filing the state tax return. Most
states refer directly and indirectly to the Internal Revenue Code, and
Regulations and case law to provide much, if not all of their legal
underpinnings for their law. All states with an income tax have
arrangements with the Internal Revenue Service to share audit
information and individuals and corporations audited by the Internal
Revenue Service generally receive a state billing at the end of the
Federal audit process be that with appeal to the courts or through
negotiation and billing. Not all, but substantially all individual and
corporate audits conducted in the United States are conducted by the
Internal Revenue Service. State taxing authorities tend to audit only
for state residency and state specific income tax laws. Most states neither have the resources nor the tax expertise to
adequately review complex transactions, multi-state or multi-national
corporations or complex tax returns. To continue a state income tax
system, each State would be required to administer their own law
without Federal assistance. This would require recreating all of the
elements of Congress, Treasury, Federal courts and the Internal Revenue
Service to administer their state tax. If all forty-five states
maintained their state income tax systems, the current costs of law,
regulation and audit may be multiplied by as much as forty-five times.
Further, as time ebbed, undoubtedly, each state would pass laws and
rulings not consistent with other states and business and state courts
would begin to adjudicate matters differently making the entire issue
of complexity an entirely new matter for multi-state businesses. The
costs of this would be dramatic. Should a state abandon its income tax and add a new state sales tax
to the sales under H.R. 25, sales tax rates would explode. Total sales
taxes collected in some states on every retail transaction could easily
exceed 43%. A hotel room in New York City with combined hotel tax,
national sales tax, state sales tax and local sales taxes could have a
total sales and hotel tax rate exceeding 50%. Would a state change its state sales tax to conform to H.R. 25? Currently, most states impose sales taxes, exempting particular
items such as food. Today, many or most local governments also impose
sales taxes, also exempting particular items such as food. H.R. 25
presents a cascading of issues for every legislature and local
government body. If a state sales tax currently exists, does the state or local
government determine to tax everything as provided in H.R. 25 or will
the state or local sales tax exempt items currently exempted?
Continuing any differences would seriously impact the technology costs
of all sellers of both Federal taxable and state non-taxable items. If
the state elects to follow H.R. 25, that state could need or feel
compelled to initiate its own prebate to ensure that the poor are not
suddenly incurring a substantial unreimbursed increase in taxes on food
etc. Perhaps, the Federal government would increase its prebate and
surcharge the states in some manner for a state prebate. (This would
result in different prebates in different states, opening the door to a
plethora of issues surrounding equality of value as opposed to equality
of prebate payment.) If a state collects its disability and unemployment taxes from
withholding, either it would have to require withholding on salaries,
perhaps as the only withhold if Federal and state income taxes
disappear, or determine a new methodology to collect such taxes. Political Issues: Economics for the State - Each state would need to determine
whether one-quarter of one percent is a sufficient payment to
administer H.R. 25. The dynamics of the decision are fairly robust.
First, is there a profit to be made? If not, why would a state be
interested in participating? (If the Federal government will come into
the state, hire state residents, lease property in the state and buy
local products, unless there is a significant profit to the state from
becoming a sales tax administrating authority, there would be no
compelling financial reason to become a sales tax administrating
authority.) The decision with respect to whether a profit can be made
for the state in deciding to become a sales tax administrating
authority would include a full analysis of implementation costs. As the
intial costs would be expended before the first dollar of tax
collections, there might be a significant cash drain on the state from
the implementation process. Politically, does the state wish to manage
and deal with all of the issues of becoming the Internal Revenue
Service in a much more visible way than their current state taxing
activities? Where a state determines to become a sales tax administrating
authority and does not abandon their existing income tax, that state
should have no interest in its requirement to provide and/or implement
the auditing and enforcement provisions of H.R. 25. When an audit
produces one quarter of one percent of any collections to the Federal
government, the costs of virtually all audits will exceed the revenues
to the sales tax administrating authority. With respect to determining
the lawful status of a resident, there would be no revenues resulting
from the audit process and therefore no benefit to the state from
actively pursuing such audits. Where a state determines to abolish its income tax and adopt the
H.R. 25 methodology of taxing everything, there is an argument to be
made to stay out of the Federal government’s business and simply
consolidate its current tax authorities into one state agency and begin
its new sales tax form with: Federal Taxable Retail Sales and Services.
There are ample savings available to the state in this scenario. State Decisions – unlawful residents - Lawful / Unlawful
Citizens – One of the most contentious issues in the current political
arena is the issue of the unlawful resident immigrant. H.R. 25 proposes
to exclude unlawful residents from the “prebate”. In certain states and
within certain areas of those states, the number and percentage of
individuals who are unlawful residents is very significant. The number
of families with both lawful and unlawful residents is also very
significant and the resulting increased taxation of food and the basic
necessities of life would be a serious issue to be confronted by these
individuals and these individual states. There would be significant
political pressure to have no part of a system that would increase
taxes on the poor, lawful residents or unlawful residents. While not politically correct to state, there is the possibility of
social instability if prices are raised to the poor, regardless of a
prebate or not. Certain areas of the country are populated by
significant percentages of unlawful residents along with less
economically advantaged lawful residents. This is a formula for
isolated civil unrest issues following the implementation of new and
significant sales taxes on food. It is of interest that the prebate is intended for any lawful
resident. As a result of this notion, all legal alien residents will
receive the monthly prebate. Undoing a state sales tax authority agreement – Based
on the statutory language, it would be very difficult for the Federal
government to “fire” a state that was not doing an adequate job as a
sales tax administrating authority. Beyond that, the Federal government
would be totally unprepared to take over the work for a sales tax
administrating authority if it won such a battle. Economic Certainty & Likely Economic Impacts Macro-economics This paper does not address the long term macro-economic impacts
that would accompany the adoption of H.R. 25. Supply side economists
argue that lower tax rates generally increase economic activity and
therefore are good for everyone. As the express goal of H.R. 25 is to
achieve a tax neutral result, the supply side economists should argue
that the impact of H.R. 25 is neutral. This excludes the issues of
increased state taxes resulting from H.R. 25 requiring the taxation of
state government purchases and the loss of the advantage from tax
exempt borrowing. The impact of disintermediation of the short term macro-economic
impacts should be deeply studied before there is any serious
consideration of H.R. 25. Further data needs to be collected with
respect to the volatility of the securities markets that H.R. 25 could
create. The elimination of all Federal taxation of securities
transactions would eliminate any potential for an investor to wait out
a sudden drop in the marketplace because of income recognition and tax
payment issues. This might or might not cause some level of instability
in the securities markets. One of the abilities lost in H.R. 25 is the ability of Congress to
stimulate the economy through tax reductions in times of economic
decline or malaise. This tool would be permanently lost with a passage
of H.R. 25. Tax Rate There are conflicting studies with respect to the tax rate that
would be required to achieve revenue neutrality with a flat rate
national sales tax. The Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics study supporting H.R. 25’s “23% sales tax on all final consumption expenditures on new purchases” shows as follows: Revenues Raised in 2004 from Taxes Replaced by the FairTax Proposal Tax Source $Billions Individual Income* $809.0 Social Insurance Taxes $733.4 Corporate taxes $189.4 Estate and Gift Taxes $24.8 Total Revenues Replaced $1,756.6 Total Receipts $1,880.1 Percentage of Total Receipts 93.4% *Individual Income tax
receipts include: Personal income taxes, Capital gains taxes, taxes on
dividend income, and the Alternative minimum tax. Source: Congressional Budget Office, Historical Budget Data, http://www.cbo.gov. Estimated 2004 Revenues if the FairTax Proposal were in Effect Description of Taxable Item Tax Base (2004) Personal consumption expenditures $8,214.30 + Purchases of new homes $572.20 + Improvements to Residential Structures $147.00 - Imputed rent on housing ($904.70) - Foreign travel by U.S. residents (one-half) ($91.60) - Food produced and consumed on farms ($0.20) + Total Government Consumption $1,843.40 + Total Government Gross Investment $372.50 - Education expenditures ($211.30) + Expenditures in U.S. by nonresidents $96.60 Gross FairTax Tax Base $10,038.20 Total Gross FairTax Revenues $2,308.79 Estimated Prebate Value $446.14 Total FairTax Revenues 1,862.65 Issues that should be raised here include: If the government is both
paying and receiving the $1,843,400,000,000 of sales taxes on
government consumption, should this amount be removed from the
schedule? With the advantage being provided to investor-buyers of new
residential housing (exemption from the 30% national sales tax), can
the taxes being projected from the purchase of new homes be accurate?
Are collection costs considered in the analysis? Many other questions
need raising and discussion. The President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform predicted that
a national sales tax of 30% would result in more substantial tax
evasion than occurs in the current Federal income tax system. This
evasion could only be enhanced where states abolish their income tax
structure and add their tax collection amount as an additional sales
taxes to the 30% proposed under H.R. 25. Cost of State Government H.R. 25 would cause an immediate increase in the cost of state
government. The 30% sales tax added to the cost of state purchases
would increase state government costs by the amount of retail
purchases, 30%. H.R. 25 would result in the loss of economic advantage for state
bonds which are issued tax free under the current Internal Revenue
Code. There currently are approximately $1,800,000,000,000 in
outstanding tax-free state and local debt. Assuming a 2% differential
between the tax-free rate and other investment rates, this represents,
over time, an increase of $36,000,000,000 in annual costs of local and
state governments. There is also the concomitant impact to the value of
existing bonds. This impact would be the immediate reduction in value
of these bonds which in some cases could destroy the economics of many
bondholders. Exports If a foreign buyer, not subject to paying U.S. taxes on U.S.
exports, has a 30% price advantage over a U.S. purchaser, that buyer
can afford to outbid the U.S. buyer and continue to pay a lower price.
This is a problem for U.S. buyers. Imports/Use Taxes It is notoriously hard to collect use taxes. Taxpayers often
consider use taxes as “for someone else”. Collection would prove very
difficult. Microeconomics Empirically, high volume products with traditionally low margins would have resultant and instant price increases under H.R.25. Safeway Corporation currently pays approximately 1% of its sales for
its products in Federal income taxes. Without study of any other
factors and assuming that there is very little in the way of U.S.
income taxes paid by its suppliers in its costs (farmers do not
generally earn dramatic profits from their products), to achieve the
same after-tax profit with the elimination of the Federal income tax
and the implementation of H.R. 25, Safeway would have to increase
prices by about $ 11.5 billion dollars a year. This equates to an
approximate 27% increase in the price of food. There are cascading
impacts to this issue. At the poverty level, the rebate would be
recalculated only annually resulting in any immediate disintermediation
in prices of low margin, high volume items being born by purchasers for
the first year. Beyond the poverty level, the increasing taxes on food
would impact other purchasing decisions. Legal Uncertainty The likelihood of legal challenges in the court system to H.R. 25 is
significant. These challenges could result in restraining orders with
respect to the initially required administrative steps of
implementation. A successful attack on H.R. 25 after elimination of the
Federal income tax would be a national disaster. If there is any question as to its constitutionality, a constitutional amendment should be the form of this legislative change. Constitutionality Before enactment, at a minimum, a formal finding, available for
public review and response by private legal counsel and special
interest counsels, by the appropriate legal counsel representing the
United States government should be released confirming the
constitutionality of H.R. 25. Both the general concept of a national
sales tax and the concept of a prebate limited to lawful residents and
its enforcement plan should be fully vetted. The language of the
sixteenth amendment to the constitution allowing taxation by income tax
appears to have been written to provide explicit protection from
Article One, sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution. The recent Ninth Circuit of Appeals ruling disallowing the Federal
government from using social security numbers as a methodology of
policing immigration should cause anyone to give pause to the entire
concept of the prebate being limited to lawful residents and the
government’s ability to enforce such a provision. Unlawful Residents Courts could intervene on the issue of lawful residents being the only individuals being able to receive the prebate. The sales tax collection requirement for an unlawful resident
represents a significant dilemma. If the registration form asks for a
social security number, the unlawful resident will be unable to obtain
the correct paperwork to implement the national sales tax under H.R.
25. Those willing and desiring to obey this law, but who remain in the
United States illegally would be unable to comply with H.R.25. Other Withholding - H.R. 25 eliminates withholding, the most
effective manner of tax collection in the world. The current system of
withholding would be lost to the Federal government by enacting H.R. 25 Fraud – There is ample academic research that tax fraud
expands as sales tax rates go up. Tax fraud also logically expands as
opportunities increase. Both are a concern under H.R. 25. For states
that abandon their state income taxes, combined Federal, state and
local sales tax rates could exceed 43%. This is sufficiently high for
sales tax fraud to become rampant. The issue of performing a task as a
local maintenance person etc. with a price of $500 cash or $650 with a
credit card or check cannot be overlooked. As there would be no requirement to pay payroll taxes, there would
be incentive for fraud with respect to social security filings. Unless
the Social Security Administration dramatically increased staffing,
there would be little opportunity for the Social Security
Administration to review payrolls from businesses which include family
members who actually performed no work. These individuals would be
added to the social security benefit lists. Adding a sister, daughter
etc would be far too easy. Elimination of the IRS – The plan to eliminate the IRS two
years after passage of H.R. 25 would be a mistake. The IRS would need
years to complete current audits and a full compliment of auditors
would need to be available to audit the last year of the Internal
Revenue Code or taxpayers would assume they could get away with
anything. Completing their work would take about six years after the
passage of H.R. 25. General claims by H.R. 25 advocates & responses thereto Proponents of H.R. 25 make the following claims (with responses in italics by the author):
Source: Townhall.com
A Hard Look At The Fair Tax
By Hank Adler
Thursday, November 22, 2007
of 30%)
Who's the real conservative? - 28 days left
The False Conservative
By Robert D. Novak
CNSNews.com Commentary
November 26, 2007
Who
would respond to criticism from the Club for Growth by calling the
conservative, free-market campaign organization the "Club for Greed"?
That sounds like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards, all
Democrats preaching the class struggle. In fact, the rejoinder comes
from Mike Huckabee, who has broken out of the pack of second-tier
Republican presidential candidates to become a serious contender --
definitely in Iowa and perhaps nationally.
Huckabee is
campaigning as a conservative, but serious Republicans know that he is
a high-tax, protectionist, big-government advocate of a strong hand in
the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans. Until now, they did
not bother to expose the former governor of Arkansas as a false
conservative because he seemed an underfunded, unknown nuisance
candidate. Now that he has pulled even with Mitt Romney for the Iowa
caucuses with the possibility of more progress, the beleaguered
Republican Party has a frightening problem on its hands.
The
rise of evangelical Christians as the motive force that blasted the GOP
out of minority status during the past generation always contained an
inherent danger if these new Republican acolytes supported not merely a
conventional conservative but one of their own. That has happened now
with Huckabee, a former Baptist minister educated at Ouachita Baptist
University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The danger is
a serious contender for the nomination who passes the litmus test of
social conservatives on abortion, gay marriage and gun control but is
far removed from the conservative-libertarian model of Barry Goldwater
and Ronald Reagan.
There is no doubt about Huckabee's record
during a decade in Little Rock as governor. He was regarded by fellow
Republican governors as a compulsive tax increaser and spender. He
increased the Arkansas tax burden by 47 percent, boosting the levies on
gasoline and cigarettes. When he decided to lose 100 pounds and pressed
his new lifestyle on the American people, he was far from a
Goldwater-Reagan libertarian.
As a presidential candidate,
Huckabee has sought to counteract his reputation as a taxer by pressing
for replacement of the income tax with a sales tax and has more
recently signed the no-tax-increase pledge of Americans for Tax Reform.
But Huckabee simply does not fit in normal boundaries of economic
conservatism, as when he criticized President Bush's veto of a
Democratic expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program
(SCHIP). Calling global warming a "moral issue" mandating "a biblical
duty" to prevent climate change, he has endorsed the cap-and-trade
system that is anathema to the free market.
Huckabee clearly
departs from the mainstream of the conservative movement in his
confusion of "growth" with "greed." Such ad hominem attacks are part of
his intuitive response to criticism from the Club for Growth and the
libertarian Cato Institute for his record as governor. On Fox News
Sunday Nov. 18, he called the "tactics" of the Club for Growth "some of
the most despicable in politics today. It's why I love to call them the
Club for Greed because they won't tell you who gave their money." In
fact, all contributors to the organization's political action committee
(which produces campaign ads) are publicly revealed, as are most donors
financing issue ads.
Quin Hillyer, a former Arkansas
journalist writing in the conservative American Spectator, called
Huckabee "a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak."
Huckabee's retort was to attack Hillyer's journalistic procedures,
fitting a mean-spirited image when he responds to conservative
criticism.
Nevertheless, he is getting remarkably warm reviews
in the news media as the most humorous, entertaining and interesting
GOP presidential hopeful. Contrary to descriptions by old associates,
he is now called "jovial" or "good-natured." Any Republican who does
not sound much like a Republican is bound to benefit from friendly
media support, as Sen. John McCain did in 2000 but not today with his
return to being more like a conventional Republican.
An
uncompromising foe of abortion can never enjoy full media backing. But
Mike Huckabee is getting enough favorable buzz that, when combined with
his evangelical base, it makes real conservatives shudder.
How's the war going? - Lebanon
Lebanon is a “wild place,” so-said a counterterrorism expert in a
personal conversation with me days before former Lebanese president
Emile Lahoud stepped down and declared the army in charge of that
troubled state, last week.
On the one hand, Lebanon is an amazing country with a marvelous history
and culture, and a society that places a premium on high education.
It’s also known for its stunning vistas, a unique sense of style and
fashion paralleled only by the Parisians and the Milanese, a renowned
nightlife, and its breathtakingly beautiful women.
On the other hand, Lebanon has no president. They’ve been unable to
elect one in several attempts. And if the country’s parliamentarians –
many of whom are heavily guarded and under threat of death – do not
elect a chief executive by the end of this week, the power vacuum will
continue to grow. The army leadership may feel compelled to tighten its
authority over the country (perhaps declaring martial law). The old
civil war militias may rise up. The parliament may splinter. And
Hezbollah – a Shiia Muslim group and one of the world’s most formidable
terrorist organizations – may decide the time is right to consolidate
its forces in Lebanon and attempt to seize power.
Consolidating would be easy. According to independent analysis published by Strategic Forecasting (StratFor):
“The Damascus highway links Hezbollah strongholds in the central and
northern Bekaa Valley with Beirut's southern suburbs, while the coastal
highway between Beirut and Sidon connects Hezbollah bases in the South
with Beirut's southern suburbs.”
Hezbollah, described by former British Prime Minister Tony
Blair’s senior terrorism advisor, Richard Kemp, “is probably the
world’s most effective terrorist organization, and that includes Al
Qaeda.” Worse: Hezbollah’s guerrilla-force strength – numbering in the
thousands -- and position in Lebanon has never been stronger.
The group, supported by Syria and heavily financed and trained by the
Islamic (Iranian) Revolutionary Guard Corps, has tremendous influence,
nationwide (and a dangerous and growing footprint throughout the rest
of the world): Their yellow and green fist-and-rifle flags fly all over
the country. They have permeated the ranks of the armed forces at all
levels. They control or influence many of Lebanon’s businesses, other
commercial enterprises, and telecommunications. They have a very strong
lobby in the Lebanese media. They even control some Lebanese-based
international media. And they are armed to the teeth.
“Hezbollah has said it would take action if the Lebanese
Parliament elects a new free president,” Dr. Walid Phares, director of
the director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Washington-based
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, told me over the weekend.
“The group would seize ministries, cut off main highways and paralyze
the country. The question would be what would the Lebanese Army do and
what would the international community do? Hezbollah has thousands of
missiles and rockets. But would it really use them in a domestic
conflict? It also has suicide bombers, but would it use them against
neighbors and joint economic interests?”
What would stop them? The army? Doubtful. The military leadership under
armed-forces commander-in-chief Gen. Michel Sleiman has so-far given
Hezbollah a free pass despite the fact that United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1559 calls for the disarming of all militias in
Lebanon.
“Hezbollah is a resistance,” Sleiman told me in his office at
the Ministry of Defense in Beirut (not far from a Hezbollah-controlled
district and virtual weapons depot where the legitimate army and police
do not enter). Practically all of the Lebanese generals I spoke with
while I was in Lebanon in September and October told me the same thing.
They say that, because they know by labeling Hezbollah a “resistance
movement,” the terrorist organization avoids the label “militia.”
Hezbollah and its parent companies Syria and Iran have deep roots in
the army leadership. And a huge percentage of the rank-and-file are
pro-Hezbollah Shiia.
Sleiman continued straight out of the Ahmadinejad playbook,
“The resistance [Hezbollah] was formed before the unification of the
army. They were here first. They fight Israel, and if any group fights
Israel we should respect it.”
Hezbollah also blew up 220 U.S. Marines, 18 sailors, and three
soldiers during the organization’s formative years nearly a quarter
century ago. Today Hezbollah has global reach (cells in the United
States, Europe, and elsewhere), lots of money, men, and arms (more so
in fact than what they had prior to the Israeli-Hezbollah war in 2006).
The centerpiece of this Syro-Iranian supported terrorist army is
positioned in Lebanon (one of their largest strongholds, Al Dahiyeh, is
located within minutes of the Lebanese parliament and government
buildings in Beirut). Hezbollah is actively training in Lebanon,
conducting exercises that sometimes aren’t reported, and transporting
militiamen, which is rarely reported. They are manipulating the press.
The army won’t do anything to stop them. Many of the parliamentarians
are hiding behind layers of security in Beirut’s Phoenicia Hotel. They
never venture outside without heavy military or paramilitary
protection. They never open the curtains to their rooms for fear of
snipers. And, again, the country is without a president.
Frankly, what’s next is anybody’s guess.
Source: Townhall.com
Lebanon is a "Wild Place"
By W. Thomas Smith, Jr
Monday, November 26, 2007
Lebanese
soldiers stand guard in their armoured personnel carrier as a woman
walks past in Beirut November 25, 2007. REUTERS/Jamal Saidi (LEBANON)
Related Media:
VIDEO:
Is Lebanon Headed Toward Crisis?
VIDEO:
Lebanon's Presidential Problems
VIDEO:
Lebanon's President Exits With No Succesor
Saving social security.
Believe it or not, federal spending has been stable at around 20
percent of the gross domestic product for more than 50 years, ever
since it settled down after World War II. Conservatives have been
relatively successful in holding down the growth of big government for
the last half-century.
The bad news is that this will change over the coming decades.
According to the latest projections of the Congressional Budget Office
and the General Accounting Office, federal spending will soar by 2040
to close to 40 percent of GDP, or more. This is primarily due to our
nation's big entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare and
Medicaid.
Unfortunately, even some conservatives are now saying that the answer
to entitlement spending will require large tax increases. Some want to
try to cut a grand deal between liberals and conservatives, Republicans
and Democrats for huge entitlement cuts in return for tax increases.
Nonsense!
Slapping two bad ideas together does not make one good idea. For those
who call ourselves progressive conservatives, this would mean agreeing
to a still massive increase in government spending to around 30 percent
of GDP or more, along with an enormous tax increase.
In a path-breaking article in Barron's on Oct. 8, Peter Ferrara of the
Institute for Policy Innovation and the American Civil Rights Union,
offers a better way. Ferrara argues that the yawning entitlement
financing gap is far too big to try to address with entitlement cuts,
and tax increases would be counterproductive and unfairly burdensome
for working people.
He argues that instead we need to think outside the box of our current
entitlement structures and seek to reform them from the bottom up.
Today's entitlement programs are based on outdated, late 19th century
tax and redistribution models. Reform to modernize them for the 21st
century would bring in much greater reliance on modern capital and
labor markets to achieve the goals of these programs. Ferrara shows in
the article how such reform can leave us with new programs that serve
the current beneficiaries far better but require only a fraction of the
government spending of the current programs.
For example, personal accounts for Social Security would provide
workers with a much better deal and higher benefits than the current,
old-fashioned Social Security framework can even promise, let alone
what it can pay. But such accounts are also enormously powerful in
reducing government spending because they shift huge portions of such
spending out of the public sector altogether and into the private
sector.
The very thorough and comprehensive reform bill introduced in the last
Congress by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., would
allow workers the freedom to choose to eventually shift their Social
Security retirement benefits to private sector personal accounts. That
alone would reduce future government spending by more than 5 percent of
GDP, an enormous and unprecedented reduction, but in so doing would
give workers a far higher rate of return for their retirement.
The accounts could then eventually be expanded at the choice of each
worker to provide for private life and disability insurance to replace
Social Security survivors and disability benefits. The accounts could
even eventually be expanded to cover the payroll-tax-financed portion
of Medicare, producing an annuity in retirement that could be used to
purchase private health insurance that would be a much better deal than
Medicare.
These provisions would reduce federal spending by well over 10 percent
of GDP. At the same time, they would transform the payroll tax from a
tax to a wealth-building asset owned and controlled within each family.
What a revolution that would be for the personal prosperity of working
people.
Ferrara advances a second fundamental reform concept building on the
huge success of the 1996 legislation block granting the old Aid to
Families With Dependent Children program back to the states. The
welfare rolls from the old program were reduced by close to 60 percent
nationwide as a result, a shocking success.
Ferrara argues that we could now block-grant the remaining major
federal welfare programs to the states, as well, including
budget-busting Medicaid, food stamps and even some housing programs.
With these funds and broad discretion, we can build new welfare systems
nationwide based on getting the poor into real jobs, real private
health insurance with vouchers and even home ownership. This was the
vision of Abraham Lincoln of a stakeholder society where everyone has a
direct share of the American dream.
To pursue these reforms, Ferrara has helped establish a new Entitlement
Reform Without Tax Increases Working Group. I suggest joining up with
them, as I have.
Maimonides, the 11th century Talmudic philosopher, wrote that "the
highest form of welfare is to prevent people from needing welfare." How
very true.
Source: townhall.com
Reform Entitlement Programs Without Increasing Taxes
By Jack Kemp
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
America the greatest country in the world.
One of the most widely held beliefs in the
contemporary world -- so widely held it is not disputed -- is that,
with few exceptions, the world hates America. One of the Democrats'
major accusations against the Bush administration is that it has
increased hatred of America to unprecedented levels. And in many polls,
the United States is held to be among the greatest obstacles to world
peace and harmony.
But it is not true that the world hates America. It is the
world's left that hates America. However, because the left dominates
the world's news media and because most people, understandably, believe
what the news media report, many people, including Americans, believe
that the world hates America.
Take Western Europe, which is widely regarded as holding
America in contempt, but upon examination only validates our thesis.
The French, for example, are regarded as particularly America-hating,
but if this were so, how does one explain the election of Nicolas
Sarkozy as president of France? Sarkozy loves America and was known to
love America when he ran for president. Evidently, it is the left in
France -- a left that, like the left in America, dominates the media,
arts, universities and unions -- that hates the U.S., not the French.
The same holds true for Spain, Australia, Britain, Latin
America and elsewhere. The left in these countries hate the United
States while non-leftists, and especially conservatives, in those
countries hold America in high regard, if not actually love it.
Take Spain. The prime minister of Spain from 1996 to 2004,
Jose Maria Aznar, is a conservative who holds America in the highest
regard. He was elected twice, and polls in Spain up to the week before
the 2004 election all predicted a third term for Aznar's party (Aznar
had promised not to run for a third term). Only the Madrid subway
bombings, perpetrated by Muslim terrorists three days before the
elections, but which the Aznar government erroneously blamed on Basque
separatists, turned the election against the conservative party.
There is another obvious argument against the belief that the
world hates America: Many millions of people would rather live in
America than in any other country. How does the left explain this? Why
would people want to come to a country they loathe? Why don't people
want to live in Sweden or France as much as they wish to live in
America? Those are rich and free countries, too.
The answer is that most people know there is no country in the
world more accepting of strangers as is America. After three
generations, people who have emigrated to Germany or France or Sweden
do not feel -- and are not regarded as -- fully German, French or
Swedish. Yet, anyone of any color from any country is regarded as
American the moment he or she identifies as one. The country that the
left routinely calls "xenophobic" and "racist" is in fact the least
racist and xenophobic country in the world. Given that it is the left and the institutions it dominates
-- universities, media (other than talk radio in America) and unions --
that hate America, two questions remain: Why does the left hate
America, and does the American left, too, hate America?
The answer to the first question is that America and
especially the most hated parts of America -- conservatives, religious
conservatives in particular -- are the greatest obstacles to leftist
dominance. American success refutes the socialist ideals of the left;
American use of force to vanquish evil refutes the left's pacifist
tendencies; America is the last great country that believes in putting
some murderers to death, something that is anathema to the left; when
America is governed by conservatives, it uses the language of good and
evil, language regarded by the left as "Manichean"; most Americans
still believe in the Judeo-Christian value system, another target of
the left because the left regards all religions as equally valid (or
more to the point, equally foolish and dangerous) and regards God-based
morality as the moral equivalent of alchemy.
It makes perfect sense that the left around the world loathes
America. The final question, then, is whether this loathing of America
is characteristic of the American left as well. The answer is that the
American left hates the America that believes in American
exceptionalism, is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as
dangerous evil, affirms the Judeo-Christian value system, believes in
the death penalty, supports male-female marriage, rejects big
government, wants lower taxes, prefers free market to governmental
solutions, etc. The American left, like the rest of the world's left,
loathes that America.
So what America does the American left love? That is for those
on the left to answer. But given their beliefs that America was founded
by racists and slaveholders, that it is an imperialist nation, that 35
million Americans go hungry, that it invades countries for corporate
profits, and that it is largely racist and xenophobic, it is a fair
question.
Source: Townhall.com
The World Doesn't Hate America, the Left Does
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Fair tax an explanation
Last Thursday Townhall contributor Hank Adler published a column on this website entitled “A Hard Look At The Fair Tax
(sic)”. Almost immediately the emails started pouring into my show –
literally by the hundreds – urging me to post a response to Adler’s
rather stinging critique of the FairTax. Since Congressman John Linder, the author of H.R. 25, The
FairTax Act, and I wrote “The FairTax Book” in 2005 we’ve seen an
unprecedented and ever-growing nationwide interest in this tax reform
idea. Let’s face it, you have to be doing something to capture the
imagination of the American people to have a book on taxes debut No. 1
on The New York Times Bestsellers List. There are some, though not in
what we call the mainstream media, who think that Governor Mike
Huckabee’s embrace of The FairTax is an important element to his rise
in the GOP presidential sweepstakes. Now to make this column worth reading for those of you who are not
familiar with the FairTax, a very quick introduction is in order. The FairTax eliminates all corporate, business and personal
federal income taxes, all payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend
taxes and estate taxes, and replaces them all with one embedded sales
tax on the sale of all goods and services at the retail level. Tens of
millions of dollars in research show that the corporate and personal
income and payroll taxes that will be eliminated by the FairTax end up
being paid by consumers at the retail level. The average amount of
embedded taxes in the cost of everything we buy at retail is
approximately 22 percent. This would mean that we are replacing the
embedded cost of our present tax system (22 percent) with the embedded
FairTax (23 percent). Every household in America will receive a check or a credit to
an account at the beginning of every month equal to the amount of
FairTax that household would be expected to pay during that month on
the basic necessities of life. Poverty figures for various family sizes
from the Commerce Department will be used to calculate the size of this
“prebate.” This guarantees that nobody will have to pay the FairTax on
the basic necessities. There is so much more to this proposal, but to learn more you really need to devour the FairTax website (http://www.fairtax.org) or order a copy of The FairTax Book online.
OK .. there’s your briefest of introductions. Let’s move on to the reason for this column.
Congressman Linder and I are no strangers to dealing with
out-of-left-field attacks on the FairTax. When it comes to criticisms,
it’s somewhat safe to say that we’ve heard it all. We’re both such
strong believers in the FairTax and the massive transformation it would
bring about, not only in our daily lives, but in the nature of our
governance and our economy, that neither of us minds responding to
substantive and well thought out critiques. We have, in fact, written a
follow-up book entitled “FairTax, The Truth” that will be published by
Harper Collins in February of next year. Linder and I do, however, confess to a certain level of
exasperation at having to spend the time responding to critiques
proffered by those with a limited understanding of the FairTax, those
who have chosen to ignore the basics of the FairTax, or those who just
outright misrepresent the plan, in order, we suppose, to give support
to a more damming criticism. Helooooooooooo Hank Adler!
Adler’s column wanders (somewhat aimlessly) over 25 pages. With
“FairTax, The Truth” hitting the book stores in less than three months
there is no real need to use quite so much of your precious toner or
ink cartridge in our response. If someone criticized your purchase of a four-cylinder one-ton
pickup truck on the basis that four cylinders simply can’t provide the
power necessary to get any serious work done – and if the reality was
that you were actually purchasing a hefty V-8 – you might be
predisposed to ignore any other criticisms of your new truck on the
basis that the critic simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about. That
is the case with Adler’s FairTax essay. At various points in Adler’s screed he exhibits a complete
lack of understanding – even an awareness -- of the concept of embedded
taxes. Suspecting that there is a slight chance that some of you who
are devouring every word of this column share Adler’s lack of awareness
of embedded taxes, a short explanation is due. Simply put … every person, business or other entity that has
any involvement at all in bringing any product or service to the retail
marketplace incurs a tax cost arising from that involvement; and every
one of these entities will incorporate that tax cost into whatever they
charge for their labor, ideas or material goods. All of those tax costs
come home to roost in the final retail cost of that product or service,
to the average tune of 22 percent. Again, simply put, the FairTax
removes those embedded tax costs from the price of all goods and
services at the retail level and replaces them with the embedded 23
percent FairTax. This is where you find the fatal flaw in Adler’s critique of
the FairTax. Amazingly, not once in his entire 25-page essay does Adler
mention the concept of embedded taxes in the price of everything we
buy, or the fact that those embedded taxes will be removed by the
FairTax. Not only does he not mention the embedded taxes, he doesn’t
even give the vaguest of hints that he even knows they exist! To fail
to understand, or to gloss over or simply ignore this crucial concept
in a discussion of the FairTax is to render your entire argument
lacking in credibility and barely worthy of response. But, being the
argumentative type, I’m going to continue laying waste to at least some
of Adler’s arguments. Adler’s essay does not exactly flow effortlessly from point to
point. So, in the name of brevity and out of a certain sense of mercy,
I’ll just take aim at a few targets of opportunity here. First of all we have this silly insistence on quoting the
FairTax rate as 30 percent rather than 23 percent. This childish
exercise is the favorite of people who either have a vested interest in
preserving our present tax system, or who feel the need to criticize
but lack the ability to make their criticism meaningful. The FairTax is embedded in the price of everything you buy at
the retail level. If you buy a $100 griddle, the price tag for the
griddle will say $100. When you get a receipt for your purchase that
receipt will itemized to show that $77 of the total cost will be
retained by the retailer and $23 will be sent to the federal government
as the FairTax. The total is $100, just as the price tag says. In most
government schools across the country they will teach that the $23
going to the government is 23 percent of $100 you paid for the griddle.
That, my friends, is why the FairTax is quoted as 23 percent; because
it is embedded into not added onto the price of your purchase. Another reason to quote the FairTax as an embedded tax is
because it will essentially be replacing the 22 percent embedded tax
already present in the price of everything you buy, as covered above. Wait! There’s more!
• The FairTax is designed to replace the federal income tax. The
federal income tax is quoted as an embedded tax. If you were to quote
the income tax as an excusive tax the 25 percent bracket would be
quoted as 33.3 percent, and the top bracket would be quoted as 54
percent. • The FairTax will replace all payroll taxes. Payroll taxes
are quoted as embedded taxes. If you were to quote your entire Social
Security tax bill (and that includes your employer’s so-called
“contribution,”) as an exclusive tax the rate would be 20.5 percent. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but it seems to me that if
people like Adler are so hell-bent on quoting the FairTax as an
exclusive tax, why not quote the income tax and the payroll taxes the
same way? Doesn’t that seem fair to you? In case Mr. Adler is reading this … one more time. We’re
replacing embedded taxes with embedded taxes. Apples to apples, you
know. Now let’s get on to addressing some of the specific points in
Adler’s column. To make things easy, I’m simply going to put his quotes
in a nifty little boxes, followed by my response. Here we go:
H.R. 25 would result in an immediate reduction in
purchasing power upon implementation for existing savings which have
previously been subject to U.S. income taxes (double taxation). Here Adler once again ignores the role of embedded taxes. The
price of consumer goods in this country would remain essentially the
same. The embedded taxes are merely replaced by the FairTax. How, then,
does anyone suffer a decrease in purchasing power? H.R. 25 would result in an on-going and significant
reduction in purchasing power for many social security recipients with
other sources of income or savings. This is already getting monotonous. How does your purchasing
power go down when you have the same amount of money in your pocket,
perhaps more with the prebate, and the things you are buying cost
pretty much the same? H.R. 25 would result in the elimination of the safety
net provided by the Internal Revenue Code in reducing Federal taxes for
victims of disease and disaster, the elimination of incentives to save
through pension plans or investment retirement, and the elimination of
credits and deductions for child care. What? These incentives Adler is talking about are tax
deductions or credits. Of what possible value is a tax deduction or
credit to someone who pays no income taxes? The income tax is gone
under the fair tax; and Adler is going to sit around bemoaning the loss
of tax deductions? This is like complaining that your 20% off coupons
for bread are rendered worthless when the bakery starts giving bread
away for free. There are conflicting studies projecting the necessary tax rate required to achieve neutral tax revenues under H.R. 25. Every one of these “conflicting studies” first changes the
terms of H.R. 25 before they reveal that the tax rate might not
necessarily be 23 percent. When the FairTax is scored as written
economists agree on the proposed tax rate. With every major conceptual change, there will be
thousands of different interpretations of the rules. It would take
years to sort these interpretations out. During that period, Treasury
would issue volumes of rules and regulations. Different interpretations of the rule! Oh, the humanity! And
we all know that there are no differing interpretations of the rules
under our present tax code, don’t we? Even the IRS can’t accurately
calculate a taxpayer’s tax liability fifty percent of the time. Oh …
and that part about the Treasury issuing volumes of rules and
regulations. The current tax code takes tens of thousands of pages.
H.R. 25 is 133 pages long. H.R. 25 proposes a 23% “tax inclusive” sales tax
rate. Sales taxes are not traditionally described in a “tax inclusive”
manner. Sales taxes are traditionally described in a “tax exclusive”
manner. The FairTax is not a “traditional” sales tax. Consumer prices
are traditionally quoted without the sales tax. Prices under the
FairTax are quoted with the sales tax included. If Adler is so
concerned about tradition, then let him sit on the sidelines while
others with a view to the future get some things done. At implementation, existing savings will have diminished purchasing power of 30%. There’s that 30 percent silliness again .. and once again
Adler completely ignores (if he’s aware of it at all) the fact that
prices do not go up when the FairTax is implemented. The embedded taxes
from our present tax system are removed, the FairTax is added … and
we’re pretty much right back where we started. When you take money out
of your savings account under our current tax scheme, and when you
spend that money, you’re paying the 22 percent embedded tax. After
implementation you’ll be paying the 23 percent embedded FairTax
instead. Wrong, Mr. Adler. Flat out wrong. At implementation, all of the social and business
incentives, benefits and disincentives included in the Internal Revenue
Code disappear: A tax code should exist to procure the funds necessary for
the operation of government, not to manipulate human or business
behavior. Besides, the form of these “social and business incentives,
benefits and disincentives” consist basically of tax credits or
deductions. Credits and deductions are meaningless when there is no
longer an income tax. Among the “incentives” and “benefits” that Adler says will disappear we find references to the following:
Home interest deduction – encouraging home ownership
Contribution deductions - encouraging contributions to charity
Lower tax rate on capital gains - encouraging investment
Lower tax rate on dividends - encouraging investment Come on, my friends. Are you beginning to see for yourselves how absurd these arguments are? Point by point:
• The home mortgage interest deduction is of no value whatsoever to someone who does not pay income taxes.
• People don’t contribute to charity in order to get a tax
deduction. Who would give away $1000 just to save $350 on their taxes?
Somehow that doesn’t seem to be a good trade to me. • If lower tax rates on capital gains encourage investment …
think what NO taxes on capital gains would do. That’s life under the
FairTax. • Ditto for dividends.
Look … I could go on and on picking apart Adler’s FairTax
critique. You can see how easy this is. It’s like hunting over a baited
field. Truth is, Hank Adler certainly isn’t alone in his faulty
interpretation and understanding of the FairTax. I actually took the
time to read some of the comments to his essay posted on Townhall.com
and came up with this incredible beauty: 23% on profits, not costs...
This is often mentioned by Fair Tax proponents (who should know
better), but I don't think it carries any water. They claim
corporations pay 23% (or whatever number) in taxes, and if removed,
they could lower the cost of their goods by 23%. Problem is, that is 23% on their PROFITS, not their COSTS.
Most company's taxable profits rarely exceed 15% (most are under 10%,
some even lose money over the course of a year). Now please excuse my Norwegian .. but what in the wide, wide
world of sports is this character talking about? A 23% tax on profits?
Now we can really be charitable here and suppose that this character is
referring to the average 22 percent embedded taxes in every product and
service we buy … but by what incredible twist of logic can some
(presumably) government-educated person even bring themselves to put
that thought process on paper? Implementation of the FairTax would constitute the biggest
transfer of power from the government to the people in the history of
this Republic. Perhaps that is what frightens Mr. Adler the most.
Source: Townhall.com
The FairTax -- The Truth
By Neal Boortz
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Actor Larry Hagman points to the line on a tax form where taxpayers can
claim a telephone tax refund from the Internal Revenue Service during a
news conference outside the federal building in Los Angeles Tuesday,
April 10, 2007. Hagman is asking taxpayers to donate the return to
refundsforgood.org, a Website that shows taxpayers how to claim the
refund and to donate the funds to the Solar Electric Light Fund, an
organization that brings solar power to the developing world,
Physicians for Social Responsibility and the PeaceJam Foundation. (AP
Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
How's the war going? - Iraq
The postwar relationship between Iraq and
the United States is now a broader public topic. This week, the White
House and the Iraqi government announced that state-to-state
discussions are taking place with the goal of reaching detailed
agreements that will govern Iraq and America's long-term political,
economic and military ties. Iraqis have asked for "an enduring
relationship with America." I use the term "broader public topic" because this matter has
been a subject of constant discussion since April 2003, with little of
that discussion hush-hush. When I reported in May 2004 for duty in Iraq, the first document
dropped on my desk was a draft of U.N. Security Council Resolution
1546. After reading it with great interest, I discussed it with one of
the very smart young majors in the Multi-National Corps-Iraq plans
section. The very smart young major was already in the polymathic
process of analyzing requirements and aligning "capabilities with
tasks" (who will do what) in order to support the resolutions
stipulation that Iraq hold "direct democratic elections ... in no case
later than 31 January 2005."
Resolution 1546 was officially passed on June 8, 2004. If
you're a wire-service editor, eight months is an eon -- but if you're
trying to politically reinvent Mesopotamia, it's a millisecond. The
January 2005 Iraqi election succeeded, giving terrorists and tyrants a
disturbing "purple finger" -- the very public ink stains marking the
fingers of Iraqi voters. That election was an incremental success, but one of many.
This week's publicized call for a more "normalized" U.S.-Iraq
relationship is another indication that the incremental successes are
accumulating. Every increment can become a decrement, but war is a
dynamic process -- and from a historical perspective the dynamic
direction in Iraq has favored the United States -- in other words, the
big trend suggests an emerging success.
I know, that runs counter to Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid's April 2007 declaration that the United States "lost" in Iraq,
but it was Reid's choice to make himself a sad historical footnote. This emerging success required lots of money and
unfortunately involved lots of blood. I had another document on my
Baghdad desk, Musab al-Zarqawi's February 2004 letter to al-Qaida's
leaders, in which he lamented al-Qaida's looming defeat. He also described his counter-strategy: a Shia-Sunni
sectarian war. That's war's hideous dynamic, effort met by effort --
with death, pain and suffering in each terrible collision. Zarqawi's
murderers did their best to incite a sectarian debacle. Oh, they got
headlines, they enlisted a motley array of criminal allies, they set
Iraq's democratic timetable back 12 to 24 months -- but they failed. The evidence that al-Qaida has suffered a major strategic
information defeat in Iraq continues to mount. StrategyPage.com noted
on Oct. 27, 2005, that "the Moslem media is less and less willing to be
an apologist for al-Qaida, at least when it comes to killing Moslem
civilians" and that the Iraqi media in particular "really has it in for
al-Qaida." On Oct. 1, 2006, StrategyPage.com argued that "dead Iraqis
were killing al-Qaida. ... Westerners, unless they observe Arab media
closely, and have contacts inside the Arab world, will not have noted
this sharp drop in al-Qaida's fortunes."
Within the last three months, the "trend" (made of incremental successes) has become "fact."
Is this victory in Iraq? No. But it suggests we've won a major
battle with potentially global significance. What the Pentagon calls
"the governmental (political participation and structure building),
information (intel, media and political perception) and economic
(economic development, infrastructure creation) lines of operation"
will ultimately secure victory in Iraq, and these operations will take
another six to eight years of effort. As for the "security line of operation" (military), the
U.S.-Iraqi "postwar relationships" discussion indicates both are
preparing for "strategic overwatch," where U.S. "quick reaction" forces
are positioned to help Iraq deter external (e.g., Iranian) threats.
Strategic overwatch may be a couple of years away, say mid-to-late
2009. Achieving that would constitute a limited victory.
Could these positive trends reverse? Yes. Al-Qaida and
Saddamist enemies will continue to test the will of Free Iraq and the
United States. Harry Reid and his faction could quit and declare
defeat. But I doubt that they will -- I very much doubt they will.
***
In responding to my column of Nov. 13, Tom Ricks at The
Washington Post asked me to note his Oct. 15, 2007, article on
al-Qaida's information warfare defeat. And a fine report it is.
Source: Townhall.com
Al-Qaida's Emerging Defeat
By Austin Bay
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
A
youth raises his arms as he cycles with others during a bicycle race in
Falluja, 50 km (30 miles) west of Baghdad November 27, 2007. More than
100 youths participated during Tuesday's bicycle race, the first in
Falluja, organized by the local police with the winner receiving $1000.
REUTERS/Mohanned Faisal (IRAQ)
Related Media:
VIDEO:
Post-War Plan
VIDEO:
Firsthand Observation
Who's the real conservative?
As Mike Huckabee rises in the polls, an
inevitable process of vetting him for conservative credentials is under
way in which people who know nothing of Arkansas or of the
circumstances of his governorship weigh in knowingly about his record.
As his political consultant in the ea rly ’90s and one who has been
following Arkansas politics for 30 years, let me clue you in: Mike
Huckabee is a fiscal conservative.
A recent column by Bob Novak excoriated Huckabee for a “47
percent increase in state tax burden.” But during Huckabee’s years in
office, total state tax burden — all 50 states combined — rose by twice
as much: 98 percent, increasing from $743 billion in 1993 to $1.47
trillion in 2005. In Arkansas, the income tax when he took office was 1 percent for
the poorest taxpayers and 7 percent for the richest, exactly where it
stood when he left the statehouse 11 years later. But, in the interim,
he doubled the standard deduction and the child care credit, repealed
capital gains taxes for home sales, lowered the capital gains rate,
expanded the homestead exemption and set up tax-free savings accounts
for medical care and college tuition.
Most impressively, when he had to pass an income tax surcharge
amid the drop in revenues after Sept. 11, 2001, he repealed it three
years later when he didn’t need it any longer.
He raised the sales tax one cent in 11 years and did that only
after the courts ordered him to do so. (He also got voter approval for
a one-eighth-of-one-cent hike for parks and recreation.)
He wants to repeal the income tax, abolish the IRS and
institute a “fair tax” based on consumption, and opposes any tax
increase for Social Security.
And he can win in Iowa.
When voters who have decided not to back Rudy Giuliani because of his
social positions consider the contest between Mitt Romney and Mike
Huckabee, they will have no difficulty choosing between a real social
conservative and an ersatz one.
Romney, who began as a pro-lifer and switched in order to win
in Massachusetts, and then flipped back again, cannot compete with a
lifelong pro-lifer, Huckabee.
But Huckabee’s strength is not just his orthodoxy on gay
marriage, abortion, gun control and the usual litany. It is his opening
of the religious right to a host of new issues. He speaks firmly for
the right to life, but then notes that our responsibility for children
does not end with childbirth. His answer to the rise of medical costs
is novel and exciting. “Eighty percent of all medica l spending,” he
says, “is for chronic diseases.” So he urges an all-out attack on teen
smoking and overeating and a push for exercise not as the policies of a
big-government liberal but as the requisites of a fiscal conservative
anxious to save tax money.
So what happens if Huckabee wins in Iowa? With New Hampshire
only five days later, his momentum will be formidable. The key may boil
down to how Hillary does in Iowa. Hillary? Yes. If she loses in Iowa,
most of the independents in New Hampshire will flock to the Democratic
primary to vote for her or against her. That will move the Republican
electorate to the right in New Hampshire — bad news for Rudy, good news
for Huckabee. But if she wins in Iowa, there will be no point in voting
in the Democratic primary and a goodly number will enter the GOP
contest, giving Rudy a big boost.
And afterward? If Romney wins Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and
South Carolina, sweeping the early prim aries, Giuliani will have a
very tough task to bring him down in Florida or on Super Tuesday. It
can be done, but it’s tough. But if Romney loses in Iowa (likely to
Huckabee) then Rudy can survive the loss of Iowa and even New Hampshire
without surrendering irresistible momentum to Romney.
In any event, neither Hillary nor Giuliani will be knocked out
by defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire. Their 50-state organizations,
their national base and their massive war chests will permit them to
fight it out all over the United States. Even if they lose the first
two contests, they will remain in the race and could well come back to
win.
Source: Townhall.com
Mike Huckabee is a Fiscal Conservative
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Republican
presidential candidate Mike Huckabee speaks to attendees at the Family
Research Council's Values Voters Summit in Washington October 20, 2007.
REUTERS/Joshua Roberts (UNITED STATES)
Related Media:
VIDEO:
Mike Huckabee
VIDEO:
Watch Chuck Norris Endorse Mike Huckabee
VIDEO:
Mike Huckabee
Who's the real conservative - 28 days left
WASHINGTON -- It is very rare, if not unheard of, to catch a
presidential candidate, especially a Republican, in the act of saying
he or she would be willing to sign any tax increase that lawmakers
wished for.
But that's what happened to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who has
rocketed to a statistical tie in Iowa with Mitt Romney, largely as a
result of the former Baptist minister's support from evangelical voters
in the nation's first caucus state.
The Club for Growth, an effective tax-cut advocacy group, has been on
Huckabee's back almost from the beginning of his candidacy, sending out
e-mail blasts to party conservatives that paint an abominable picture
of his record on taxes.
Huckabee has been campaigning as a tax cutter, and indeed he did slash
some state taxes during his two terms as governor, but he raised far
more than he cut. The Cato Institute, which monitors the fiscal records
of the nation's governors, gave him a poor-to-failing grade on spending
and taxes.
The Club for Growth has also examined his tax and spend record and
found it wanting. Its verdict: Huckabee could not be trusted to hold
the line on taxes, let alone push it back.
Huckabee of course rejects the charges and said they do not take into
account the many taxes he also cut. He insists he is a committed
tax-cutter who could be trusted to shrink the size of government.
But seeing is believing, and the visual record backs the Club for
Growth up; the Arkansas Journal blog has uncovered a video of Huckabee
addressing the state legislature, virtually begging them to raise any
taxes they wanted, and saying that he would sign the increases into law.
Here's what then-Gov. Huckabee told Arkansas lawmakers: "Again, let me
state what I've said privately as well as publicly, but I want to get
it on the record again. There's a lot of support for a tax at the
wholesale level for tobacco, and that's fine with me; I will very
happily sign that because it's a revenue stream that will meet the
needs if enacted at a level that will help us to meet that $90 to $100
million target, and that's what I would begin to focus your attention
on -- is the target.
"Some have suggested the retail level of tobacco; if that ends up being
your preference, I will accept that. Others have suggested a surcharge
on the income tax; that's acceptable; I'm fine with that. Others have
suggested, perhaps, a sales tax; that's fine.
"Yet others have suggested a hybrid that will collect some monies from
any one or a combination of those various ideas, and if that's the plan
that the House and Senate agree upon, then you will have nothing but my
profound thanks."
This does not sound like someone who is willing to hold the line on
taxes, nor find places in his budget-as many governors have done-where
he could cut spending instead of having taxpayers foot the bills for
bigger and bigger government.
Huckabee says he would like to eliminate the Internal Revenue Service
and replace the income tax with the so-called Fair Tax, which would
impose a national sales tax on virtually everything we buy. But such a
tax would be a disaster for this country, especially for low- and
middle-income Americans who spend a disproportionate portion of their
earnings -- in many cases all of it -- on the necessities of life.
It would wreak untold havoc on the business community, driving down
retail sales and creating an underground economy that would undermine
America's productive marketplace -- especially small businesses that
produce most of the jobs in our country.
The Club for Growth was formed with one purpose in mind: to promote
economic growth by lowering the tax rates, simplifying the tax code and
providing tax incentives to expand business formation, savings,
investment and economic opportunity. It has praised the tax-cut
proposals of Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and other contenders for the
Republican nomination.
But last week Huckabee labeled the respected tax-cutting group "The
Club for Greed," a charge that sounded more like the invective spewed
forth from Al Gore, Howard Dean or socialist Bernie Sanders.
The Arkansas Republican is fond of bashing corporate CEOs and their
salaries, thinks a higher minimum wage won't hurt entry-level job
creation, and apparently doesn't mind slapping higher sales taxes on
the most vulnerable people in our economy.
The next president will face huge fiscal issues in 2009: such as rising
entitlements that threaten to engulf the federal budget and what to do
about President Bush's tax cuts which are due to expire in 2010, a
demise that would raise taxes by trillions of dollars.
That's when we're going to need strong, principled leadership to keep a
likely Democratic Congress from sending income taxes through the roof.
It's something Iowa voters need to think deeply about in the days to
come.
Source: Townhall.com
Not Everyone Loves Huckabee
By Donald Lambro
Monday, December 3, 2007
Republican
presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (C) speaks to attendees at the
Family Research Council's Values Voters Summit in Washington, DC,
October 20, 2007. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts (UNITED STATES)
Related Media:
VIDEO:
Mike Huckabee
VIDEO:
Mitt Romney
VIDEO:
Mike Huckabee
There is no liberal media bias helping Hillary. There is a right wing conspiracy. That's it a right wing conspiracy.
Hillary’s Clinton’s secret weapon to win the 2008 election isn’t her former president husband.
It’s the liberal media, according to L. Brent Bozell, III, president of the Media Research Center.
Bozell and Tim Graham, MRC’s director of media analysis, document how
Clinton enjoys “unprecedented media favoritism” in their new book Whitewash.
Bozell and Graham say the “establishment” media makes no secret of
actively supporting Clinton’s political ambitions with favorable
articles, interviews and news reports.
Townhall spoke with Bozell about his book over the phone last week. Here is the edited transcript of the interview:
In the book you start right away by talking about the Lewinsky affair-
When people think of Clinton scandals that is the most prominent
one, but as we point out in the book, it is my belief others are much
more serious than that. I believe it is far more serious they were
holding the FBI files of 400 Republicans. And as any other scandals
involving the Clintons, the media has refused to try to get to the
bottom of any of them. They’ve left them all alone.
What new information have you turned up?
Hillary Clinton flat-out lied in her book and the media never
called her on it. Probably the most quoted passage in her book dealt
with how she was gasping for air, et cetera and et cetera on August 15,
1998 when she heard about Monica Lewinsky. That’s a flat-out lie. Why
do we know that’s a flat-out lie? Never mind the fact that’s she’s a
woman, back in her Arkansas days, who hired detectives to follow her
husband. She knew more about her husband’s philandering than anyone in
America, other than her husband. Put all that aside. Look at the date,
August 15, 1998. That’s two weeks after the July 29th date. Why was
that date important? That’s the date we learned about the blue-stained
dress. So, therefore, Hillary would like us to believe that she didn’t
know what all of America knew, two weeks after all of America knew it.
And she dictated this, actually dictated this passage in her book. Why
would she do that? Because this is the same Hillary Clinton who went on
national television accusing a vast-right wing conspiracy of having
come up with this story about Monica Lewinsky. She tried to blame
conservatives for it. So now she had to act the victim. That she had
just learned and had no idea. It is documented that it is untrue.
Even though she says things like this, people believe she’s a
moderate. Why do you think the media labels her as a moderate? How does
she pull that?
This gets to the heart of the matter. The media are packaging her the
way she wants to be packaged. She wants to be a moderate because it
advances her presidential aspirations. All you have to do is look it
up. How hard is this to do? It would take a reporter about five
nanoseconds. When you’ve got an “F” from the National Taxpayers Union,
a zero from the National Tax Limitations committee, an eight from
Citizens Against Government Waste, a twelve from the American
Conservative Union, an “F” from the Gun Owners of America, how are you
moderate? When you’ve got a 95 from the ADA, when you’ve got a 100 from
the Brady campaign against guns, a 93 from the AFL-CIO, a 100 from the
State and County Municipal Employees, that doesn’t make you a moderate!
You know what it makes you? It makes you someone who had a voting
record almost identical to Ted Kennedy’s, but you look at that and the
media says “that’s a moderate.” So they are either lying, or it shows
you unequivocally, how far to the left they really are if they consider
that a moderate position. It can’t be anything else, Amanda!
Let’s talk about the debates. Do you think Tim Russert did a good
job? Who do you think of the moderators are giving her the fairest
shake?
I don’t know that anyone is doing a good job because no one is talking
about substance. Diamonds or pearls? Boxers or briefs? Here we go
again. The networks are doing a great disservice to the public when
they will not focus on the issues, and the formats of these debates are
silly with the one minute answers. Hillary Clinton is a genius at
speaking for an entire minute without saying anything. She’s very, very
good at this. No one ever pins them down. To me, it’s not the question
that’s important, it’s the follow-up question. Go back to her pink
dress press conference when the media just had a unanimous orgasm over
her that night in the news about the wonderful performance that she put
on, and it was just that: a performance. She didn’t answer any
questions, but the incredible thing was if you go back and look at it,
whenever she gave a non-answer to a question, no one ever challenged
her on it.
This is, allegedly, the most brilliant woman on the face of
the earth unless she has to answer a question. She says, “I don’t know
how the Rose Law Firm records got into my bedroom. I don’t know how
those FBI files ended up in the White House. I don’t know who hired the
guy I hired.” And then they accept it!
So why is that? Does it have anything to do with the fact that she’s a woman and they don’t know what to do with her?
I don’t know that. I don’t know that it is a negative gender
situation; I think it is positive gender situation. I don’t think they
treat her with kid gloves because she’s a woman. That was never the
case with Marilyn Quayle. It never applied to Jean Kirkpatrick. That
doesn’t apply to Laura Ingraham, or Ann Coulter, or you. It doesn’t
apply to conservative women ever. So that’s not the issue. I think it’s
exactly the opposite. It’s because they are so supportive of her. They
don’t want to ask her tough questions.
There is just a gaggle of pom-pom queens from the network that
Hillary can turn to and does turn to every time she has a problem and
they just run interference for her.
One of the themes we found in the book is that every time someone
raises a criticism of her, that person is put on trial for the audacity
of bringing it up. Look at the way they’ve handled books about her. She
dismissed it all as old news, but when she wrote her book, giving her
side of the story, every red carpet in town came out for her.
Who do you think gives Hillary the most softball questions, who is the worst interviewer? Is there one?
I would say the worst one because she is so pathetic is Maria
Shriver, but quantitatively probably Katie Couric. If you go through
the book and read some of the transcripts of he interviews you see it
is embarrassing, just embarrassing that this woman was hired as a
“reporter.”
But don’t you think these reporters come into it with the attitude
that if we’re not nice to Hillary we won’t get interviews with her? How
does this access angle play into it?
We know that is an absolute fact of life. We just saw it again last
month with the GQ article on Bill Clinton that was killed because word
came down if they ever wanted access to them they needed to kill that
article that had critical things to say. So, they killed it. If a
conservative or a Republican tried that that person would have hell to
pay, but that’s a fact of life. It’s an intimidation factor.
As she gets closer to the presidency the press might be more willing
to go after her because just because she’s in power. Is she getting as
taste of that now?
She’s getting a taste of it, Amanda, but it’s been manically blown out
of proportion. The “taste” that she’s getting is NOTHING compared to
the “taste” Cheney gets every day. The reason it stands out is because
she’s gotten no taste of it. Isn’t it interesting when a reporter with
the audacity to ask her a single question of substance that reporter is
vilified. Look at what happened to Tim Russert when he asked her about
the driver’s licenses for illegals. He was vilified for this. Now, go
to the book and you’ll find that is exactly what happened to the very
same Tim Russert when he asked her in 2000 why she wouldn’t apologize
to conservatives for the slanderous “vast-right wing conspiracy”
accusation?
The way the media has fawned over her had led to the development of
alternative media, like what you’re doing and Townhall and others. Has
this helped the conservative movement?
I’ve said this many times and I will say it again. God help this
country if there weren’t an alternative media at this point. God help
this country if there wasn’t talk radio and the internet because what
you would be getting is nothing more than the press releases of the
left.
But the establishment media has become radicalized because of
the new media. They are far more aggressive in promoting a left-wing
agenda in this country. Witness their coverage of the war. And, if it
weren’t for the alternative media the country wouldn’t know anything
about Hillary Clinton other than what her press releases say.
Source: Townhall.com
Liberal Media is Hillary’s Secret Weapon
By Amanda Carpenter
Monday, December 3, 2007
Democratic
presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) smiles during a
campaign rally stop in Cedar Rapids, Iowa December 2, 2007.
REUTERS/Carlos Barria (UNITED STATES)
Related Media:
VIDEO:
Senator Hillary Clinton Campaigns In St. Louis
VIDEO:
NH Man Charged, Clinton Resumes Campaign
VIDEO:
'So Grateful'
Fair tax is not a joke even if Rich Lowry thinks it is.
Mike Huckabee is not running a
substance-free campaign based on biography and applause lines. No, the
former Arkansas governor has the distinction of advocating the most
radical -- and politically unsalable and substantively daft -- proposal
of any major presidential candidate of either party.
It is the so-called FairTax. It would eliminate the income and payroll
taxes and replace them with a (supposedly) 23 percent national sales
tax. Not given to rhetorical understatement, Huckabee says, "When the
FairTax becomes law, it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us
from pain and unfairness." Waving a magic wand is about right -- since
the FairTax is a bedtime story for IRS-hating conservatives. Huckabee adopted the plan when he, unknown and languishing far back
in the polls, was a Not Ready for Prime Time Player. It probably seemed
a cheap way to inoculate Huckabee from his tax-raising history as
Arkansas governor. Huckabee both raised and cut taxes during his 10
years as governor, but his tax hikes outweighed his tax cuts by half a
billion dollars.
An editorial in the newspaper The (Arkansas) Leader recounting
Huckabee's tax increases reads like a roll call of most of economic
life. Huckabee repeatedly increased or expanded the sales tax; hiked
the corporate income tax; imposed an income-tax surcharge on
individuals and domestic and foreign corporations; raised the tax on
gasoline and diesel fuel; taxed admission to theme parks and other
tourist activities; taxed snuff, cigarettes, mixed drinks, private
clubs and retail sales of beer; and so on. To all of this, Huckabee can
now respond, "Yes, but I want to eliminate the IRS."
Tactically, the FairTax offered Huckabee a built-in cadre of
activists in the crucial state of Iowa. He knew that he needed to do
well in August's Iowa straw poll, where just a few hundred votes either
way could make all the difference. As the champion of the FairTax, he
tapped into the busloads of FairTax supporters there, finishing second
and beating fellow social conservative Sen. Sam Brownback -- who was
never heard from again -- by less than 400 votes.
So the FairTax has given Huckabee a convenient talking point,
and it boosted him in a key test of Iowa strength five months before
anyone actually votes. For the seat-of-the-pants Huckabee operation,
this must make it ipso facto good policy. Never mind that it is
unworkable and would be politically deadly in a general election.
To avoid the risk of getting both a national sales tax and an
income tax, FairTaxers would have to repeal the 16th Amendment. Good
luck. Huckabee's magic wand will come in handy. Then, there's the rate of the sales tax. FairTaxers say that
a 23 percent rate would be enough to replace current revenues. What
they really are talking about is a tax of 30 cents on every dollar --
what most people would consider a 30 percent rate. The government would
pay the tax on all its purchases, a gimmick "done solely to make
revenues under the FairTax seem larger than they really are," writes
economist Bruce Bartlett. Budget trickery aside, the congressional
Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that the rate would have to
go as high as 57 percent.
The tax would apply to everything, even medical expenses, so
it would amount to an incredibly regressive tax on even the most
necessary purchases of low- and middle-income taxpayers. The home
mortgage deduction would be gone, and instead buyers would pay a 30
percent (at least) tax on their homes. To make up for this burden, the
government would send monthly "prebate" checks to all Americans based
on income. (And you thought our current tax scheme was complex?)
Any of these points makes the FairTax so vulnerable to attack
that it would kick away the tax issue as a Republican strength. This is
why no serious candidate would ever endorse it. And why, despite his
stupefying rise in Iowa and other states, Huckabee seems likable and
talented -- but still something less than a serious candidate.
Source: Townhall.com
Huck's Daft Tax Plan
By Rich Lowry
Monday, December 3, 2007
Republican
presidential candidate former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee arrives
to speak to the Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce in Concord, New
Hampshire November 30, 2007. REUTERS/Brian Snyder (UNITED STATES)
Related Media:
VIDEO:
Belief in Huckabee
VIDEO:
Huckabee Surging
VIDEO:
Mike Huckabee
Dems and the Union - not good for America in 2008
Tuesday,November 5, 2007
Source: Spotlight from Townhall.com
Unions’ Power Grab Threatens Democracy, Funds Left
Did you know that the radical Left and its labor union allies have a scheme to dump billions of new money into political races in support of left wing candidates?
Their plan is to end the requirement for secret ballots in unionizing elections and to substitute a process called “card check” that would let union organizers intimidate and coerce workers into joining a union by signing cards publicly, instead of casting ballots in private.
Union leaders like Andy Stern are crowing that “card check” will mean “unions will grow by 1.5 million members a year, not just for five years but for 10 to 15 straight years.” That’s why organized labor expects up to $5 billion in new forced dues as unions organize thousands of additional workplaces.
This windfall will provide labor and the far left with unprecedented political resources and power. The federal government will grow, taxes will rise, social entitlement programs will swell, and free-market policies will be eliminated.
In 2007 unions successfully passed a “card check” law through the House and convinced a majority of Senators to vote to eradicate workplace democracy. Only the threat of an extended filibuster stopped their drive in the Senate. But the unions expect to have enough Senate votes after the 2008 elections.
But there is good news. When asked which system they prefer, the public overwhelmingly chooses secret ballots over “card check” (78%-12%). Yet few Americans are aware of organized labor’s back room lobbying that threatens to push “card check” passage in early 2009.
Unless the public hears about this potential hijacking of democracy in their workplace, they won’t object to it. And they need to hear about it soon and often.
Investor's Business Daily notes, The Center for Union Facts is leading the fight against this power grab by the far left. We are conducting a national campaign to educate the American public. Please visit our website www.UnionFacts.com to learn more about our extensive research and national ad campaigns informing the public about the union assault on workplace democracy.
Fair tax sounds fair to me.
Last week during the Republican
presidential debate televised by CNN there was a thunderous reaction
from the crowd upon Governor Mike Huckabee’s mention of the FairTax.
CNN, in fact, said that Huckabee’s mention of the FairTax during that
debate brought the strongest positive audience reaction they’ve seen to
this point. Many reasons have been cited for Mike Huckabee’s surprisingly
strong showing in the polling ahead of the Iowa Caucus, among those
reason’s being Huckabee’s endorsement of the FairTax. This comes as no
huge surprise to either Congressman John Linder or me. When we saw The
FairTax Book debut No. 1 on the New York Times Bestsellers list in 2005
we knew the FairTax was a tax reform plan that the people were going to
love. The people … but not necessarily the politicians.
There is simply not the space here to fully describe the FairTax
here. Let’s just say that it replaces all corporate and personal
federal income and payroll taxes, along with capital gains taxes and
the death tax, with one federal embedded sales tax at the retail level.
You don’t pay any more for your toilet paper and milk than you do now,
you get your entire paycheck, and April 15th becomes just another
Spring day. You can buy The FairTax Book if you want to know more, or
visit www.fairtax.org.
Once again, though, I find myself offering a column in response
to still more absurd – irresponsibly so – attacks on the FairTax. This
time the attacks come from Washington Times political reporter Donald
Lambro and Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. Both of
these men are too smart to have written what has been attributed to
them, so we must suspect the work of ill-informed research assistants
or staffers. Actually, I’m just trying to be nice. They may really
believe what they’ve been saying. Let’s deal with Donald Lambro first and just let Rudy twist in the wind for a few moments longer.
Lambro’s misrepresentation of the FairTax is particularly
distressing in light of the fact that I think that he’s a very gifted
writer. I’ve used his columns for program fodder many times. We’re all
entitled to a bad day though, and this time Lambro blew it. Lambro’s
column, which appeared yesterday here at Townhall.com, was titled “Not
Everyone Loves Huckabee.” That column contained this gem of a reference
to the FairTax: “Huckabee says he would like to eliminate the
Internal Revenue Service and replace the income tax with the so-called
Fair Tax, which would impose a national sales tax on virtually
everything we buy. But such a tax would be a disaster for this country,
especially for low- and middle-income Americans who spend a
disproportionate portion of their earnings -- in many cases all of it
-- on the necessities of life.” What? Can it be even remotely possible that Donald Lambro has
taken any time at all to study the FairTax? If so, it sure doesn’t show
in his writings. Permit me, please, to set you straight. Lambro is right in asserting that some people actually spend
all of their earnings just buying the basic necessities of life. What
Lambro obviously doesn’t understand is that under the FairTax every
single legal household in this country would receive a check (probably
in the form of a credit to a charge account or a debit card) every
month equal to the amount of the FairTax which that family would be
expected to pay on those necessities during the ensuing month. By way
of example, using current poverty statistics the “prebate” for a
household of four people would be $506.00 per month. Add that $506.00
to the fact that no household will see anything deducted from their
checks for income taxes or for Social Security or Medicare taxes … and
you see a substantial rise in real income for the very families that
Donald Lambro was so concerned about; the poor and middle income. The
president’s own tax reform commission stated that the FairTax was the
only tax reform plan out there that would completely untax the poor (at
the federal level). How does that square with Lambro’s dire warnings on
the effect of the FairTax? Now … Rudy Giuliani. Yesterday the AP reported that Giuliani
said that the FairTax would hurt homebuyers. Rudy said “I think there
are several tax deductions that are vital to our economy. This would
not be a good time – I don’t know if there would ever be a good time to
do this – to advocate ending the home mortgage deduction. The home
mortgage deduction is considered by many critical to the ability of
people to buy a home and keep their home.” Giuliani just can’t be serious on this. Since he clearly hasn’t thought this through, let’s do it for him.
What does the home mortgage interest deduction do for people?
Simple: It allows them to deduct the amount of interest they’ve paid on
their home mortgage from their taxable income. This results in a lower
taxable income figure and lower taxes. Now .. let’s approach one of
these home owners and ask them a simple question. Would you rather have
a nice income tax deduction so that your taxes would be lower, or would
you not have to pay income taxes at all? The point here is so
ridiculously easy even a politician can understand it --- a tax
deduction is of no value whatsoever to someone who does not owe taxes!
Under the FairTax all income taxes are gone! You are never going to
find someone whining that they wish they owed some taxes so that they
could make use of a tax deduction. Congressman Linder, the author of H.R. 25, The FairTax Act,
and I have authored another book “FairTax, The Truth: Answering the
Critics.” This book, published by Harper Collins, will hit the
bookstores on March 11, 2008. We offer our regrets and apologies to
Lambro and Giuliani for not sending them a manuscript of this book when
we finished it three weeks ago. It might have kept them from making
fools of themselves.
Source: Townhall.com
Responding to still more absurd attacks on the FairTax
By Neal Boortz
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
free trade - liberal or conservative?
Other than the fight against radical
Islam, the efficacy of free trade may be the most important issue
pending before the American people and our government. Since the end of
World War II, the principle of free trade has defined U.S. economic
policy -- and thus, to a large extent, the world's economy.
Globalization is the product of a long half-century of American
free-trade policy.
Until the 1980s, it was not even a debated point. Both
Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives largely supported
free trade. During the past 20 years, doubt has emerged on the question
of whether Americans gain or lose from free trade. But the Bill Clinton
presidency, in full partnership with the Newt Gingrich Republican
Congress, fully supported free trade.
However, even in the 1990s, the Democratic Congress only
begrudgingly voted with half its caucus for Clinton and Gingrich's
NAFTA. About two-thirds of the Republican caucus voted yes. Then, by
about 40 percent to 30 percent, Republican voters thought free trade
was good for America (with the remainder saying it made no difference).
Now, according to an October 2007 Wall Street Journal poll, by 59
percent to 32 percent, Republicans think foreign (free) trade has been
bad for America. Democrats are (SET ITAL) more (END ITAL) negative.
Many other polls confirm this trend over the past two decades.
Thus, it was not surprising that this Monday, the Financial
Times gave their lead headline (plus a 3-by-6-inch above-the-fold color
photo) to Hillary Clinton on her statement that she doubted the
benefits of the upcoming world-trade talks in Doha, Qatar. As her
campaign is largely premised on the proclaimed wisdom and success of
her and her husband's previous presidency, it is noteworthy in the
extreme that she is breaking with her co-president (some guy named
Bill, I think) on the question of free trade.
Whether Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Party presidential
nomination or not, few would doubt that she has shrewdly assessed the
most useful position to hold on the issue. The Democratic Party is now,
essentially, an anti-free-trade party. The Republican Party remains, at
least at the presidential level, a pro-free-trade party, as exemplified
by Rudy Giuliani's statement: "Our philosophy has to be not how many
protectionist measures can we put in place, but how do we invent new
things to sell" abroad. "That's the view of the future. What
(protectionists) are trying to do is lock in the inadequacies of the
past."
Are you certain, Rudy? Republicans venture forth into the 2008
election campaign with such an unquestioning free-trade policy at their
peril. Certainly the most politically gifted of the Republican
candidates, Mike Huckabee, sees that peril.
Huckabee, sounding like a Democrat, has expressed concern that
free trade can lead to an unfair loss of American jobs: "If somebody in
the presidency doesn't begin to understand that we can't have free
trade if it's not fair trade, we're going to continually see people who
have worked for 20 and 30 years for companies one day walk in and get
the pink slip and told, 'I'm sorry, but everything you spent your life
working for is no longer here.'"
Classic free-traders may impute such words by both Hillary and
Huckabee to cynicism, populism and demagogy, but it is just possible
that the American people may sense a real danger that the elites,
heavily invested in the globalization project, cannot see yet.
It is noteworthy that Hillary cites the newfound free-trade
skepticism of Paul Samuelson (arguably the most important free-trade
economist of the second half of the 20th century). It was his 2004
article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives that triggered my
decision to reassess the value of free trade. I still have not been
persuaded to give up free trade, but it has become debatable. (I still
believe the statistic that about 10 percent of our economic activity is
the result of foreign trade. Thus, in a protectionist environment, we
would be, as a nation, 10 percent poorer each year. That is a huge
factor for decreased prosperity, when compounded over the decades.)
However the Republican Party will be making not only a
political mistake, but possibly a policy mistake of the first order if
it does not vigorously engage in that emerging debate.
Samuelson argues: "Correct Ricardian theory does imply that
worldwide real income per capita does gain so that winners' winnings
will suffice worldwide to more than compensate losers' losings." But
Samuelson worries that the wealthy countries (the United States, above
all) may be the losers, while India, China and other developing
countries may be the winners.
What the country (and the Republican Party) needs is an
intelligent, nonbelligerent debate, not the mere recitation of ancient
maxims that may or may not be valid in a world in which potentially 2
billion Chinese and Indian workers suddenly have been thrown into the
world labor market. Maybe that won't put severe downward pressure on
American wages (and salaries of many white-collar workers), but it
ought to be worrying.
Source: Townhall.com
Hillary, Huckabee and Trade; It's Time for a Free-Trade Debate
By Tony Blankley
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
U.S.
Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike
Huckabee speaks to voters during a campaign stop in Newton, Iowa,
December 4, 2007. REUTERS/Jason Reed (UNITED STATES)
Related Media:
VIDEO:
Belief in Huckabee
VIDEO:
On the Move
Hillary Clinton's government takeover plan
Bad Medicine: Hillarycare for the Housing Market
By Michelle Malkin
CNSNews.com Commentary
December 05, 2007
If
you thought Hillary Clinton's government takeover plan for health care
was bad, wait 'til you see what she has in store for the housing
sector. As always with the Clintons, the market is the problem and Big
Nanny is the solution. Unfortunately for taxpayers, Hillary has
bipartisan company in the Bush administration on this issue. Their
election season prescription? Rewarding bad behavior. Punishing
responsible behavior. Doing more harm than good.
In case you've
been living in a cave, there's a painful credit crunch underway. The
culprit is the subprime mortgage -- a species of risky home loans to
buyers with dubious credit and income. Cash-rich lenders doled out the
subprimes hoping rising home prices would compensate for any failed
bets. But when housing prices started plummeting and interest rates
began rising, many borrowers started defaulting. Insolvency looms for
countless lenders.
Instead of letting lenders and subprime
mortgage-holders suffer the consequences of their actions, politicians
and grievance-mongers are riding to the supposed rescue. In a supreme
irony, the very same champions of the needy in the Democrat Party who
complain constantly about the lack of "affordable housing" are now
fighting tooth and nail to keep housing prices high.
To "cure"
the housing crisis, Hillary wants a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures
for homeowners who default on subprimes. In addition, she wants a
five-year freeze on the monthly rate for subprime adjustable mortgages.
While she demonizes lenders as predatory out of one side of her mouth,
the other side of her mouth is floating legislation to protect lenders
from lawsuits and let them convert certain mortgages into "stable,
affordable loans." On top of all that federal meddling, she proposes a
$5 billion -- yes, that's "billion" with a "b" -- fund to "help
communities suffering from high rates of foreclosures."
Jesse
Jackson is also stirring the pot. With subprime victim sob stories
flooding the news and anecdotes of minority homeowners in trouble,
there's no way the shakedown king could stay away. But the subprime
mess isn't a result of ruthless racial discrimination. If anything,
it's the result of too little discrimination by lenders too willing and
eager to sign on people who had no business taking on mortgages. (And
you know Jesse Jackson would be screaming either way. The lenders are
damned if they lend and damned if they don't.)
Let's boil this
down to fundamentals: Why should the rest of us have to shoulder the
burden because some buyers made poor choices, overextended themselves
and bought more house than they could afford? Why should other business
owners bear the costs of lenders' failed bets? And why are falling home
prices such a catastrophe to be "fixed" in the first place? Sacramento
Bee columnist Daniel Weintraub put it well:
"It is great news
when the price of energy, food, transportation, health care and
consumer electronics drops. But for some reason it is bad news when the
price of shelter drops. . . . Shouldn't we be seeing stories filled
with anecdotes about formerly priced-out middle-income families finally
getting their chance at the American Dream?"
There's another
side of the housing crunch equation that's not making it onto the
newspaper front pages and presidential campaign websites. "For every
house sold because the buyer couldn't make the payments," Weintraub
notes, "there is a buyer on the other end of that transaction who got a
good deal. And for every foreclosure, there are probably 10 buyers of
nearby homes who benefited from the general easing of house-price
pressure." Bingo.
Fiscal conservatives ought to be balking at
Hillarycare for housing. But President Bush's treasury secretary, Hank
Paulson, is singing a similar tune. He proposed a new safety net to
stem the tide of home foreclosures through a bailout plan for
homeowners with bad credit scores. They'd be eligible for relief from
paying hundreds of dollars in additional monthly payments when their
mortgage rates reset. Those who have been responsible enough to
maintain good credit, however, will be out of luck. In addition,
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has proposed that
government-sponsored mortgage enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be
allowed to raise their loan limits and have their debt explicitly
guaranteed by the public dole.
Lawmakers on both sides of the
aisle are colluding to protect the reckless and keep home prices high
on the backs of prudent taxpayers. Who'll bail us out from this
perversion of the American Dream?
What the left really thinks. They're not bias, they're not.
Source: Times Watch
Editor Bill Keller, Unleashed in London: "A War Going Very Badly in Iraq"
Times Executive Editor
Bill Keller proudly states of his paper: "We do not work in the service
of a party, or an industry, or even a country" and went after
"hate-mongering radio broadcasts."
Posted by:
Clay Waters
12/5/2007 9:22:43 AM
Times Executive Editor Bill Keller delivered the Hugo
Young Memorial Lecture in London last week, sponsored by the liberal
Guardian newspaper, and said some things to his journalistic friends he
might not have felt comfortable telling a more general audience.
In remarks reminiscent of those made a year and a half ago in a college commencement speech by his boss, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Keller unleashed his liberalism before a friendly audience.
"Whatever you think of its policies, the current administration has been more secretive, more mistrustful of an inquisitive press, than any since the Nixon administration. It has treated freedom of information requests with contempt, asserted sweeping claims of executive privilege, even reclassified material that had been declassified. The administration has subsidized propaganda at home and abroad, refined the art of spin, discouraged dissent, and sought to limit traditional congressional oversight and court review. The war in Iraq alone is a case study of the administration's determination to dominate the flow of information -- from the original cherry-picking of intelligence, to the deliberate refusal to hear senior military officers when they warned of the potential for chaos, to the continually inflated claims about the progress in building up an indigenous Iraqi army."
….
"For
one thing, I strongly suspect that these attempts to enforce a single,
authorized version of 'The Truth' have backfired. The evidence for that
lies in the identity of some of our best sources. They are military
officers appalled by the rosy portrayal of our triumphs in Iraq,
government lawyers disturbed by what they see as a cavalier attitude
toward civil liberties and the balance of powers, career intelligence
officers who feel their work has been massaged to conform to what their
superiors want to hear. As our media columnist David Carr once wrote:
leaks tend to affect ships that aren't seaworthy to begin with.
"The
distaste for debate and dissent has another, higher cost. Fighting
terrorists, whatever method you choose, depends on making alliances at
home and abroad. It depends on a consensus of the civilized world. And
I wonder whether the discrediting of honest critics, the unwillingness
to trust anyone except a cohort of diehard loyalists -- has undermined
the unity of purpose essential to such a struggle."
….
"Besides a decided preference for operating in the dark, the Bush administration has contributed to the woes of the press in another way. It has helped create a toxic climate for the press by inflaming the polarization of our public. At least since the election of 2000, with its attendant questions of legitimacy, some of the wide, reasonable middle of the American electorate has gravitated to angry and intolerant fringes, right and left. There are many reasons for this -- including the proliferation of partisan blogs, hate-mongering radio broadcasts and intemperate television shout shows -- but a president plays a considerable role in setting the tone of public discourse, and the tone of public discourse in my country has been nasty. It has been nasty by design; dividing the electorate into mistrustful camps and pandering to their fears was an explicit strategy of the president's political wizard, Karl Rove."
….
"Too often, though, the critics are shrill, personal, and humorless - neo-Bolsheviks and mini-McCarthy's. After our decision to report on the government's warrantless wiretapping program, some members of the administration's amen chorus proposed that the Times be charged with treason under the Espionage Act. A right-wing radio pundit suggested that I be put to death. And another defender of the national interest posted maps to my apartment -- and my publishers' -- on the internet, for the benefit of any lunatics who wanted to drop by and set us straight. Those of you who are acquainted with New York apartment life can imagine how that went over with my co-op board."
This from the editor of the paper that in June 2006 showed how to find the weekend homes of Vice President Cheney and former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.
"And I would argue that in this clattering, interconnected, dangerous world, journalism that cuts through the noise has never been needed more. We have a war going very badly in Iraq, and another one in Afghanistan where our declaration of victory looks very premature."
If Keller still thinks the Iraq war is "going very badly" even after the troop surge, perhaps he should read the front http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20071120115553.aspx page of his paper.
And for a laugh, check this out:
"Third, we are agnostic as to where a story may lead; we do not go into a story with an agenda or a pre-conceived notion. We do not manipulate or hide facts to advance an agenda. We strive to preserve our independence from political and economic interests, including our own advertisers. We do not work in the service of a party, or an industry, or even a country. When there are competing views of a situation, we aim to reflect them as clearly and fairly as we can."
The Times doesn't work in the service of the United States? We can believe that.
Who's the real Conservative? - Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani was in Washington on Tuesday
to raise money and to see me. In a nondescript office building two blocks
from the White House, Giuliani answered a wide range of questions on
domestic and foreign policy.
Two hours after a news conference by President Bush on the subject of the
newest National Intelligence Estimate, which said Iran had suspended its
nuclear weapons program in 2003, Giuliani said the report should not be seen
in isolation from Iran's behavior and rhetoric over the last 30 years.
Noting Iran's expressed goal of destroying Israel, Giuliani said, "We are
not going to allow (Iran) to become a nuclear power (because) the regime,
not just particular individuals, but the regime, has been too irresponsible
for that to happen. The worst nightmare of the Cold War was that nuclear
weapons would be in the hands of irresponsible individuals. They qualify as
irresponsible, both as individuals and as a regime." He said the military
option against Iran is "more likely" if they are allowed to become a nuclear
power.
Does he see this as a good time to meet with Iranian leaders? "Only if I
felt we were in a position of sufficient strength that we had the leverage.
I would not do it the way the Democrats are suggesting we do it, which is
without preconditions. It's very naive to think you can have negotiations
with people who are dictators, tyrants and supporters of terrorism without
preconditions." That seemed aimed at Sen. Barack Obama, who has said as
president he would "engage" Iranian leaders.
Giuliani is "concerned" that Russian President Vladimir Putin has "taken
several steps back toward a more totalitarian government." He would not
submit to Putin's desire to avoid a missile shield in Europe. "Just do it,"
Giuliani said. He also would borrow from Ronald Reagan's military buildup,
because he believes neither the Russian or Chinese economies could keep up.
That, he said, would lessen the likelihood of an arms race.
On domestic issues, Giuliani said there are three parts to fiscal
conservatism: reduce spending, cut taxes and make sure regulations are
"moderate and sensible as opposed to regulating businesses out of your state
or country." Pressed on which agencies he would eliminate, he said he would
rely on an Office of Management and Budget report card and seek 10 percent
spending reductions in all agencies, except for the military. Mostly, he
says he would reduce the size and cost of government through attrition.
"Forty-two percent (of civilian federal workers) are going to retire in the
next 8 to 10 years." By not hiring replacements, he estimates $22 to $23
billion could be saved.
Of greatest interest to social conservatives is Giuliani's pledge to
nominate only "strict constructionists" to the federal courts. Why would a
supporter of "choice" on abortion nominate judges likely to overturn Roe v.
Wade? "My view of a strict constructionist or originalist judge who sticks
with the plain meaning of the Constitution comes from my judicial
philosophy. It's not that I want one particular decision changed." He added
that originalists might have "different views on this" and that precedent
might trump even a wrongly decided case like Roe. Or, he said, the justices
could overturn it. He cited the Second Amendment case the Supreme Court
agreed to consider as a fine example of strict constructionism and noted
that Judge Laurence Silberman read "The Federalist Papers" and other
writings and speeches at the time the Bill of Rights was written to see what
the authors intended.
With Hillary Clinton's numbers declining in Iowa, according to the latest
USA Today/Gallup Poll (his are, too) does he have a Plan B in case Obama
wins the nomination? "It's the same plan," he said. "The electoral map is
roughly the same for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama." But this time, he
said, Republicans can't afford to allow the election to come down to one
state as occurred in 2000 (Florida) and 2004 (Ohio). He thinks he can
compete better in states that are close and even where Democrats are strong,
particularly in the Northeast and Midwest.
On personal matters, such as his three marriages, Giuliani says he should be
judged on his ability to do the job. He mentions that some of our greatest
presidents had personal failings. True, but let's see if he can sell that to
the "values voters." If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, he might. Possibly
less so if it's Obama.
Source: Townhall.com
Rudy Strictly Speaking
By Cal Thomas
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Republican
presidential candidate, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani,
speaks at a town hall meeting in Boca Raton, Florida November , 2007.
REUTERS/Joe Skipper (UNITED STATES)
Related Media:
VIDEO:
Guiliani's Tactics Could Haunt Him
VIDEO:
HamNation: With Team Giuliani
VIDEO:
Crime Fighter
Speak English, Speak English, Speak English PLEASE
One of the most unreported stories of the past month is Democrats in
Congress refusing to protect the Salvation Army and other similar
organizations from lawsuits for requiring their employees to be able to
speak English on the job. This policy issue is also important
politically, and Republicans will benefit politically by doing the
right thing.
John Fund’s recent Wall Street Journal article reveals this absurd
situation. Lawsuits have been brought by individuals and the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission against employers like the Salvation
Army for requiring their employees to learn English within one year.
The Salvation Army is only requiring English in performing work duties,
not what language workers use in the break room, and gives them a full
12 months to learn the language. Yet the EEOC and certain groups are
suing.
The problem is that this bill includes all the money for the Justice
Department and the FBI. Critical national security, terrorist
prevention, and law enforcement dollars are in that bill, and Mrs.
Pelosi is caving to pressure from radical liberal groups, and in the
process, selling out what’s best for immigrants.
I say radical liberal groups because the vast majority of Americans
disagree with them. Over 80% of Americans think English should be the
official language of government, almost 90% think it’s very important
for immigrants to be able to speak English, and over 75% believe that
employers have the right to require employees to speak English while on
the job.
The only ones who don’t think English should be the official language
are liberal activists trying to recast America in their image. Those
activists also form a large part of the Democratic base, and would be
unforgiving of a Democratic presidential candidate who refuses to
promise amnesty, driver licenses, and free health care to illegal
immigrants.
Americans should disagree with this radical agenda. The simple fact is
English is the commercial language of America. We speak it in business,
in school, and in the press. In a workplace, it’s important for safety,
morale, and customer relations for everyone to be able to speak a
common language.
Being fluent in English is essential if you want to succeed in America.
If you’re bilingual, that’s even better, but a top priority for success
is being able to speak English in the workplace and in the public
square. Someone who can speak English can compete for better jobs, with
better pay. Someone who can speak English improves their chances to
have a better future for themselves and their children.
This is not just a Hispanic issue, or even an immigrant issue. I grew
up in the inner city of Cincinnati, became mayor of that fine city, and
served as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights
Commission. One of the greatest keys I have found to success for a
young ethnic and racial minority in America today is the ability to
speak, read, and write English clearly and persuasively. Anyone with
good English skills can get better jobs and opportunities, and enjoy a
much better life.
If you care about a child in America today, then you want that child to
be able to speak English. Regardless of color or culture, a child who
knows how to communicate in English improves his or her chances for
success exponentially. And part of getting children to be able to speak
English is helping their parents to achieve a basic proficiency in the
language by establishing some common sense requirements.
This is an issue the press needs to cover. There should be more
articles and interviews on this issue. Yet John Fund’s article is one
of the only articles out there.
CNN should be asking this kind of question to candidates during
debates, instead of ambushing Republicans with Clinton campaign plants
to emphasize the issues that liberal CNN producers consider more
important.
But the reason CNN doesn’t talk about this is the reason conservatives
should talk about it. Good policy is good politics. This is a perfect
example of an issue where Republicans doing the right thing will help
them in the polls. Republicans can unite the country by emphasizing
English education, and holding the line on this legislation.
I’d like to see Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have to take a stand on this amendment.
An old adage says, “Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day. Teach a
man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime.” Give a person special
coddling treatment in his native language, and he’ll get through the
day. Teach an immigrant, or anyone in this country, how to master the
English language, and he can soar on eagle wings to capture the fullest
measure of the American dream.
That is one thing all of us should support.
Source: Townhall.com
Giving the Gift of English
By Ken Blackwell
Thursday, December 6, 2007
World War IV - This could be America under sharia law.
Here we go again. Thousands of Sudanese Muslims took to the street last
week to threaten death to a British schoolteacher in Khartoum.
Her crime? She inadvertently committed the felony of allowing her class to name a teddy bear “Muhammad.”
Watch out if Westerners somewhere are judged blasphemous to Islam when
they draw a cartoon, write a novel, make a movie or discuss history.
In their furious reaction, thin-skinned Muslims may issue death
threats. And they expect apologies. Sometimes the offense — like the
reporting of a Koran flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo Bay — turns
out to be false but still causes riots and murdering thousands of miles
away.
Likewise, the reaction to this madness is now stereotyped.
Often apologies — not condemnation — follow from contrite Westerners.
To prevent a recurrence, Western writers, filmmakers, teachers and
religious figures quietly edit their work and restrict their speech —
but only when Islam is involved.
So-called moderate Muslims, often residing in Western
countries, will usually say they deplore such extremism on the part of
radicals. Then they claim such intolerance is simply not typical of
Islam. Or that the embarrassing story has been reported in exaggerated
fashion by those prejudiced against Muslims.
Few, though, ever explain why it is that Muslims — not Hindus,
Christians, Buddhists or atheists — are in the global news threatening
to kill someone over a toy or a cartoon or an opera.
Finally, the uproar dies down — only to break out again in a new place over a new grievance.
There are certain unspoken rules of the game behind all these
incidents. The first is the lack of reciprocity. Christ can be mocked
in the Middle East without any consequences.
Muslim leaders can venture to the Vatican at Rome, the ancient
center of Christianity, to consult with the pope about the necessity of
more interfaith understanding. But should a pope or clergyman want to
reciprocate by venturing to Mecca, he better convert to Islam first.
New mosques and conversions to Islam are common in the West. But to
send missionaries to, or build a new church in, Saudi Arabia, Sudan or
Pakistan is to court death.
Condescension is also required. The demonstrator who waves a
sword calling for a beheading is often excused. The poor guy must not
be educated, rather than just cruel and dangerous. “We’re so sorry for
the little mix-up” is the public Western answer to the shout of “Death
to you!” We also know why all this won’t stop, whether in Pakistan or
Sudan — or whether over a cartoon or a teddy bear or who knows what
next.
A globalized world means communications are instantaneous. What
one person in Denmark draws is broadcast immediately to millions in
Islamabad and Khartoum. And they are apparently glued to, but very
angry at, the modern world that pops up on their television screens.
The Muslim Middle East has much of the world’s oil. So its
excesses are put up with by the rest of the world rather than loudly
condemned. But after 9/11 and the bombings in Madrid and London,
Islamists screaming for a beheading cannot quite be laughed off.
Instead they may be the vanguard of something far worse.
Decades of multiculturalism have brainwashed Europeans and
Westerners into believing that Islamic furor must be judged in a
special cultural context, or is only understood through some real past
grievance, usually dating back to the Crusades.
Sometimes apologists dredge up Timothy McVeigh or violence in
Northern Ireland as if to prove that supposed Christian-inspired
terrorism is just as much a world danger as jihadism. We know it isn’t,
but such moral equivalence sounds liberal and might calm down the mob.
Other times we drag Iraq into the conversation and say the
armed removal of Saddam radicalized Muslims — as if the fatwa against
Salman Rushdie or 9/11 followed the outbreak of that war.
What would stop this unhealthy teddy bear syndrome?
— Weaning ourselves off imported oil and therefore the need to appease those who have it.
— Politely informing Muslims that Westerners believe the norms
of free speech and expression are to be uniformly applied. No one
religion or region gets a special pass.
— Supporting human rights abroad and offering some
constitutional alternative in the Middle East to theocracy and
dictatorship that both encourage Islamic radicalism.
— And remaining militarily strong.
Remember that the fanatic waving his age-old sword in the
Khartoum street over a teddy bear shows the same dangerous derangement
as the nut in Tehran who may one day want his hand on the Bomb.
Source: Townhall.com
Of Teddy Bears and Cartoons
By Victor Davis Hanson
Thursday, December 6, 2007
This is why we need the fair tax.
Albert Einstein once remarked, “The hardest
thing in the world to understand is the income tax.” Since Einstein’s
admission, our tax code has only grown more complicated and now it is
poised to force 20 million middle class Americans to pay an extra $65
billion in taxes over the next four years. And if the tax cuts of 2003
expire, a staggering 115 million taxpayers will be hit with a $1700 tax
increase. One of the most pressing domestic priorities facing this
extended Congress is passing legislation to address the alternative
minimum tax (AMT) that will slap millions of Americans with new taxes. Although many Americans may not be focused on
tax day just yet, the ears of most tax-payers perk up at the words
“alternative” and “minimum” used along with “tax.” By its name, many
taxpayers might assume the AMT is a good thing. A simpler “alternative”
to the complicated and overly burdensome tax code would be welcome
news. The idea of paying a lesser or “minimum” amount of taxes sounds
good, too. But the AMT is not simpler and it does not allow taxpayers
to pay lower taxes.
To the contrary, the AMT denies taxpayers many important deductions, so
that middle class families subject to AMT actually pay higher taxes. To
make matters worse, Congress failed to index the AMT for inflation. So
the AMT has not been adjusted to keep pace with the rise in income and
cost of living. As a result, a tax that affected less than 369,000
taxpayers in 1994 could impact an additional 20 million taxpayers who
will be burdened with an unexpected tax increase next April unless
Congress enacts a refund fix this year.
If Congress does pass a tax refund fix, a family earning an income of
$75,000, and paying $6,000 for day care for their four children, would
itemize their child care deductions and receive a $6,189 refund.
Without this fix, however, the family would receive only a $700 refund.
That’s nearly a $6,000 difference. Even if the tax refund fix is
enacted, Congressional inaction to date could delay the family’s refund
until June – a delay that many working families cannot afford.
Similarly, with a tax refund fix, a single parent earning $50,000 a
year, paying $6,000 annually for day care, and using standard
deductions on her tax return, would receive a return of nearly $1,000.
But if Congress continues to ignore the AMT problem, she would actually
owe the IRS an additional $225 in taxes. A tax refund fix would save
her and her family a total of $1,189.
Unfortunately, even if Congress passes a bill, we can expect problems.
Months ago, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson warned that any bill to
fix the AMT would need to be sent to the President by November 16,
allowing the IRS sufficient time to prepare and distribute instructions
and update their computers to process tax returns next April. Many
families’ tax refunds may be delayed up to 2 to 3 months because the
tax forms will not be ready in time for tax season. This will affect
families who take popular deductions and credits – including the child
care credit, the adoption credit and the dependent care credit.
If Congress fails to act altogether, the AMT impact will be
significant. Without a tax refund fix, the AMT will dig deep into the
pockets of American families, who stand to lose $1,000, $2,000, $5,000,
or more. Congress must act responsibly, and correct the AMT, which now
threatens to encroach on the earnings of millions of middle class
taxpayers.
Source: Townhall.com
What the “Alternative Minimum Tax” Really Means for American Families
By Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson
Friday, November 30, 2007
Political veiw from Robert Novak
WASHINGTON -- Strategists for Mitt Romney's
Republican presidential campaign were actually pleased that fast-rising
Mike Huckabee moved ahead of Romney in the Rasmussen poll in Iowa,
eliminating surprise if Huckabee finishes first there in the Jan. 3
caucuses.
A Huckabee victory in Iowa would kill Romney's plans to win
the first two 2008 tests in Iowa and New Hampshire, followed by
sweeping the board in all other primary states. Instead, the contest
for the nomination could extend through the Feb. 5 primaries, with Rudy
Giuliani given a chance in the high-population state primaries that
day. The consolation for Romney strategists is
that a Huckabee win in Iowa would no longer be a shock that could
stampede the process.
Hillary's Inevitability
Old pro Democrats who had been in awe of Sen. Hillary Clinton's
perfect campaign believe she made her first serious blunder last Monday
by indicating to CBS's Katie Couric that her election as president is
inevitable.
When Couric inquired "how disappointed will you be" if she
does not win, Clinton replied: "Well, it will be me." "Clearly," the
CBS anchor persisted, "you have considered" the "possibility of
losing"? "No, I haven't," said the senator. "So you never even consider
the possibility?" "I don't. I don't."
A footnote: Bill Clinton, campaigning for his wife in Iowa the
next day, stunned Democratic insiders when he claimed he had opposed
the Iraq war "from the beginning." In fact, shortly after the U.S.
invasion of Iraq, the former president declared: "I supported the
president [George W. Bush] when he asked the Congress for authority to
stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
DELISTING KOREAN TERROR
The new Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, a polite
gentleman of the old school in contrast to his recent predecessors, on
his recent visit to Washington did not urge President Bush to keep
North Korea on the terrorist list as the Japanese Foreign Office
recommended.
The state department's attempts to dissuade North Korea from
developing nuclear arms involve possible removal of Pyongyang from the
list of nations that support terror. Tokyo opposes that because of
North Korea's abduction of Japanese citizens.
The Foreign Office had wanted Fukuda to raise the abduction
issue with Bush. However, the president pre-empted the prime minister
as their bilateral meeting began by expressing U.S. concern about the
abductions.
COST OF GRIDLOCK
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Oversight Board last Monday
sent Congress an unusual report listing consequences of its failure,
before leaving town for Thanksgiving, to pass legislation easing
unintended impact of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) on middle-income
taxpayers.
Paul Cherecwich, IRS Oversight Board chairman, urged "quick
action" after the lawmakers return Dec. 4 "to mitigate" the risks.
Continued congressional gridlock, he said, could delay as many as 37.7
million tax refunds totaling $87 billion.
Cherecwich warned that the delay could cause "taxpayers who
have been filing electronically [to] revert to paper filing,"
preventing the IRS from issuing refunds within the 45-day statutory
limit. He also cited "the risk of both deliberate and unintended
non-compliance" by taxpayers caused by the delays.
REPLACING LOTT
Contrary to published reports, there is zero possibility that
Mississippi's Republican Gov. Haley Barbour will name 70-year-old
retired federal Judge Charles Pickering to the Senate vacancy created
by Sen. Trent Lott's impending resignation.
Barbour feels Mississippi's tradition is for U.S. senators
holding their seats for many years, not temporary seat warmers. Judge
Pickering's 44-year-old son, Rep. Chip Pickering, would be the leading
prospect to be selected if he had not announced he would leave Congress
because of his family's needs.
Mississippi is unique in electing only four senators over the
last 64 years. James O. Eastland and John C. Stennis were in the Senate
for 35 and 42 years respectively. Of their successors, Thad Cochran has
been in office 29 years and Lott will have served for 19 years.
Source: Townhall.com
Huckabee's Rise
By Robert D. Novak
Saturday, December 1, 2007
America wants to control illegal immigration. Close the borders, enforce the laws already on the books. That's a start.
Source: Human Events .com
NYT: An Undocumented Newspaper
Posted: 11/28/2007
Last week, in an article titled "Walking a Tightrope on Immigration," The New York Times made the fact-defying claim that the illegal immigration issue poses a risk for Republicans who appeal to voters "angry" about illegal immigration. (This is as opposed to voters "angry" that they spent good money buying a copy of The New York Times.)
In support of this assertion, the Times was required not only to ignore the stunning defeat of this year's amnesty bill, but also to proffer provably absurd evidence. I dearly hope Democratic politicians continue to look to the Times as an accurate barometer of voter sentiment.
In addition to secret polls showing that "the majority of Americans" support "a path to citizenship for immigrants here illegally," the Times cited election results from 1994 and 2006 that directly contradict this thesis.
First, the Times raised former California Gov. Pete Wilson's "precipitous slide" in the polls after he supported Proposition 187 in 1994, which denied most taxpayer-supported services to illegal immigrants.
The problem with this example is that Proposition 187 was wildly popular with California voters.
Times reporter Michael Luo seems to be referring to the Times' own prediction of catastrophe for Proposition 187 -- not actual election results.
One week before Californians voted on Proposition 187 in 1994, B. Drummond Ayres Jr. reported in the Times that there had been "a sharp falloff in support for the proposition."
He said Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans and African-American ministers were coming out strongly against Proposition 187 and that "this outcry, along with the increasing opposition being voiced by liberals, civil libertarians and assorted national political figures" was having an effect.
And then Californians voted.
Proposition 187 passed in a landslide with a nearly 20-point margin -- a larger margin than Wilson got, incidentally. It was supported by two-thirds of white voters, half of black and Asian voters, and even one-third of Hispanic voters. It passed in every area of California, except San Francisco, a city where intoxicated gay men dressed as nuns performing sex acts on city streets is not considered unusual. In heavily Latino Los Angeles County, Proposition 187 passed with a 12-point margin.
I'm no campaign consultant, but I think Wilson's support for an off-the-charts popular initiative probably didn't hurt him.
In fact, here on planet Earth, about the safest thing a California politician could do would be to wildly, vocally support Proposition 187. But in New York Times-speak, politicians are walking a dangerous "tightrope" if they dare to defy a slight majority of San Francisco voters!
The initiative went to Carter-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer, who issued a permanent injunction and then, in a series of decisions, found the initiative unconstitutional. Her rulings were still on appeal when Democrat Gray Davis became governor and dropped the appeals. Everyone remembers how popular Gray Davis was! (First governor in California history to be recalled.)
The crown jewel of the Times' pathetic attempt to marshal evidence for its thesis that Americans want more, not fewer, illegal aliens choking our roads, schools and hospitals also included this gem: "J.D. Hayworth, a hard-line incumbent Republican representative in Arizona, lost his race in 2006, as did Randy Graf, a member of the border-enforcing Minuteman group, who also ran in Arizona."
How many times do we have to disprove this canard?
As with Hillary's position on driver's licenses for illegals -- and B. Hussein Obama's entire campaign -- the Hayworth-Graf example works better when no follow-up questions are allowed. For example:
Q: Did Hayworth's and Graf's opponents campaign against them on illegal immigration?
A: No.
Q: Were there any other issues on the ballot that year that might tell us if it was Hayworth's and Graf's positions on illegals that led to their defeats?
A: Si! Oops, I mean, yes -- why, yes there were! The very election that the Times cites as proof that anti-illegal sentiment is a loser at the ballot box also included four measures that passed overwhelmingly: (1) a measure to deny bail to illegal aliens, (2) a measure that would bar illegals from being awarded punitive damages, (3) a measure that would prohibit illegals from receiving state subsidies for education or child care, and (4) a measure to declare English the state's official language.
Whatever Arizona voters didn't like about Hayworth and Graf, it wasn't that they were too tough on illegals.
My theory is that Hayworth and Graf lost because the multitudes of Times reporters losing their jobs due to the Newspaper of Record's plummeting circulation have recently moved to Hayworth's and Graf's districts. (This is what's known as a "brain drain" in those districts.)
My theory -- like the Times' theory -- is supported by no evidence. But unlike the Times' theory, mine is not specifically disproved by other evidence such as common sense, an everyday observation of my fellow man, and also those four anti-illegal immigrant measures passing in landslides in the very same election.
Last week, in an article titled "Walking a Tightrope on Immigration," The New York Times made the fact-defying claim that the illegal immigration issue poses a risk for Republicans who appeal to voters "angry" about illegal immigration. (This is as opposed to voters "angry" that they spent good money buying a copy of The New York Times.)
In support of this assertion, the Times was required not only to ignore the stunning defeat of this year's amnesty bill, but also to proffer provably absurd evidence. I dearly hope Democratic politicians continue to look to the Times as an accurate barometer of voter sentiment.
In addition to secret polls showing that "the majority of Americans" support "a path to citizenship for immigrants here illegally," the Times cited election results from 1994 and 2006 that directly contradict this thesis.
First, the Times raised former California Gov. Pete Wilson's "precipitous slide" in the polls after he supported Proposition 187 in 1994, which denied most taxpayer-supported services to illegal immigrants.
The problem with this example is that Proposition 187 was wildly popular with California voters.
Times reporter Michael Luo seems to be referring to the Times' own prediction of catastrophe for Proposition 187 -- not actual election results.
One week before Californians voted on Proposition 187 in 1994, B. Drummond Ayres Jr. reported in the Times that there had been "a sharp falloff in support for the proposition."
He said Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans and African-American ministers were coming out strongly against Proposition 187 and that "this outcry, along with the increasing opposition being voiced by liberals, civil libertarians and assorted national political figures" was having an effect.
And then Californians voted.
Proposition 187 passed in a landslide with a nearly 20-point margin -- a larger margin than Wilson got, incidentally. It was supported by two-thirds of white voters, half of black and Asian voters, and even one-third of Hispanic voters. It passed in every area of California, except San Francisco, a city where intoxicated gay men dressed as nuns performing sex acts on city streets is not considered unusual. In heavily Latino Los Angeles County, Proposition 187 passed with a 12-point margin.
I'm no campaign consultant, but I think Wilson's support for an off-the-charts popular initiative probably didn't hurt him.
In fact, here on planet Earth, about the safest thing a California politician could do would be to wildly, vocally support Proposition 187. But in New York Times-speak, politicians are walking a dangerous "tightrope" if they dare to defy a slight majority of San Francisco voters!
The initiative went to Carter-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer, who issued a permanent injunction and then, in a series of decisions, found the initiative unconstitutional. Her rulings were still on appeal when Democrat Gray Davis became governor and dropped the appeals. Everyone remembers how popular Gray Davis was! (First governor in California history to be recalled.)
The crown jewel of the Times' pathetic attempt to marshal evidence for its thesis that Americans want more, not fewer, illegal aliens choking our roads, schools and hospitals also included this gem: "J.D. Hayworth, a hard-line incumbent Republican representative in Arizona, lost his race in 2006, as did Randy Graf, a member of the border-enforcing Minuteman group, who also ran in Arizona."
How many times do we have to disprove this canard?
As with Hillary's position on driver's licenses for illegals -- and B. Hussein Obama's entire campaign -- the Hayworth-Graf example works better when no follow-up questions are allowed. For example:
Q: Did Hayworth's and Graf's opponents campaign against them on illegal immigration?
A: No.
Q: Were there any other issues on the ballot that year that might tell us if it was Hayworth's and Graf's positions on illegals that led to their defeats?
A: Si! Oops, I mean, yes -- why, yes there were! The very election that the Times cites as proof that anti-illegal sentiment is a loser at the ballot box also included four measures that passed overwhelmingly: (1) a measure to deny bail to illegal aliens, (2) a measure that would bar illegals from being awarded punitive damages, (3) a measure that would prohibit illegals from receiving state subsidies for education or child care, and (4) a measure to declare English the state's official language.
Whatever Arizona voters didn't like about Hayworth and Graf, it wasn't that they were too tough on illegals.
My theory is that Hayworth and Graf lost because the multitudes of Times reporters losing their jobs due to the Newspaper of Record's plummeting circulation have recently moved to Hayworth's and Graf's districts. (This is what's known as a "brain drain" in those districts.)
My theory -- like the Times' theory -- is supported by no evidence. But unlike the Times' theory, mine is not specifically disproved by other evidence such as common sense, an everyday observation of my fellow man, and also those four anti-illegal immigrant measures passing in landslides in the very same election.
How's the war going? - Iraq We are winning but you couldn't tell by the Dems.
WASHINGTON -- The significant decline of violence in Iraq is well
documented: fewer insurgent attacks, far less roadside bombs, fewer
U.S. casualties and little or no sectarian warfare.
Last week, a series of reports by U.S. military officials in Iraq
revealed the dramatic changes that have taken place there. A 55-percent
drop in attacks since the surge offensive began nine months ago.
Overall violence in key areas of Iraq has dropped to its lowest levels
since the summer of 2005. Iraqi civilian casualties have also fallen, a
staggering 60-percent drop since June, down 75 percent in Baghdad alone. Life in much of Iraq has begun to return
to what passes for near normal, though the war is far from over. Yet it
is clear that the American military surge -- begun earlier this year --
is responsible for the changes taking place in this embattled nation
that has become ground zero in the global war on terrorism.
The pessimists and defeatists who declared the surge doomed and
prophesied that we were digging ourselves into a deeper hole have been
proven wrong. The story of Iraq at this point is that terrorists have
been killed, captured or driven out of territory retaken and cleansed
by American and Iraqi forces -- a coalition that has stabilized much of
the country.
But statistics are one thing, and the response of the Iraqi people is
quite another. The most dramatic sign of improvement in Iraq can be
seen in the number of Iraqi refugees who fled the violence at the
height of the war and are now returning home in increasing numbers.
Most of these returning Iraqis do so with the knowledge that their land
is still a dangerous place, that the war is not over and that al-Qaeda
killers still have the power to strike.
But there is a sense that the tide has turned in the Iraqis' favor, at
least for now. There is renewed hope for their country's future, hope
that Iraq will one day be united and safe. Hope can be a very powerful
ally to a people beset by war, imparting a strength that can overcome
seemingly insurmountable challenges, hardships and grief. And little by
little we are beginning to see a rebirth of hope in Iraq.
Perhaps the most important change to emerge from Gen. David Petraeus'
counterinsurgency has been his efforts to cement nationalist alliances
with Shiite and Sunni tribal leaders who have turned against their
common al-Qaeda enemy.
One of the most interesting trends that has followed in the wake of the
offensive has been a growing confidence among many Iraqis, a feeling
that they are responsible for their country's destiny, that they must
fight back when threatened by the thugs and killers in their midst.
When a bullet fired from a trucking convoy struck a young girl in the
foot in a busy commercial area in Baghdad's Karrada neighborhood last
week, a group of Iraqis attacked the suspected assailants, hurling
rocks at them as they hid in the truck. "I love my country. I want
stability to be regained," said one of the men who helped take the
stricken high school student to the hospital, as reported in the
Washington Post.
It turned out the suspects were not responsible for the shooting, but
the incident revealed a newfound courage among common Iraqi citizens, a
realization that they must defend themselves when help is not
available. "We did this because each of those men will kill 30 more
people," one of the Iraqis said, according to the Post.
You would never know that anything had changed for the better in Iraq
if you were listening to the Senate Democrats this month. They refused
to even acknowledge that the situation in Iraq had vastly improved.
Indeed, despite all of the evidence proving that President Bush's surge
has been successful, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is still pushing
legislation to set a timetable for the quick withdrawal of all U.S.
forces.
Reid and his cohorts do not want to see a successful conclusion to the
war in Iraq. They want a political issue that will fire up their
party's anti-war base in the 2008 election.
But Bush, Petraeus and the Republicans are seeking something very
different. They want to achieve enough progress there, and buy enough
time, to allow the Iraqi military to take over the defense of their
country so that we can start bringing our men and women home.
As of last week, the surge was working better than anyone could have
possibly predicted and the Democrats' political exploitation of the war
as a campaign issue was losing.
Look for the first contingent of U.S. forces to begin coming home by
the end of the year at the earliest -- early next year at the latest.
Source: Townhall.com
Dems in Denial Over Iraq Recovery
By Donald Lambro
Monday, November 26, 2007
Recent Comments