Joe Legal And José Illegal

This is why illegal immigration is costing us so much money. Rewarding people for criminal activity is NOT the solution:

*******************************************************


You have two families: "Joe Legal" and

"Jose Illegal". Both families consist of two

parents, two children, and live in California



Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security

Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.



Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social

Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash " under the table".



Ready? Now pay attention.



Joe Legal:$25..00 Per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week,

or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe

Legal now has $31,231.00.



Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600..00 per

week, or $31, 200.00 per year.



Jose illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has

$31,200.00.



Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited

coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year.

Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.



Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through

the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year.Jose Illegal

still has $31,200.00.



Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food

stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or

$6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.



Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for

food stamps and welfare.

Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.



Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400..00

per year.. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.



Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent

subsidy. Jose Illegal pays $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per

year. Jose Illegal still has $25,200.00.



Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for

insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.



Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin'

insurance!" and still has $25,200.00.



Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay

utilities, gasoline, etc.



Jose Illegal has to make his $25,200.00 stretch to pay

utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of

the country every month.



Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part

time job after work.



Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.



Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.



Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose

Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch.



Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL

program. Joe Legal's children go home.



Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and

fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.



Do you get it, now?

Obama Officials: New Taxes May Be Needed

You have to wonder what the professors at Harvard, Yale and other high end colleges and universities are teaching about economics. Everytime we turn around we hear about how the Dems want to raise taxes on "the rich." Do they believe that the top income earners in the nation have a money tree that they can harvest at anytime. Do they believe that they can continually add more and more tax burdens without their being any detrimental effect on the economy at all?

Apparently, Harvard and Yale graduates believe just that. Those of us who went to more mainstream schools like the University of Maryland know better. We know that the more money the government confiscates from the private sector, the harder it is for jobs to be created and sustained. We know that there isn't a limitless supply of money and we understand that eventually, tax burdens will become so heavy that taxpayers will look for ways of minimizing the effect or simply move their means of income to a new location (e.g. off-shore).

The Dems are still trying to further wreck our economy by taxing away the means for employers to hire new employees. From Fox News:

President Obama may have to raise taxes to pay for public health care and the growing deficit, an eventuality that administration officials touched lightly on Sunday as they promoted an economy emerging from recession. With an expected deficit next year of $1.8 trillion, and spending still being planned for a $1 trillion, 10-year health care reform, officials say something will have to be done to prevent further erosion of the economy. "We will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we ... can convince the American people that we're going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said on ABC's "This Week." Asked point blank whether it was right to suggest it is a matter of when, not if, taxes will be raised, Geithner responded, "It is absolutely right."

What Obama and Geithner seem to be completely unable to understand is that continually piling on more taxes for those who earn over $500,000/year will soon mean that they will get less take-home pay than people earning less than $500,000/year. Thus, who would ever want to earn that much money if it means less take-home pay? Those people will simply find a way to bring their income down below that $500,000/year level. That means less tax revenue which in turn means that the government will have to begin taxing lower income people in order to make up the difference.

The health care reform bill which is supposed to be saving us money is getting more and more expensive.

Which makes this little tidbit very interesting:

National Economic Council President Larry Summers said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that jobs are a lagging indicator and once output increases, job growth will start to pick up. "I think we have a ways to go. I want to emphasize the basic realities. Unemployment is still very high in this country," Summers said. He added that it's not a good idea to rule out future taxes. "There is a lot that can happen over time. ... But what the president has been completely clear on is that he is not going to pursue any of his priorities -- not health care, not energy, nothing -- in ways that are primarily burdening middle-class families. That is something that is not going to happen," Summers said.

Except that is is going to happen, one way or the other. Either a direct tax increase on middle-class incomes, or indirect taxes on companies and corporations who will simply pass the tax along to the middle-class in the form of higher retail prices.

But what are the Harvard and Yale graduates in the government proposing? More taxes and more spending:

While economists agree spending is required in a recession, [Rep. Mike] Pence said that money would be better spent by the American people, not the federal government. "Borrowing a trillion dollars from future generations of Americans and spreading it around the economy is going to have some catalytic effect in the economy in the short term, but again, it's no substitute for fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C.," he said. 'This piecemeal approach -- government handouts through a government bureaucracy -- is no substitute for broad-based tax relief and fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C."

I find it amusing how the Dems are constantly saying that Republicans haven't had an original idea since Ronald Reagan. Given their idea of tax and spend, tax and spend, and then raise taxes again to make up for the overspending, the Dems have not had an original idea since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Officials Don't Dismiss Possibility Of New Taxes
Fox News
August 3, 2009

For The First Time In History, We Have A $1 Trillion Deficit

For all of you libs out there who are constantly repeating like trained parrots that George W. Bush brought us a $1 trillion deficit, the truth has come out. The honor of the first $1 trillion deficit goes to Barack Obama.

From Martin Crutsinger of the Associated Press:

Nine months into the fiscal year, the federal deficit has topped $1 trillion for the first time. The imbalance is intensifying fears about higher interest rates and inflation, and pressuring the value of the dollar. There’s also concern about trying to reverse the deficit — by reducing government spending or raising taxes — in the midst of a harsh recession. The Treasury Department said Monday that the deficit in June was $94.3 billion, pushing the total since the budget year started in October to nearly $1.1 trillion.

The Dems and Obama could have prevented this by cutting spending, but they didn't.

The deficit has been propelled by the huge sum the government has spent to combat the recession and financial crisis, combined with a sharp decline in tax revenues.

I learned back in the 4th grade that one cannot spend more money than one makes. Companies go bankrupt, families lose homes and businesses close when that type of money mismanagement occurs. But the danger here is that the dollar might very well collapse and cause our entire economy to crash down around us.

You have to wonder if the Dems realize this, or do they live in a fantasy world where they believe that spending like drunken sailors is a good thing?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Budget Deficit Tops $1 Trillion For First Time
Martin Crutsinger
Associated Press via KansasCity.com
July 13, 2009

Who Pays Taxes And How Much?

Here is an interesting article that comes, not from Fox News or Town Hall or NewsMax, but from CNN. Thus, no one can claim that the following is coming from any right-leaning website:

The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office. Narrowing in further: The top 1% of households, which made 19% of pre-tax income, paid 39% of all individual income taxes. The trend is similar if you count income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes (such as capital gains) combined. The top fifth of households paid 69% of all federal taxes. The top 1% paid 28%.

And for those of you who have been screaming and stamping your feet claiming Obama would provide tax relief to 90% of taxpayers:

A Tax Foundation survey found 56% of Americans think the amount of federal income tax they pay is too high. Those most likely to feel that way, according to the survey, include those making between $35,000 and $50,000. But once the various tax breaks to which they're entitled are counted, the burdens of low- and middle-income tax filers as a group has been fairly low. The Tax Policy Center estimates that for 2009, 43% of tax units (most of which are lower income households that may or may not file a return) will have no income tax liability or will have a negative income tax liability, meaning the government will actually pay them.

Let me repeat the italicized line for emphasis:

43% of tax units will have no income tax liability or will have a negative income tax liability, meaning the government will actually pay them.

Remember, this is CNN coming out with this information, not any bastion of Conservatism or a Conservative think-tank.

So, how can Obama provide tax relief to 90% of taxpayers when only 57% actually pay anything in taxes?

You can read the complete article on-line here:

Who Pays Taxes And How Much?
Jeanne Sahadi
CNN
April 15, 2009

Latest Idea To Raise Your Taxes: Tax Your Employer Provided Health Benefits

If the Democrats are trying to paint themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility, they are failing miserably. The porkulus/spendulus bill was the major indicator that the Dems have absolutely no intention of ever bringing spending under control. Now, they have to look at ways of paying for that pork-laden legislation as well as paying for all the other pork-laden political hand-out bills they are proposing.

Thus, they once again prove that they have not had an original idea since Franklin Delano Roosevelt and have proposed a new tax for you to pay. But not just any tax. This time, it is a tax on your health care benefits, the same benefits you need to take care of your family's medical needs.

According to the Washington Post:

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the tax-writing Finance Committee, has repeatedly advocated changing tax laws to include employer benefits, arguing that it makes sense to fund the health-care changes by sucking cash out of the existing system.

This proposal highlights two things:

1) It means that the Dems lied when they said they only wanted to tax "the rich" since this tax would extend all the way down the income scale and affect every worker that recieves health benefits from their employer.

2) It is an attempt to make private health care artificially more expensive so that the Dems can use it as an excuse to impose a disastrous nationalized health care system on us.

And this little lie from Ron Wyden:

"I think it's extremely important from a credibility standpoint to show the American people that you're making savings in the enormous sums now being spent on health care before you go out and ask them for billions of dollars more," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), one of the sponsors of that proposal. "And I don't think I'm the only senator who feels that way."

Savings? What savings? By imposing more taxes, Congress would be artificially inflating the price of health care. There is absolutely no "savings" in that at all. Why did Wyden utter such a lie?

Taxing the American people is not the answer. No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity and socialized health care has been a disaster everywhere it has been implemented.

We don't need socialism. We need free market capitalism, including in the health care markets.

You can access the original article on-line here:

Workers' Health Benefits Eyed For Taxation
Lori Montgomery
Washington Post
March 12, 2009

Taxes? Dems Want To Raise Them But Not Pay Them

If there is anyone out there who still thinks that the Democrats are some sort of paragon for ethics reform, please send me an email. There is a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like you to buy.

First Timothy Geithner and now Tom Daschle. What is it with Dems and their refusal to follow the same rules that Joe and Jane Average American have to follow? Why do the Democrats assume that they are somehow better than the rest of us and therefore don't have to abide by the same laws we do?

Daschle owed $128,203 dollars in back taxes and was working on avoiding having to pay them.

Writing for Town Hall, Kevin Freking has the following:

Tom Daschle's former Democratic colleagues were rallying to his defense after he met behind closed doors with the Senate Finance Committee to discuss problems with back taxes and potential conflicts of interest, but lawmakers promised he will face more questions.

The Dems are rallying to his defense, but would they have done the same thing if Daschle were a Republican? No. That would require integrity.

More:

Those questions will focus on tax issues, such as the $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest that he paid last month, said the aide. Daschle will also be questioned about the potential conflicts of interests he would face because he accepted speaking fees from health care interests, said the aide, who asked not to be identified because the aide was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. Daschle also provided advice to health insurers and hospitals through his work at a law firm. Daschle began the day apologizing for his failure to fully pay his taxes from 2005 through 2007. He capped it off that way as well after meeting with the committee behind closed doors.

Once again, the Dems have shown us the hypocrisy that dominates thier logic. They have one very low standard for themselves and one very high standard for everyone else. People are beginning to notice.

But it won't matter. The Dems are not in the habit of listening to the American people. They simply go their own way regardless of how unethical or illegal their actions are.

The parting shot:

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, noted the Geithner nomination in saying she suspected tax problems would not prevent Daschle from becoming the next health secretary. "If the guy who is overseeing the IRS can get away with a tax problem, how are you going to hold up the health and human services secretary over taxes?" she asked.

The answer is: Geithner never should have been confirmed to begin with.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Daschle Faces More Questions In Nomination Bid
Kevin Freking
TownHall.com
February 3, 2009

Some FairTax Food For Thought

We all know what income tax is as most of us actually pay it. We also know the headaches it causes and how easily the IRS can abuse it's power when investigating and auditing private citizens. But where did this monstrosity come from?

In The Federalist #21, Alexander Hamilton argued for the Federal Government to have the power to levy taxes.

To the People of the State of New York: HAVING in the three last numbers taken a summary review of the principal circumstances and events which have depicted the genius and fate of other confederate governments, I shall now proceed in the enumeration of the most important of those defects which have hitherto disappointed our hopes from the system established among ourselves. To form a safe and satisfactory judgment of the proper remedy, it is absolutely necessary that we should be well acquainted with the extent and malignity of the disease. . . . There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised. It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue.

But, neither Mr. Hamilton nor any of the Founding Fathers ever imagined the beast that would be created a little more than a century later.

Origins of the Income Tax The federal income tax was established in 1913. It actually required an amendment to the United States Constitution to make it legal. Why? Our Founding Fathers believed that taxing individuals on their private income was economic folly. They were right. The absence of an income tax, a tax on productivity, allowed our economy to grow and individuals to prosper for 124 years. The original income tax legislation affected only individuals earning $4,000 or more per year, at a time when the overwhelming majority of Americans earned far less. The 16th Amendment was eventually ratified and added to the Constitution, and a national income tax was born. That 16th Amendment was simply worded, the tax return consisted of only one page, and the entire tax code itself consisted of only 14 pages. No one could have imagined the vast impact it would have on the lives of their children, grandchildren, and future generations of Americans. Since then, the federal income tax system has become so complex that it requires tens of millions of Americans to seek professional help to comply with it, not to mention the enormous, expensive federal bureaucracy required to enforce and administer the tax. The Internal Revenue Service employs more investigative agents than the FBI and the CIA combined, and with 144,000 employees, employs more people than all but the 36 largest corporations in the United States. In addition to the $10 billion needed to operate the IRS, at least $265 billion (that is $900 for every man, woman, and child in this country) must be added to account for the cost of complying with the tax code. Massive amounts of our national wealth are consumed merely by measuring, tracking, sheltering, documenting, and filing our annual income.

There have been many efforts at tax reform over the past twenty years, but all of them failed to produce the desired results. Here are three end-goals that any tax reform plan must have in order to be viable:

1) The plan must remove from the IRS any power to intrude on the private lives of American citizens.
2) The plan must remove from the K Street lobbyists any power to influence Congressional votes.
3) The plan must not allow hidden taxes to be passed along to the consumer at any time.

There is only one tax reform plan that addresses all three of these end-goals:

THE FAIR TAX

What is the FairTax plan? The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue replacement, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment. This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 1025) abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax -- administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. The IRS is disbanded and defunded. The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system. Americans take home their whole paychecks. Not only do more Americans have jobs, but they also take home 100 percent of their paychecks (except where state income taxes apply). No federal income taxes or payroll taxes are withheld from paychecks, pensions, or Social Security checks. The prebate makes the FairTax progressive. To ensure no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax Plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate (prebate) for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This, along with several other features, is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, lowers the tax burden on most, while making the overall rate progressive. However, the FairTax is progressive based on lifestyle/spending choices, rather than simply punishing those taxpayers who are successful. Do you see how much freer life is with the FairTax instead of the income tax? No tax on used goods. The amount you pay to fund the government is totally visible. With the FairTax you are only taxed once on any good or service. If you choose to buy used goods − used car, used home, used appliances − you do not pay the FairTax. If, as a business owner or farmer, you buy something for strictly business purposes (not for personal consumption), you pay no consumption tax. The FairTax is charged just as state sales taxes are today. When you decide what to buy and how much to spend, you see exactly how much you are contributing to the government with each purchase. Retail prices no longer hide corporate taxes or their compliance costs, which drive up costs for those who can least afford to pay. Did you know that income taxes and the cost of complying with them currently make up 20 percent or more of all retail prices? It’s true. According to Dr. Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University, hidden income taxes are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for everything you buy. If competition does not allow prices to rise, corporations lower labor costs, again hurting those who can least afford to lose their jobs. Finally, if prices are as high as competition allows and labor costs are as low as practical, profits/dividends to shareholders are driven down, thereby hurting retirement savings for moms-and-pops and pension funds invested in Corporate America. With the FairTax, the sham of corporate taxation ends, competition drives prices down, more people in America have jobs, and retirement/pension funds see improved performance. The income tax exports our jobs, rather than our products. The FairTax brings jobs home. Most importantly, the FairTax does not burden U.S. exports the way the current income tax system does. The FairTax removes the cost of corporate taxes and compliance costs from the cost of U.S. exports, putting U.S. exports on a level playing field with foreign competitors. Lower prices sharply increase demand for U.S. exports, thereby increasing job creation in U.S. manufacturing sectors. At home, imports are subject to the same FairTax rate as domestically produced goods. Not only does the FairTax put U.S. products sold here on the same tax footing as foreign imports, but the dramatic lowering of compliance costs in comparison to other countries’ value-added taxes also gives U.S. products a definitive pricing advantage which foreign tax systems cannot match. The FairTax strategy is revenue neutrality: Neither raise nor lower taxes so consumer costs remain stable. The FairTax pays for all current government operations, including Social Security and Medicare. Government revenues are more stable and predictable than with the federal income tax because consumption is a more constant revenue base than is income. If you were in a 23-percent income tax bracket, the federal government would take $23 out of your paycheck for every $100 you made. With the FairTax, if the federal government gets $23 out of every $100 spent in America, the same total revenue is delivered to the federal government. This is revenue neutrality. So, instead of paycheck-earning Americans paying 7.65 percent of their paychecks in Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes, plus an average of 18 percent of their paychecks in federal income tax, for a total of about 25.65 percent, consumers in America pay only $23 out of every $100. Or about 30 percent at the cash register when they elect to spend on new goods or services for their own personal consumption. And this tax is collected only on spending above the federal poverty level, providing important progressivity. Tax criminals don’t make criminals out of honest taxpayers. Today, the IRS will admit to 16 percent noncompliance with the code. FairTax.org will be generous and simply take the position that this is likely a conservative estimate of the underground economy. However, this does not take into account the criminal/drug/porn economy, which equally conservative estimates put at one trillion dollars of untaxed activity. The FairTax does tax this -- criminals love to flash that cash at retail -- while continuing to provide the federal penalties so effective in bringing such miscreants to justice. The substantial decrease in points of compliance -- from every wage earner, investor, and retiree, down to only retailers -- also allows enforcement to concentrate on following the money to criminal activity, rather than making potential criminals out of every taxpayer struggling to decipher the current code.

Can you decipher the current code? Find out! The following link goes to the Table of Contents of our current tax code (26 USC). Not the full code, just the Table of Contents:

Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) (Warning! If you are on a 56k modem, it would not be a good idea to click this link unless you plan on waiting a while just to view this Table of Contents!)

That's some list, is it not? 9,833 sections long! You could read the novel War And Peace by Leo Tolstoy before getting through 26 USC.

So, what should we do about it? There really is only one answer. Scrap the entire system and rebuild it from the ground up. I support the FairTax to replace our current tax system. You can get additional information, including research papers prepared by economists from the nation's leading colleges and universities, by visiting the following website:

Americans For Fair Taxation

Video: Sarah Palin Addresses The Republican Governor's

Sarah Palin, despite the insults and personal attacks thrown at her by those who are afflicted with Palin Derangement Syndrome or the insults hurled by those who can't accept a strong, independent woman in politics, still gives one hell of a speech.

She addressed the Republican Governor's Association recently and gave her remarks on the current political landscape and where we should go from here.

Regardless of your opinion of her, she is going to be around on the American political scene for a very long time. Here is what she had to say:



According to Town Hall:

Sarah Palin called on fellow Republican governors to keep the new president and his strengthened Democratic majority in check on issues from taxes to health care as she signaled she'll take a leadership role in a party searching for a new standard-bearer. ... Palin noted that Congress is led by the likes of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Rep. Barney Frank, and said it was incumbent upon GOP governors to ensure that the federal government doesn't take over the health care system. She said if Obama and the new Congress "err on the side of excess taxes, we have to show them the way."

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Palin Urges GOP Governors To Keep Democrats Honest
Brendan Farrington
TownHall.com
November 13, 2008

Myth Vs. Fact: The Obama Infomercial Lies To Taxpayers About Obama Tax Hike

And the hits just keep on coming! Americans For Tax Reform have found a few "easter eggs" in the 30 minute Barack Obama Infomercial too. Let's see what they have to say:

Myth: “As president, here’s what I’ll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the US over the next two years, and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.” Fact: According to IRS data, 33% of families don’t even have an income tax liability, so it’s impossible to cut their income taxes. Also, Obama’s summary conveniently leaves out the fact that he would bring the small business tax rate to over 50 percent and would hike the capital gains and dividends tax at a time of market turmoil. His plan is a massive tax hike.

And somewhere in there, Obama and his followers have somehow convinced themselves that taking even more money out of the American economy is going to lead to some sort of prosperity. It won't. It will lead to an even worse economic downturn, just as Jimmy Carter's misguided economic policies did from 1977 onward.

Myth: (OH Gov. Ted Strickland speaking): “Think of this. Barack Obama is going to be a Democrat in the presidency who actually cuts taxes. But he’s gonna cut taxes for the people who really need a tax cut. He’s gonna cut taxes for the struggling families. And he’s gonna do that while holding accountable those companies that take advantage of tax breaks in order to send jobs offshore and to other countries.” Fact: Obama will raise taxes by over $1 trillion by hiking the small business tax rates, the Social Security tax rate, and the nest egg tax rates on capital gains and dividends. Also, the reason companies move overseas is because our taxes are already too high. How does raising their taxes do anything but make this problem worse?

Many workers (myself included) already lost money in our 401k accounts because of the recent crisis on Wall Street. Taxing our retirement accounts is only going to make that problem worse and devalue our 401k's even further. It will certainly encourage me to move my money off-shore where the socialists won't be able to get to it.

Myth: (VA Gov. Tim Kaine) “Barack has looked at the small business side of the American economy and says ‘Look, that’s where most innovation and entrepreneurship is. Let’s give them the rocket fuel to really accelerate rather than giving tax cuts to the ExxonMobils or the big oil companies that need not one ounce of help from the government to be very successful.’” Fact: Under Obama’s tax hike, the tax rate on two-thirds of small business profits will exceed 50 percent for the first time since Jimmy Carter. If that’s rocket fuel, the U.S. economy won’t ever get off the launch pad. Also, raising taxes on energy companies won’t do anything except make energy more expensive for consumers.

Here is another economic fact that simply isn't registering with the Democrats. Taxes get passed on to consumer in the form of a higher price for the product or service. Higher taxes mean even higher prices. So, if the socialists raise taxes on companies that produce energy, the price we consumers pay is also going to go up.

Myth: “I’ve offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost” Fact: We can’t say it any better than the AP: “Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by ‘eliminating programs that don't work’ masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are—beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.”

And that's true. Apart from cuts in defense spending, I can't think of anything Obama has promised to cut. Certainly not any bottomless pit social programs.

Myth: “So I’m not worried about CEO’s, I’m not worried about corporate lobbyists, I’m not worried about the drug companies or the oil companies or the insurance companies--they’ll be fine, they’re going to look out for themselves. I’m worried about the couple that’s trying to figure out how they’re going to retire. I’m worried about the family that’s trying to figure out how they can save for their child’s college education. I’m worried about the single mom that doesn’t have health insurance. I’m worried about the guy who has worked in a plant for 20 years and suddenly sees his job shipped overseas. That’s who I’m worried about. That’s who I’m going to be fighting for and thinking about every single day that I’m in the White House.” Fact: If he’s worried about the couple about to retire, Obama should be asking himself why he wants to tank their 401(k) nest egg by raising capital gains and dividends taxes. If he’s worried about the parents saving for college or struggling to afford health insurance, he should ask himself if raising their small business employer’s tax rate to over 50 percent is a good idea. If he’s worried about the longtime employee’s job getting shipped overseas, he should ask if the fact that America has the second-highest corporate income tax rate in the world has anything to do with that.

Anyone who has a retirement savings account should be concerned at this point. Money that you worked for, that you put away so that in your autumn years you could live comfortably, is going to be confiscated for Barack Obama's efforts at "redistributing the wealth" a la European socialist style.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Myth vs. Fact: The Obama Infomercial Lies to Taxpayers About Obama Tax Hike
Americans For Tax Reform
October 30, 2008

Barack Obama's Socialist Agenda Revealed By His Own Words

I've known for a long time that Barack Obama and the vast majority of Democrats in this country are socialists. It's in their policies, it's in their rhetoric and it's in their anti-American stances.

But, Barack Obama finally made that admission in no uncertain terms when he answered a question this past weekend from a small business owner, a man who happens to be a plumber in Ohio. Here is a transcript of what transpired:

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream." "It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

So, Obama wants to take money away from the people who earned it and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's it. That's his whole economic plan in a nutshell and he even admitted to it. Look at his words: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." That is a one-hundred percent endorsement for wealth redistribution a la Karl Marx.

Punishing people for being successful is precisely what socialists do because it discourages success. Obama says he wants everyone to have a "chance for success?" Why work to succeed if the government is only going to tax away the fruit of your hard work?

This leads to a very important question that Dr. Bobby Eberle asks:

Does Obama really understand the essence of America? It is strong because of the American spirit of invention and the bravery to undertake new endeavors. Those at the economic bottom DO NOT create jobs. Those at the economic bottom get hired for jobs. When the economy is robust, more jobs are created, thus more people get hired. There's not a business existing in America today that doesn't want to "do more business." In order to grow, more workers must be hired, and more capital purchased... both of which benefit the economy. Doesn't Obama understand this??? Let's just do a little simple math to see how taxes really work. Let's say there is a person making $50,000/year and paying 15% in federal income tax. Thus, the person's yearly tax burden is $7,500. If someone making $1,000,000/year paid at the same tax rate, they would pay $150,000 in taxes. So, the person making $50,000 pays $7,500, and the person making a million pays $150,000. Those who make more money, pay more in taxes. It's only logical.

But, since Barack Obama and the Dems are socialists, let's look at the way they try to twist the economy to their own benefit:

However, that is not how a socialist thinks. Rather than each person truly paying "their fair share," the socialist says that the "rich" person should not only pay more because he or she makes more, but they should also pay a higher percentage. So, the person making $1,000,000/year instead pays 35% in taxes for a tax bill of $350,000. That's an extra $200,000 that the government takes out of circulation to pay for their social engineering.

Now, that's $200,000 that will be taken out of the general economy which means it will not be used for capital investment nor for creating jobs. It will simply be squandered on some government hand-out program which does nothing more than reward able-bodied people for not working. In other words, the people who work to earn and produce will be supporting the people who sit back and live off of the government dole.

That's the socialists' dream. Get as many people on the dole as possible and then buy off their votes with more welfare checks. Of course every government that has tried this ended up with an enduring unemployment rate of anywhere between 10 and 20%. That too seems to be the vision Obama has for America.

Are you listening?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obama's Socialist Agenda -- Is Anyone Listening?
Dr. Bobby Eberle
GOPUSA.com
October 14, 2008

What Does Barack Obama Really Stand For And Do You Agree With Him? Take The Test!

Take the Barack Obama test and see if you know what he really stands for and how often you agree or disagree with his positions:

The Barack Obama Test

A Reality Check

The following facts and figures never get reported on the nightly news and are among the reasons why I do not trust Old Media and you shouldn't either.

This post is in three parts:

Part 1: Economy

In just one year. Remember the election in 2006? Consider the "change" a Dem controlled Congress has presided over.

A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% ( 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and got it!

Remember, Congress makes the laws not the President. He works with what's handed to him.

Barack Obama's campaign slogan is: "Change we can believe in."

Well, we've seen the change that Barack and the Dems have in store for us. It is not good.


Part 2: Taxes

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2008

Taxes under Clinton 1999
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750

Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250

Both Democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates

It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; scam people out of money and they don't even know it.


PART 3: Illegal Aliens vs. Funding The War on Terror

You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Continue reading.

We have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the Iraq War and the War on Terror that is bankrupting us. The data shows that to be RIDICULOUS.

Feel free to forward the following 14 reasons until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. URL's have been included for verification of all the following facts.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

Verify at: Immigration and Welfare

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

Verify at: The High Cost Of Cheap Labor

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

Verify at: The High Cost of Cheap Labor

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

Verify at: The Debate Over Immigration & Border Security Continues

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

Verify at The Debate Over Immigration & Border Security Continues

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

Verify at: The Debate Over Immigration & Border Security Continues

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

Verify at: Bureau Of Justice Statistics

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

Verify at: The Debate Over Immigration & Border Security Continues

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

Verify at: The Debate Over Immigration & Border Security Continues

10 The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.

Verify at: The Debate Over Immigration & Border Security Continues

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.

Verify at: Homeland Security Report: A Line in the Sand:
Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border

12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'

Verify at: National Policy Institute

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.

Verify at: Migrant Remittances From The United States To Latin America To Reach $45 Billion In 2006, Says IDB

14. The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.

Verify at: Violent Crimes Institute

The total cost is a whopping $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. Yet the Dems and certain Congressional Republicans think the Iraq War is what is costing us!

Are we THAT stupid?

Pass this data along to as many people as you can for as long as you can. We need to get the job done that Old Media and the Democrats won't do.

Obama Is Still Truthfully Challenged

Let's see. He claims that after attending the same church for 20 years that he had no idea that his pastor was a race-baiting hate-monger. Now, he goes on TV and tells even more lies despite the fact that his lies can be checked.

B. Hussein Obama has a problem. His problem is that he cannot tell the truth.

From Jake Tapper at ABC News:

When my family back in Pennsylvania turns on the TV these days, they may see this Barack Obama TV ad where he's standing in a gas station saying the following: "Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas. I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil. I approve this message because it’s time that Washington worked for you. Not them."

But, as Jake notes, checks can be made on these claims:

Factcheck.org today takes a look at Obama's claim to not take money from oil companies and concludes that the statement "misleading" since according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics Obama has taken more than $213,000 from individuals (and their spouses) who work for companies in the oil and gas industry -- not to mention that two of Obama's top fundraisers are top executives at oil companies"

Apparently, B. Hussein Obama did feel it necessary to reveal these little facts that show his attempt at hiding the truth.

One other thing I noted in B. Hussein's statement. "They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits." Now, we all know that the leftist Old Media will never ask a hardball question about that part of the ad. But we need someone on the National to scene ask B. Hussein exactly how he thinks making the oil companies pay more in taxes is going to lower the price of gas for us real-world working folks who need to put gas in our cars in order to get to our jobs.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama's Oil Slick
Jake Tapper
ABC News
April 1, 2008

Presidential Tax Plan Comparison (Updated)

"It's the economy, stupid!" Isn't that what the libs keep yelling at us when we Conservatives try to point out that we are winning in Iraq? Well, let's look at each candidate's position on taxes, updated because several candidates have dropped out since the last time I posted a comparison like this.

Go to the following website:

Presidential Candidate Tax Plan Comparison
TaxFoundation.org

Put a check in the boxes next to the names you want to compare. Then hit the Compare button.

You'll notice quite the difference between John McCain and his two uber-liberal potential opponents.

The Top Nine "Changes" Barack Obama Would Make As President

I still watch the news and see the Obama supporters swooning as if they were following Jesus Christ into Jerusalem. Of course, Jesus would never espouse the positions that Obama has staked out for himself. But, do Obama's supporters really know those positions?

Check out what John Hawkins has for us from TownHall.com regarding the promises Barack Obama has made:

#1) Weakening America's Military: Barack Obama has pledged, among other things, to make defense cuts during war time, to cut spending on national missile defense, that he won't weaponize space, to slow development of future combat systems, and to seek a "world without nuclear weapons." Is this a man who can be trusted as Commander-In-Chief? #2) Losing the War in Iraq: Obama is promising to throw away the hard earned gains our troops have made in Iraq by immediately removing combat brigades each month, regardless of the situation on the ground, and by having all of our "combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff publicly warned Barack and, for that matter, Hillary that they could create a "chaotic situation" with their policy that could take the "gains we have achieved and struggled to achieve and turn them around overnight." ... #4) Pro-Partial Birth Abortion: It's never a surprise to find a Democrat who's a big fan of abortion, but Obama goes above and beyond the call of duty. He had a perfect rating of 100% from NARAL in 2005, 2006, and 2007, opposes "notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions," and he even opposed banning partial birth abortions. If you want to see as many women as humanly possible in this country putting their own children to death via abortion, vote Obama. #5) Legalizing Marijuana: Obama, a former (we hope) druggie, who has admitted to using marijuana and cocaine, has said that he favors "decriminalizing marijuana." Perhaps you can't blame him for wanting to make it easier for people to get drugs since, after all, he used them and look how he turned out. If Barack gets into the White House, one day mothers all over America can tell their children that they'll never be anything in life if they use hard drugs and those children can reply, "Well, at least I can be President!" #6) Handing 845 billion dollars of your money to other nations: Obama's Global Poverty Act would commit the United States to spending, over the next 13 years, 845 billion dollars more than what we already do on global poverty. Obama followed that up with a release that said in part, "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty..." If Obama actually believes that not only is the United States capable of "eliminating extreme poverty," but that we should actually make that utopian dream a "priority," then he's far too naive to be in the White House.

The final three are Big Spending, Tax-Payer funded Amnesty for Illegals and massive gun grabbing.

Obama is clearly the most leftist candidate out there. And I do mean out there.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Top Nine "Changes" Barack Obama Would Make As President
John Hawkins
TownHall.com
March 7, 2008

Compare The Presidential Candidates' Position On Taxes

I've noted that one of my more popular blog entries was a comparison on the Presidential Candidates' various positions concerning illegal immigration. Well, another big issue (probably the big issue) is taxes. The Americans For Tax Reform website has put together a matrix to show where each of the major candidates stand on various tax issues. TaxProf Blog provided a link to this matrix.

You can access the document on-line here (requires Adobe Reader):

The Candidates And Pro-Taxpayer Positions At A Glance
Americans For Tax Reform via TaxProf Blog
January 19, 2008

Some FairTax Food For Thought

We all know what income tax is as most of us actually pay it. We also know the headaches it causes and how easily the IRS can abuse it's power when investigating and auditing private citizens. But where did this monstrosity come from?

In The Federalist #21, Alexander Hamilton argued for the Federal Government to have the power to levy taxes.

To the People of the State of New York:

HAVING in the three last numbers taken a summary review of the principal circumstances and events which have depicted the genius and fate of other confederate governments, I shall now proceed in the enumeration of the most important of those defects which have hitherto disappointed our hopes from the system established among ourselves. To form a safe and satisfactory judgment of the proper remedy, it is absolutely necessary that we should be well acquainted with the extent and malignity of the disease.

. . . There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue.

But, neither Mr. Hamilton nor any of the Founding Fathers ever imagined the beast that would be created a little more than a century later.

Origins of the Income Tax

The federal income tax was established in 1913. It actually required an amendment to the United States Constitution to make it legal. Why? Our Founding Fathers believed that taxing individuals on their private income was economic folly. They were right. The absence of an income tax, a tax on productivity, allowed our economy to grow and individuals to prosper for 124 years.

The original income tax legislation affected only individuals earning $4,000 or more per year, at a time when the overwhelming majority of Americans earned far less. The 16th Amendment was eventually ratified and added to the Constitution, and a national income tax was born.

That 16th Amendment was simply worded, the tax return consisted of only one page, and the entire tax code itself consisted of only 14 pages. No one could have imagined the vast impact it would have on the lives of their children, grandchildren, and future generations of Americans.

Since then, the federal income tax system has become so complex that it requires tens of millions of Americans to seek professional help to comply with it, not to mention the enormous, expensive federal bureaucracy required to enforce and administer the tax. The Internal Revenue Service employs more investigative agents than the FBI and the CIA combined, and with 144,000 employees, employs more people than all but the 36 largest corporations in the United States.

In addition to the $10 billion needed to operate the IRS, at least $265 billion (that is $900 for every man, woman, and child in this country) must be added to account for the cost of complying with the tax code. Massive amounts of our national wealth are consumed merely by measuring, tracking, sheltering, documenting, and filing our annual income.

There have been many efforts at tax reform over the past twenty years, but all of them failed to produce the desired results. Here are three end-goals that any tax reform plan must have in order to be viable:

1) The plan must remove from the IRS any power to intrude on the private lives of American citizens.
2) The plan must remove from the K Street lobbyists any power to influence Congressional votes.
3) The plan must not allow hidden taxes to be passed along to the consumer at any time.

There is only one tax reform plan that addresses all three of these end-goals:

THE FAIR TAX

What is the FairTax plan?

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue replacement, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment. This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 1025) abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax -- administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. The IRS is disbanded and defunded. The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

Americans take home their whole paychecks.

Not only do more Americans have jobs, but they also take home 100 percent of their paychecks (except where state income taxes apply). No federal income taxes or payroll taxes are withheld from paychecks, pensions, or Social Security checks.

The prebate makes the FairTax progressive.

To ensure no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax Plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate (prebate) for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This, along with several other features, is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, lowers the tax burden on most, while making the overall rate progressive. However, the FairTax is progressive based on lifestyle/spending choices, rather than simply punishing those taxpayers who are successful. Do you see how much freer life is with the FairTax instead of the income tax?

No tax on used goods. The amount you pay to fund the government is totally visible.

With the FairTax you are only taxed once on any good or service. If you choose to buy used goods − used car, used home, used appliances − you do not pay the FairTax. If, as a business owner or farmer, you buy something for strictly business purposes (not for personal consumption), you pay no consumption tax. The FairTax is charged just as state sales taxes are today. When you decide what to buy and how much to spend, you see exactly how much you are contributing to the government with each purchase.

Retail prices no longer hide corporate taxes or their compliance costs, which drive up costs for those who can least afford to pay.

Did you know that income taxes and the cost of complying with them currently make up 20 percent or more of all retail prices? It’s true. According to Dr. Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University, hidden income taxes are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for everything you buy. If competition does not allow prices to rise, corporations lower labor costs, again hurting those who can least afford to lose their jobs. Finally, if prices are as high as competition allows and labor costs are as low as practical, profits/dividends to shareholders are driven down, thereby hurting retirement savings for moms-and-pops and pension funds invested in Corporate America. With the FairTax, the sham of corporate taxation ends, competition drives prices down, more people in America have jobs, and retirement/pension funds see improved performance.

The income tax exports our jobs, rather than our products. The FairTax brings jobs home.

Most importantly, the FairTax does not burden U.S. exports the way the current income tax system does. The FairTax removes the cost of corporate taxes and compliance costs from the cost of U.S. exports, putting U.S. exports on a level playing field with foreign competitors. Lower prices sharply increase demand for U.S. exports, thereby increasing job creation in U.S. manufacturing sectors. At home, imports are subject to the same FairTax rate as domestically produced goods. Not only does the FairTax put U.S. products sold here on the same tax footing as foreign imports, but the dramatic lowering of compliance costs in comparison to other countries’ value-added taxes also gives U.S. products a definitive pricing advantage which foreign tax systems cannot match.

The FairTax strategy is revenue neutrality: Neither raise nor lower taxes so consumer costs remain stable.

The FairTax pays for all current government operations, including Social Security and Medicare. Government revenues are more stable and predictable than with the federal income tax because consumption is a more constant revenue base than is income.

If you were in a 23-percent income tax bracket, the federal government would take $23 out of your paycheck for every $100 you made. With the FairTax, if the federal government gets $23 out of every $100 spent in America, the same total revenue is delivered to the federal government. This is revenue neutrality. So, instead of paycheck-earning Americans paying 7.65 percent of their paychecks in Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes, plus an average of 18 percent of their paychecks in federal income tax, for a total of about 25.65 percent, consumers in America pay only $23 out of every $100. Or about 30 percent at the cash register when they elect to spend on new goods or services for their own personal consumption. And this tax is collected only on spending above the federal poverty level, providing important progressivity.

Tax criminals don’t make criminals out of honest taxpayers.

Today, the IRS will admit to 16 percent noncompliance with the code. FairTax.org will be generous and simply take the position that this is likely a conservative estimate of the underground economy. However, this does not take into account the criminal/drug/porn economy, which equally conservative estimates put at one trillion dollars of untaxed activity. The FairTax does tax this -- criminals love to flash that cash at retail -- while continuing to provide the federal penalties so effective in bringing such miscreants to justice. The substantial decrease in points of compliance -- from every wage earner, investor, and retiree, down to only retailers -- also allows enforcement to concentrate on following the money to criminal activity, rather than making potential criminals out of every taxpayer struggling to decipher the current code.

Can you decipher the current code? Find out! The following link goes to the Table of Contents of our current tax code (26 USC). Not the full code, just the Table of Contents:

Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) (Warning! If you are on a 56k modem, it would not be a good idea to click this link unless you plan on waiting a while just to view this Table of Contents!)

That's some list, is it not? 9,833 sections long! You could read the novel War And Peace by Leo Tolstoy before getting through 26 USC.

So, what should we do about it? There really is only one answer. Scrap the entire system and rebuild it from the ground up. I support the FairTax to replace our current tax system. You can get additional information, including research papers prepared by economists from the nation's leading colleges and universities, by visiting the following website:

Americans For Fair Taxation

Iowa Caucuses, Abusive Power Of The IRS And Oil Prices

There is alot going on in the world right now and only a limited amount of space to write about it. Of course, the big news is news that should be mostly irrelevent to anyone but an Iowan, but the caucuses that were held yesterday are headlines everywhere and we need to pay at least some token attention to it.

Why?

I don't know. It is not as if Iowa and Hew Hampshire are the only states that will determine who will be the Presidential candidates for each party. But it is entertaining and it does allow certain issues to come to the front that otherwise would not have been given any attention at all.

In her most recent column in the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan touches on this with her explanation of why Mike Huckabee won:

What we have learned about Mr. Huckabee the past few months is that he's an ace entertainer with a warm, witty and compelling persona. He won with no money and little formal organization, with an evangelical network, with a folksy manner, and with the best guileless pose in modern politics. From the mail I have received the past month after criticizing him in this space, I would say his great power, the thing really pushing his supporters, is that they believe that what ails America and threatens its continued existence is not economic collapse or jihad, it is our culture. They have been bruised and offended by the rigid, almost militant secularism and multiculturalism of the public schools; they reject those schools' squalor, in all senses of the word. They believe in God and family and America. They are populist: They don't admire billionaire CEOs, they admire husbands with two jobs who hold the family together for the sake of the kids; they don't need to see the triumph of supply-side thinking, they want to see that suffering woman down the street get the help she needs. They believe that Mr. Huckabee, the minister who speaks their language, shares, down to the bone, their anxieties, concerns and beliefs. They fear that the other Republican candidates are caught up in a million smaller issues--taxing, spending, the global economy, Sunnis and Shia--and missing the central issue: again, our culture. They are populists who vote Republican, and as I have read their letters, I have felt nothing but respect.

Mike Huckabee is not who I would have voted for, but at least his victory in Iowa will bring the social issues back into the Republican Party, and the GOP will greatly benefit as a result.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Out With The Old, In With The New
Peggy Noonan
OpinionJournal.com
January 4, 2008

---

Oh! And this is a big one! You have got to read this story. I don't even know where to begin in describing it, so I will just let the excerpts speak for themselves.

From the World Net Daily:

A lawyer who was acquitted by a federal court trial jury of Internal Revenue Service accusations he failed to filed income tax returns for two years now is suing several IRS agents over their alleged improper disclosure of his personal information in the case. A spokeswoman in the office of lawyer Tom Cryer told WND the case was assembled and filed by Cryer between Christmas Day and the end of 2007 and is expected to be placed on the docket in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Last summer in federal court a jury voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of the IRS allegations. He had been indicted on 2006 on government claims he failed to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. His successful defense was based on a challenge to the IRS to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax.

You did read that last sentence, right? Read on:

Now his claim against the government's agents, according to a report in the Shreveport Times, explains four IRS criminal investigation division workers tried to destroy his reputation during the course of their investigation in the case. The lawsuit alleges IRS agents Jimmy H. Sandefur, Darrin A. Heusel and Judge Armand, and a trainee, Patrick Potter "entered into a smear and fear campaign to destroy Plaintiff's good reputation and law practice." Cryer alleges the federal workers repeatedly violated federal laws that restrict the disclosure of tax information, release of information about an investigation and publicizing information about a grand jury investigation.

This case will highlight the fact that the IRS possesses an abusive power that they never should have been given in the first place. More:

"I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples' property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," Cryer said after his acquittal. He said he is dedicated to the truth, and has launched a new Truth Attack website that is intended to build on his victory, and create a coalition of resources to defeat – ultimately – the income tax in the United States.

We, as a people, need to research the case of Tom Cryer and his fight against a Federal Government entity that can only be described as "invasive" and "abusive."

His website can be accessed here:

Truth Attack

And the complete article can be accessed on-line here:

Lawyer Who Beat IRS Sues Agents
World Net Daily
January 4, 2008

This is yet another reason why I am a supporter of the Fair Tax

UPDATE: For those who wish to research this issue further and gather background information on the original case, I found links to certain documents. After Mr. Cryer filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 3rd of 2007:

The Government's Response
Mr. Cryer's Reply
Mr. Cryer's Trial Brief
Proposed Jury Instructions
Proposed Voir Dire Questions

---

And finally, the Wall Street Journal has an interesting expose about the price of oil and its relationship to the strength/weakness of the dollar.

From the Review & Outlook section:

Since 2001 the dollar price of oil and gold have run in almost perfect tandem (see nearby chart). The gold price has risen 239% since 2001, while the oil price has risen 267%. This means that if the dollar had remained "as good as gold" since 2001, oil today would be selling at about $30 a barrel, not $99. Gold has traditionally been a rough proxy for the price level, so the decline of the dollar against gold and oil suggests a U.S. monetary that is supplying too many dollars. We would add that the dollar price of nearly all commodities -- from wheat to corn to copper to silver -- are also surging, a further sign of a weakening currency. On Wednesday alone the price of wheat and soybeans increased 3.4% and 2.8%, respectively. That follows a 75% increase in their price in 2007 -- which ran ahead of the oil price, which gained a mere 57% for the year. Neither OPEC nor China caused food commodity prices to rise like this. The main culprit here is a global loss of confidence in Federal Reserve policy and the dollar.

And this interesting tidbit:

A weak dollar has been trumpeted in the business media and especially among manufacturers as a strategy to lower the trade deficit. But this strategy makes imported oil a lot more expensive. The trade figures reveal that a major contributor to the rising trade deficit over this decade has been the high cost of oil imports. We don't worry about the trade deficit -- except in so far as it inspires protectionism -- but those who do might want to consider that the weak dollar policy they are cheering is making fuel very expensive. ... Rising oil prices act like a tax on American consumers. With the economy slowing, the Fed is now under intense pressure to cut interest rates to stimulate the economy and provide liquidity to the banking industry. But if this causes the dollar to continue to weaken, the tax of higher commodity prices will offset much of the "stimulus" from looser money. The Fed will get a lot less bang for its easier buck. The larger danger here, as we've been warning for some time, is that the U.S. seems to be returning to the Carter-era economic policy mix of tight fiscal policy (tax increases) and easy money. Add barriers to oil and natural gas production and you have a recipe for higher oil prices and slower growth. In a word, for stagflation. The Reagan-Volcker policy mix of the 1980s changed all that, but maybe we have to relearn the hard way every generation or so what works -- and what produces $100 oil.

Please read this article and take it to heart.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Oil And The Dollar
The Wall Street Journal
January 4, 2008

Nancy Pelosi Was Okay With Waterboarding Back In 2002 And Dems Concede Tax Increases

So, the Dems were okay with waterboarding as an interrogation technique back in 2002 but waited until 2007 to come out against it? Why? Due to the secretive cloak that the Dems use to surround their true agenda, we may never know. But Fox News has this:

Four top members of Congress, including now-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, got a close look at CIA overseas detention sites and interrogation techniques in September 2002 and offered no challenge to their legitimacy, according to a news article out Sunday. On the contrary, at least two lawmakers involved in the briefing that day questioned whether the CIA was pushing hard enough, even after hearing the details of the now widely criticized technique known as waterboarding, two U.S. officials told The Washington Post. "The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," one official is quoted saying. ... "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," Porter Goss, a former CIA director and congressman who chaired the House intelligence panel at the time of the briefings, told The Post. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

Perhaps a member of Old Media will go back and ask Pelosi about her reaction during these briefings and then ask to reconcile that reaction to the fact that only one member of the Congressional delegation raised any objection at all: Democrat Jane Harman.

But then, that would require integrity on the part of the Dems and on Old Media.

Not likely.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Report: Top Members Of Congress Were OK With Waterboarding In 2002
FoxNews.com
December 9, 2007

---

And the Dems are quickly knuckling under as it has become apparent that the American people do not want higher taxes nor more government spending.

From the Associated Press:

Cracks are emerging in congressional Democrats' solidarity, as frustrated lawmakers concede their majority status is not enough to overcome Republican resistance on taxes, spending, Iraq and a host of other issues. The fissures, which became obvious this week, are undermining Democrats' hopes for several key achievements this year. They also point to a bruising 2008 election in which Democrats will say Republicans blocked prudent tax and spending plans to score political points on immigration and other hot-button issues. Republicans say they simply want to prevent higher taxes of any kind, even if the targets are not-so-sympathetic groups such as oil companies and hedge fund managers.

And the Dems also think we are stupid enough to buy their criticism. No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity, but many have taxed themselves into poverty. Thus, no tax plan that includes higher taxes can ever be called "prudent." Too bad the Dem leadership just doesn't seem capable of grasping that.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Cry Uncle On Taxes, Spending
Charles Babington
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
December 7, 2007