About Me

Name: AuVox
Location: Laguna Niguel, CA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Where's the uproar NOW?

From an email this morning:

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special
    Olympics, would you have approved?
   
 If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing
    videos of his speeches, would you have approved?
    If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you
    have approved?
   
 If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the
    nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a
    minor slip?
   
 If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers
    with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes,
    would you have approved?
   
 If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major
    corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do
    so, would you have approved?
   
 If George W. Bush had a Republican Congress allocate 5.6 billion
    dollars for a civilian volunteer security force, as strong and well
    equipped as the regular Army and under his personal authority,
    would you have been concerned?
    If George W. Bush had proposed doubling the national debt, which
    had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would
    you have approved?
   
 If George W. Bush had then proposed doubling the debt again within
    10 years, would you have approved?

    If George W. Bush had promised detailed tracking of the spending
    from a $785 Billion Stimulus Bill and then postponed its oversight
    until 2010, would you approve or would you think something "smelled
    fishy"?  If Bush had promised 48 hour advance posting of the same
    bill on the internet and only released it two hours before
    congressional approval, would you wonder what was being hidden from
    the public?

    If Bush's White House Staff had spent over $300,000 flying Air
    Force One low over New York (for a publicity photo flyby with the
    Statue of Liberty ) frightening the city, would you have approved?
    Wouldn't you have expected Bush to make the pictures public?
    (Obama won't give them up, but he will release the secret "torture
    memos".)

    If George W. Bush had been addicted to using a TelePrompTer, and
    was afraid to give a speech without having one, would you have
    approved?  Would you have thought he was less intelligent?

    If George W. Bush had pre-approved/pre-picked the list of reporters
    allowed to ask questions at his press conferences and refused to
    call on the correspondent from MSNBC, would you have approved?
    (Obama would not take questions from Fox News.)
   
 If George W. Bush and a Republican Congress had given hundreds of
    millions of dollars to a group after its members had been convicted
    of voter registration fraud, would you have approved of having them
    do then 2010 Census, which will determine congressional districts
    for 10 years?  (ACORN will be doing the Census in 2010.)

    Would you have approved of George W. Bush moving the Census from
    the Dept. of Commerce into the White House and putting his Chief of
    Staff in control of the counting?
   
 If George W. Bush had flown his wife to New York City to take in a
    Broadway show during a deep recession where he had told Americans
    that they must "make sacrifices", would you have approved? 

 Obama's done all this in 16 weeks -- so we still have three years and
eight months of surprises to come.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama could use this speechwriter

 
Dennis Prager is one of America's treasures.  He is fair, thoughtful, and wise.  This is his column for this week, in its entirety:
"This week, President Barack Obama is scheduled to give a major address in Cairo to the Muslim world. He is likely to reiterate what he has stated previously to Muslim audiences, that America has no battle with Islam, deeply respects Islam and the Muslim world, and apologizes for any anti-Muslim sentiment that any Americans may express.

Here is what an honest address would sound like:

"Thank you for the honor of addressing the Egyptian people and the wider Muslim world.

"I am here primarily to dispel some of the erroneous beliefs many Muslims have about America and to thereby reassure you that America has no desire to be at war with the Muslim world.

"To my great disappointment, many Muslims have come to believe that my country has declared war on Muslims and Islam.

"Because of this widespread belief, I said in an interview with al-Arabiya a few months ago, that we need to restore “the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.”

"Lets’ look a little deeper at that relationship. For the truth is, as noted by the Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist for the American newspaper the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, in the last 20-30 years America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for Muslims. We Americans engaged in five military campaigns on behalf of Muslims, each one resulting in the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Bosnia and Kosovo, as well as the failed 1992-93 Somalia intervention to feed starving African Muslims -- in which] 43 Americans were killed -- were all humanitarian exercises. In none of them was there a significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. So, in fact, in these 20 years, my country, the United States of America has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any other nation, Muslim or non-Muslim.

"While I recognize that gratitude is the rarest positive human quality, I need to say -- because candor is the highest form respect -- that America has not only not received little gratitude from the Muslim world, it has been the object of hatred, mass murder, and economic attack from Muslim individuals, groups, and countries.

"Just to cite a few of many examples from the last 40 years:

"In 1973, Muslim terrorists attacked the American embassy in Sudan and murdered our country’s ambassador, Cleo Noel, and the chief deputy of the mission, George C. Moore. Later in 1973, the Arab oil embargo against America sent my country into a long and painful recession. In 1977, Muslim militants murdered the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, Frances E. Meloy, and Robert O.Waring, the U.S. economic counselor. In 1979 radical Muslims violently attacked my country’s embassy in Teheran, and for 14 months held American diplomats hostage, often in appalling conditions. In 1998, Muslim militants bombed the American embassy in Nairobi, killing 12 Americans and 280 Kenyans, and bombed our embassy in Tanzania, killing another 11 Americans. Then, on Sept. 11, 2001, 19 Muslims who had been living in America slit the throats of American pilots and flight attendants and then flew airplanes into civilian buildings in New York City, burning 3,000 innocent Americans to death.

"So, my friends here in Egypt, between America and the Muslim world, who exactly has been making war on whom?

"I have enormous differences with my predecessor, President George W. Bush. But please remember that less than a week after thousands of Americans were slaughtered in the name of your religion, President Bush went to the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., and announced that Islam was a religion of peace. Moreover, in a country of 300 million people, of whom only a few million are Muslim, there is virtually no recorded incident of anti-mosque or other anti-Muslim violence despite the butchery of 9/11 and the popular support for Osama Bin Laden that we saw in the Muslim world after 9/11.

"I ask you to please ask yourselves what Egypt’s reaction would have been had 19 Christians, in the name of Christianity, slaughtered 3,000 Egyptians. How would the Christians of Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East have fared?

"As it is, because of persecution by Muslim majorities, Christians have been leaving the Middle East in such great numbers that for the first time since Christ, there are large parts of the Middle East that have become empty of both Jews and Christians.

"Yet, at the same time, millions of Muslims have moved to Western countries and to America. It is fair to say that the freest, and often the safest, place in the world for a practicing Muslim is the United States of America.

"Muslim-Americans are treated exactly as other Americans are treated. It is exceedingly rare to hear any anti-Muslim bigotry in my country. And while there is some criticism of the Muslim world, but there is far more criticism of Christianity in America than of Islam.

"Unfortunately, in much of the Muslim world today anti-Jewish speeches and writing are frequently identical to the genocidal anti-Semitism one heard and read in Nazi Germany. This is a blight on your civilization. How can you seriously charge that America is at war with Islam when in fact it is much of the Islamic world that is at war with Jews and Christians?

"I know that you would like me to announce that America is abandoning its support for Israel. But every president since Harry Truman, Democrat and Republican, has been passionate about enabling Israel to defend itself from those who wish to destroy it. And that, dear Muslims, is the issue. America will continue to support a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute, but the issue has never really been about two states. It has always been about Palestinians and other Arabs and Muslims recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

"As a friend of Egypt and of the Muslim world, I want to say something from the bottom of my heart: The day the Arab world ceases obsessing over the existence of a Jewish state the size of Belize will be a great day for the Arab and Muslim worlds. Your obsession with Israel has cost you dearly in every area of social development. This is easily demonstrated. If Israel were destroyed -- and the so-called “right of return” of millions of third-generation Palestinian refugees would ensure that outcome as effectively as would a nuclear device from Iran -- what difference would that make to the Egyptian economy, to Egyptian lack of freedoms, or anything else that matters to Egyptians? In my opinion, none whatsoever. Preoccupation with Israel has simply enabled the Arab world to not look within for 60 years.

"Finally, my fellow Americans would feel more confident in American-Muslim relations if they had ever seen a large demonstration of Muslims anywhere against all the terror committed by Muslims in the name of Islam -- whether in London, Madrid, New York, Bali, Cairo, or Mumbai. The mark of a great civilization -- and Arab civilization was indeed once great -- is a willingness to criticize itself.

"Thank you again for this opportunity to address you. I could have patronized you by exaggerating American misdeeds and ignoring yours. But I have too much respect for you. "

"Shukran jiddan."
Dennis Prager can be heard on radio stations coast-to-coast, and reached at Pragerradio.com.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

From another angry, informed citizen

An email from Tom:

Let me get this straight...
 
The American Auto industry has finally gotten their quality up to par with Japanese and German cars made in Tennessee, Georgia and Ohio...
 
But Chrysler and GM are on life support, with Ford not far behind.
 
Why?
 
Over the decades, Management was too afraid to seriously challenge their bloated, ever-increasing Union wage & benefit contracts. (And they knew full well this was coming. Almost a decade ago, a GM Executive remarked that, "We're not a car company anymore. We're a Wage, Health & Retirement Benefits Plan, that makes cars on the side.")
 
These contracts created $50,000-a-year janitors...
 
...protected workers that routinely came back from lunch so drunk or high on drugs they passed out on the assembly line, but could not be fired...
 
...and rewarded High School dropouts with retirement at 55, with full pay and medical benefits for life... even if they got another full-time job the next day.
 
This madness saddled U.S. car companies with nearly $3000 - PER CAR - in additional costs that other companies that build equivalent cars here in the U.S. do not have to bear.
 
Now Chrysler is declaring bankruptcy, which would normally allow them to void the Union contracts, and start from scratch with new, reasonable wages & benefits packages, or even go non-union entirely.
 
But no. In swoops the Obamessiah, with his "approved" rescue plan... which gives 55% of Chrysler to...
 
The UAW.
 
That's right, the United Auto Workers Union will have CONTROLLING INTEREST in Chrysler.
 
Just how exactly does management renegotiate contracts with the majority stakeholder of the company?
 
How do Chrysler negotiators "hang tough" when the "other side" is also Chrysler's single largest stockholder?...and as such, can order the Board of Directors to fire the negotiators and accept whatever deal the UAW demands?
 
It's not just putting the Fox in CHARGE of the Hen house, it's signing over the DEED to the Hen House.
 
It's as if CVS, Walgreen and Rite-Aid were going bankrupt, and the plan to save them includes putting a Narcotics Anonymous meeting in charge and hoping they don't go straight for the Vicodin.
 
If this happens, Chrysler is D.O.A.
 
The only question is how many more tens of billions in taxpayer money we'll pump into the corpse before we pull the sheet over.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The American Trinity

The Secret Of American Exceptionalism on every coin in your pocket.  Dennis Prager has been talking for quite some time about "Prager University", and their motto "Give us five minutes, we'll give you a semester".
 
Frankly, it's even better than I expected.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A New Constitution for the 21st Century


Sent to me by a Special Forces Marine.  Seen much of it before, but it's worth repeating:

"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchi
ldren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes ..

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or suffer the frustration English-only speakers do in any other country in the world. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable going back to wherever you came from.

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TFB!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A New Constitution for the 21st Century


Sent to me by a former Special Forces Marine.  Seen it before, but it's worth repeating:

"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchi
ldren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes ..

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or suffer the frustration English-only speakers do in any other country in the world. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable going back to wherever you came from.

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TFB!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The FairTax Fantasy summary, part four

Chapter Four is titled "Truth About Its Consequences". The authors claim that the very powerful senior citizens' lobby will prevent the FairTax from passing because it would be very detrimental to those living on fixed incomes. Again, they cite the 30% increase in prices they expect.

They say--correctly I think--that the effect of the elimination of the income tax on people of all income levels will not be either universally positive or negative. But they claim that the middle class will almost all lose money.

Here is where they introduce the fact that under the FairTax a home bought for investment purposes will be far less expensive than one bought to live in.

I believe Hewitt and Adler have a very valid point here, since the FairTax is only paid once, by the final user at the retail level. And remember, this only applies to new items. Used items are not subject to the FairTax.

So how do the proponents of the FairTax forsee a scenario like this settling out: Investor A buys a home for investment purposes, rents it to Tenant B for two months, then sells it to Tenant B for a big discount on what Tenant B would have to pay for a new home? Would there need to be a minimum amount of time an investor would have to own the property before he were to sell? Would it be a time period, like one year or five years? Or would it be tied to a monetary amount, like long enough for the FairTax on the rents to equal what the FairTax would be on a new home? Is this scenario already covered in HR 25?

Conversely, would "new" simply mean "the first time a home was acquired by an end user", no matter how old the property actually was? The FairTax would then be paid on the purchase price; thus preventing any home built after the FairTax goes into effect from escaping being subject to the tax, unless it's never lived in by an owner.

As Chapter Four continues, the authors list many of the social benefits now supported by tax deductions that would no longer be encouraged by tax benefits. The mortgage interest deduction, IRA's, charity deductions, adoption credits, medical deductions, and foreign tax credits are among thse listed that would no longer exist under the FairTax.

In addition, Hewitt and Adler list several ways in which high net worth individuals would escape taxation on their existing assets and would be able to leave larger estates to their heirs, thus creating an even larger gap between ordinary Americans and the "economic aristocracy".

The authors point out that many items that are traditionally non-taxable will now be subject to the FairTax, and that business that depends on things like foreign tourism will be adversely affected by, what the authors claim will be, far higher prices.

My take: Aside from the real estate issue, which I've addressed, Hewitt and Adler's points largely rely on their opinions--backed up, they say, by the economists they choose to cite--that are completely at odds with the economic studies Boortz and Linder choose to cite.

FairTax proponents argue that once embedded federal taxes are removed from the cost of items and replaced by the FairTax, the prices at the register will be about what they are now. Hewitt and Adler argue that there will be no price reductions, and that the addition of a 30% sales tax will mean massive price increases only slightly offset by the elimination of all withholding, and the monthly "prebate".

The elimination of the current tax deductions bothers me not in the least. What, pray tell, are you going to deduct your expenses FROM? Withholding will be eliminated under the FairTax. And no one gives to charity, or adopts a child just for the tax consequences. Does it make financial sense to give $1000 to a charity so the government will give you back $330? Or pay the $330 in tax and keep the $660? As they say, "do the math".

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The FairTax Fantasy summary, Part 3

 

Chapter Three of The FairTax Fantasy reiterates Hewitt and Adler's claim that the tax rate must be described as the exclusive 30% rate rather than the inclusive 23% because that's how all sales taxes are described. They dismiss Boortz's claim that, because the FairTax replaces the income tax and the income tax rate is inclusive, the FairTax should be described that way as well.

Again, both sides agree that both the 23% inclusive and 30% exclusive rates are identical.

Hewitt and Adler also claim that the rate won't be high enough to cover the nation's required revenue, and that the switch from an income tax to the FairTax will be confusing and uncomfortable.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More stuff we never hear about


 
 Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 12:56 PM
 
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY McClatchy Newspapers
 
 
Over the last 12 months, 1,042 soldiers, Marines,
 sailors  and Air Force personnel have given their lives in the terrible duty that is war.
 Thousands more have come home on  stretchers, horribly wounded and facing
 months or years  in military hospitals.
 
This week, I'm turning my space over to a good friend and former roommate,
 Army Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, who  recently completed a year long tour of
 duty in Iraq and  is now back at the Pentagon.
 
Here's Lt. Col. Bateman's account of a little-known ceremony that fills
 the halls of the Army corridor of  the Pentagon with cheers, applause and
 many tears  every Friday morning. It first appeared on May 17 on the
 Weblog of media critic and pundit Eric Alterman at the Media Matters for
 America Website.
 
"It is 110 yards from the "E" ring to the "A" ring of the  Pentagon. This
 section of the Pentagon is newly  renovated; the floors shine, the hallway
 is broad, and  the lighting is bright. At this instant the entire length of the
corridor is packed with officers, a few sergeants and some civilians,
 all crammed tightly three and four  deep against the walls. There are
 thousands here. This hallway, more than any other, is the
 Army' hallway.

 The G-3 offices line one side, G-2 the other, G-8 is around  the corner.
 All Army. Moderate conversations flow in a  low buzz.
 Friends who may not have seen each other  for a few weeks, or a few years,
 spot each other, cross the way and renew their friendships.
 
Everyone shifts to ensure an open path remains down the center. The air
 conditioning system was not  designed for this press of bodies in this
 area.  The  temperature is rising already. Nobody cares.10:36 hours: The
 clapping starts at the E-Ring. That is the  outer most of the five rings of
 the Pentagon and it is  closest to the entrance to the building.. This
 clapping  is low, sustained, hearty. It is applause with a deep  emotion
 behind it as it moves forward in a wave down  the length of the hallway.
 
A steady rolling wave of sound it is, moving at the pace of
 the soldier in the wheelchair who marks the  forward edge with his
 presence. He is the first. He is  missing the greater part of one leg, and
 some of his wounds are still suppurating.. By his age I expect that  he
 is a private, or perhaps a private first class. Captains, majors, lieutenant
 colonels and colonels meet his gaze and nod as they applaud, soldier
 to  soldier.
 
Three years ago when I described one of  these events, those lining the
 hallways were somewhat different. The applause a little wilder, perhaps in
 private guilt  for not having shared in the burden. Yet. Now almost
 everyone lining the hallway is, like  the man in the  wheelchair, also a
 combat veteran. This steadies the applause but, I think deepens the
 sentiment. We have all been there now. The  soldier's chair is pushed by, I
 believe, a full colonel.
 
Behind him, and stretching the length from Rings  E to A, come more of his
 peers, each private, corporal, or sergeant assisted as need be by a field grade officer.
 
11:00 hours: Twenty-four minutes of steady  applause. My hands hurt, and I
 laugh to myself  at how stupid that sounds in my own head. My hands hurt..
 Please! Shut up and clap. For twenty-four minutes, soldier after soldier
 has come down this  hallway - 20, 25, 30. Fifty-three legs come with them,
 and perhaps only 52 hands or arms, but down this hall came 30 solid hearts.
 
They pass down this corridor of officers and applause, and then meet for a
 private lunch, at  which they are the guests of honor, hosted by the
 generals. Some are wheeled along. Some insist upon getting
 out of their chairs, to march as best  they can with their chin
 held up, down this hallway, through this most unique audience. Some are
catching handshakes and smiling like a politician at a Fourth of July parade.
 More than a couple of them seem amazed and are smiling shyly.
 
There are families with them as well: the 18-year-old war-bride pushing her
 19-year-old  husband's wheelchair and not quite understanding  why her
 husband is so affected by this, the boy she grew up with, now a man, who
 had never shed  a tear is crying; the older immigrant Latino parents who
 have, perhaps more than their wounded mid-20s son, an
 appreciation for the emotion given on their son's behalf.
 
No man in that hallway, walking or clapping,  is ashamed by the silent
 tears on more than a few cheeks. An Airborne Ranger wipes
 his eyes only to better  see. A couple of the officers in this crowd
 have  themselves been a part of this parade in the  past.
 
These are our men, broken in body they may be but, they are
 our brothers, and we welcome them home. This parade has gone on, every
 single Friday, all year long, for more than four years.
 
Did you know that?
 
The media hasn't yet told  the story and probably never will.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The FairTax Fantasy summary, Part Two

Chapter Two

This chapter in The FairTax Fantasy largely describes why the authors believe it's more honest to call the FairTax a 30% sales tax rather than a 23% inclusive tax. According to the authors, it's that sales taxes are ALWAYS considered an "exclusive" tax; that is, "added on after the price".

They do acknowledge that a 23% inclusive tax and a 30% exclusive tax is the same; they do not acknowledge that there will be any price change when the 20-25% federal taxes already included in the price of all goods is removed.

In other words, Hewitt and Adler give an example of a $1.00 item increasing in price after the FairTax to $1.30; Boortz and Linder would say that after the federal taxes are removed from the $1.00 item, the actual cost will be about $.77. Include the 23% FairTax, and the price at the register will be... $1.00.

Hewitt and Adler also claim that some economists believe that the 30% number is far too low, and that the actual FairTax rate will need to be about 50%.

They go on to mention the "prebate", how it's only available to legal citizens, and about how devastating it will be for the 12 to 15 million illegal aliens in the country, for them to wake up one morning and find the prices of everything they're already struggling to buy 30% more expensive.

They also briefly mention projected problems they see in an inevitable international trade war, since American goods would be so much less expensive overseas; how investment property would be far cheaper than a home you would buy to live in; and what chaos it would throw the states into, since they depend on the current income tax system to raise their own revenues.

My reaction: Again, Hewitt and Adler insist on referring to the higher 30% figure than the 23% figure. Proponents of both have their agendas: If you're for the FairTax, the 23% figure is more palatable. If you're against the FairTax, the 30% figure looks more scary.

I think Boortz and Linder have the better argument for the following reasons: 1) the embedded federal taxes the FairTax replaces are already factored into the price.

Here's an example, And for purposes of explanation that will become clear I'll change the numbers slightly from 23% and 30%, to 25% and 33% (identical inclusive and exclusive rates):

You go the register to buy a widget--assume we're in a state with no additional sales taxes--and the clerk rings up one dollar. You put four quarters on the counter. The clerk says, "y'know, one of those quarters goes to pay embedded federal taxes."

"No kidding?", you answer, "That's 25% of the price! Well, the FairTax gets rid of those taxes, so let's slide that quarter over here for a sec. These three quarters now represent the widget's actual cost."

"Right," says the clerk, "but now you have to pay the FairTax, so let's slide it back over to cover it."

Boortz and Linder would argue that the FairTax is 25% of the purchase price--after all, it's a quarter!. Hewitt and Adler would claim that the quarter of tax represents a 33% increase over the three coins that the widget "costs".

You and I? We don't give a rat's patootie. We pay the buck and leave with our widget.

The second reason I think the FairTax proponents have the better argument is that the income tax that the FairTax is designed to replace is figured on an "inclusive" basis. Are you in the 15% tax bracket? You're actually paying 17.6% under the Hewitt/Adler description. 28% bracket? Actually, "exclusively" it's nearly 40%! How about President Obama's proposed 39.6% tier. On an "exclusive" basis, you're paying over 65.5% tax. Swell.

Yes, the FairTax is technically a "sales tax", which is traditionally referred to on an "exclusive" basis; but I believe it makes more sense to compare apples to apples.

In their other examples, I don't believe illegal aliens would be any worse off than they are now. Prices under the FairTax should remain about the same. Things WILL be better for legal residents, since they'll receive their "prebate" every month to cover the tax on items up to the poverty level.

International trade may be a factor, but that's well above my pay grade. And Boortz and Linder, and Hewitt and Adler are all making projections, after all; but the marketplace works best when finding it's own level.

The one example they give that I do see as problematic is that new homes bought for investment purposes will be far less expensive than those bought to live in. I would expect to see "partnerships" develop wherein two people buy property for investment, and rent to each other.

This could be a real issue, but is probably way too complex to pull off on a consistent basis. For their own personal protection, there would need to be very thorough contracts put in place to cover such a partnership so that each party feels secure in the ownership of "his" house. And what happens when one of them wants to move? All of this would raise red flags among the attorneys who'd have to draw up said contracts. How would they feel about being part of an illegal tax conspiracy?

There would probably have to be laws put in place to prevent an investor from selling that property for a substantial period. Say three to five years. Something to address though.

The summary continues when I can.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The FairTax Fantasy

 

That's the title of a new book by national radio talk-show host and Law Professor Hugh Hewitt, and Assistant Professor of accounting, and tax accountant Hank Adler. They sub-head is "An Honest Look at a Very, Very Bad Idea".

I just received my copy, am currently reading it, and will try to give as fair a summary as possible of what the authors focus on, as well as comparing it to the FairTax as presented by national talk show host and author Neal Boortz, and Representative John Linder.

Full disclosure: I have been a proponent of the FairTax for years, and although there are certainly serious questions raised by Hewitt and Adler, I find their arguments on the whole less than compelling so far.

First of all, the fact that a book like this has been researched and written is actually a good thing. It not only brings FairTax questions and shortcomings to light--which is the only way they can be adequately and effectively addressed--but it gives significant additional credibility to how much headway the FairTax has gained over the years as more people learn about it.

Hewitt and Adler both agree that the tax system as we know it is a mess, and that major reforms are needed. Their premise is that the FairTax is so flawed that a huge amount of energy is being wasted by the hundreds of thousands of us on a tax system that hasn't a prayer of passing. They feel the energies should be focused elsewhere.

Here's Part One of a summary:

Chapter One.

This deals with what the authors refer to as the "Three Bobs". They use as their example a "superrich" American with an annual income of 10 million dollars. He, of course, loves the FairTax because his current income tax liability is well over 3 million a year, and that would plummet under the FairTax, which is only paid once at the retail level. He'd have to buy almost 14 million dollars worth of goods and services every year in order to provide the government with the same amount of revenue. And if he DID want a big-ticket item, he could just buy it overseas and either leave it there--like a yacht--or carry it home--like a Rolex, since the FairTax doesn't apply out of the country.

The second Bob is an outrageously wealthy foreign entertainer--say a fighter--who comes to New York, makes 100 million dollars in a bout, and leaves the country with all 100 million (minus a few thousand dollars in taxes incurred while he was staying, eating, and shopping.) Lost tax revenue to the government in second Bob's case would be well over 30 million dollars. Another one in favor of the FairTax.

Third Bob is "retired" Bob. He and his wife have saved their money for retirement but now, after the FairTax is passed, the authors claim they will have far reduced purchasing power because of the addition of this new 30% sales tax. This Bob will hate the FairTax.

Hewitt and Adler do briefly acknowledge that the FairTax "prebate" will help Third Bob cope.

One of the basic premises of the FairTax as put forth by Boortz and Linder, is that it eliminates all other federal federal taxes. With that 20-25% of federal taxes that are currently priced into everything we buy, Boortz and Linder claim that the "actual cost" of everything would soon (if not immediately) drop by that amount, so that once the FairTax is included the price at the register will be roughly the same as before. In other words, the FairTax merely replaces the already embedded federal taxes.

Hewitt and Adler don't acknowledge this. They believe there will be a huge increase at the register.

They also insist (over, and over again) that the actual percentage of the FairTax is 30% (the EXclusive rate), not 23% (the INclusive rate), because sales taxes are ALWAYS thought of as "exclusive"--that is, "added on after the price is set". From a practical point of view, the dollar amount paid at the register for any item will be identical no matter how you refer to it.

My contention in the "Three Bobs" scenario is that it's largely a "straw man" argument. Yes, the super wealthy will love the FairTax. (But I love it too, and I'm kinda poor.) Yes, they will pay less federal tax than they do now. So what? They earned the money--or their families did--and they should reap the benefits of being smart, lucky, or hard working.

Plus, how many of the 350 million of us fall into the category of "superrich"? Inventing a specific example of the rich getting richer simply smacks of class warfare.

The example of "Third Bob" is simply erroneous--unless you buy into the argument that when the inherent cost of an item drops by 20-25%, the successive price at the register wont also fall. I agree with Boortz: the free market will force the adjustment down into place.

My last point right now is that since (as described by Boortz and Linder) the FairTax significantly improves the purchasing power for everyone, especially (as a percentage) the poor, the only way to paint the FairTax as villainous is to point out that it REALLY helps the rich.

Is America so jealous of its greatest producers that it won't put into place something that helps everyone just to make certain that the most successful don't benefit? Time will tell.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Colombian Free Trade Pact is alive again

 
Formal free trade with what may be our best friend in South America is something that should have been done long ago.  President George W. Bush tried in vain to convince Democrats in Washington to make this happen, but they were too obsessed with stonewalling anything that Bush wanted to see the Big Picture:  that it was not only good for America, but the right thing to do.
 
Since the MSM completely ignored the exchange between Presidents Obama and Uribe, it's unlikely that we'll hear much about it until and unless it becomes a done-deal.
 
Make it happen, Mr. President.  We'll be some of the first to give you credit.
 
(H/T: Hot Air)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Leftist Loons in action

Newsbusters is a conservative site--by definition, because their intent is to highlight the Leftism inherent in nearly all media.  That being said, they don't report rumor, innuendo, and conspiracy theories as truth (are you listening Mr. Olbermann?  Ms. Garafolo?).
 
What you'll see here  is classic projectionism.  "Hey, I'm no psychiatrist, but I am a thinker..."  and I think the panic at what the Tea Parties represent is bubbling out of the screen here like pus from a zit.  Yes, I know that's a disgusting visual...all most as disgusting as what shows up in prime time on MSNBC.
 
Gee, I hope Keef-O has a full-time nurse practitioner standing by with the sphygmomenometer.  Hypertension can kill you.  Even faster than O'Reilly's ratings.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Great Hostage Rescue

Finally, proof of Obama's gravitas?  Turns out, maybe not so much.
 
Really...what should have been resolved in a few hours dragged on into a four-day embarrassment with three of Somalia's finest holding off the US military.  This smacks of a President-Caught-In-The-Headlights, and although the media painted it as a "distraction"--such a minor one, in fact, that the (newspaper-formerly-known-as-credible) Los Angeles Times didn't even mention it on Sunday's front page--it was in fact a real test of the seriousness and responsiveness of the United States v. Terrorists (excuse me, "manners-challenged" or whatever the Democrats are calling it these days) in the eyes of the world. 
 
There are plenty of nations this weeks calculating just how much they can get away with in dealing with America under Obama.  Clearly, the international risk-assessment has shifted.
 
As usual however, when called upon, the US Navy SEALs proved why the United States Military is not to be effed with.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Magnificent Nature Photography

brandt3
 
Do yourself a favor, and have a quick look.  Many more here.
 
I love this one, too:
brandt2
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive