eHarmony dot com: A Cautionary Tale

“Do as we say, or we will destroy you.”

I don’t blame homosexuals for what has happened to eHarmony.com, no more than I blame women for what happened to the men’s Rotary Club in the 80s.

I blame leftists.

There are sites on the internet that specialize in African Americans dating other African Americans. There are sites that specialize in interracial couples. There are sites that specialize in lesbian couples. There are TONS of gay dating sites.

There are even sites to fascilitate dating for your pets– and help you find another pet-lover while you’re at it.

If I decided to sue any of the sites above for not equaling advertising and servicing me as a white person, I would be labeled a racist.  Yet these leftist activists- whose own intolerance for the opinions and liberty of others (namely Evangelical Christians and Mormons) eclipses the supposed intolerance of Neil Clark Warren or James Dobson or any other of the “anti-gay” or “racist” or “sexist” or “anti-immigrant” boogiemen you wish to name- are not labeled as what they are. They are anti-liberty for anyone who disagrees with them.

There is no moral, legal, ethical, or logical reason why eHarmony.com should not be allowed to offer their services only to heterosexual couples if they so choose. None.

This court ruling is wrong, and this is not a heterosexual vs. homosexual issue people.  This is a conflict between those who believe in the centrality of liberty and private property- allowing companies to operate how they wish- and those who value the feelings of the individual over the good of society.

Does it hurt your feelings that eHarmony won’t match you with someone of the same sex? I certainly understand why that may be painful, but imagine how much more painful it will be when the liberties our country were founded upon cease to exist in the name of making everyone “equal”.

Bend over and grab your ankles, America.

There is $4 trillion sitting in 401k and IRA retirement accounts out there.

And the Democrats want to take it from you.

Congratulations America- this is what happens when you hand over power to the Democrats.  Listen- the fact that they are even talking about this- and according to Neal Boortz’s radio show today, they have been talking about this for 16 years- is reason enough to never, ever ever vote for a Democrat.

Dems look at converting 401Ks and IRAs accounts into Social Security Administration.

By Karen McMahan
November 04, 2008

RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

Triggered by the financial crisis the past two months, the hearings reportedly were meant to stem losses incurred by many workers and retirees whose 401(k) and IRA balances have been shrinking rapidly.

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, in prepared remarks for the hearing on “The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Workers’ Retirement Security,” blamed Wall Street for the financial crisis and said his committee will “strengthen and protect Americans’ 401(k)s, pensions, and other retirement plans” and the “Democratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people.”

Currently, 401(k) plans allow Americans to invest pretax money and their employers match up to a defined percentage, which not only increases workers’ retirement savings but also reduces their annual income tax. The balances are fully inheritable, subject to income tax, meaning workers pass on their wealth to their heirs, unlike Social Security. Even when they leave an employer and go to one that doesn’t offer a 401(k) or pension, workers can transfer their balances to a qualified IRA.

Mandating Equality

Ghilarducci’s plan first appeared in a paper for the Economic Policy Institute: Agenda for Shared Prosperity on Nov. 20, 2007, in which she said GRAs will rescue the flawed American retirement income system (www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204/bp204.pdf).

The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.”

Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals “provide a much larger ‘carrot’ to wealthy families than to middle-class families — and none whatsoever for families too poor to owe taxes.”

GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return, although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not “earn a 3% real return in perpetuity.” In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants.

In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn’t eliminate the tax breaks, rather, “I’m just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading — spreading the wealth.”

All workers would have 5 percent of their annual pay deducted from their paychecks and deposited to the GRA. They would still be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, as would the employers. The GRA contribution would be shared equally by the worker and the employee. Employers no longer would be able to write off their contributions. Any capital gains would be taxable year-on-year.

Analysts point to another disturbing part of the plan. With a GRA, workers could bequeath only half of their account balances to their heirs, unlike full balances from existing 401(k) and IRA accounts. For workers who die after retiring, they could bequeath just their own contributions plus the interest but minus any benefits received and minus the employer contributions.

Another justification for Ghilarducci’s plan is to eliminate investment risk. In her testimony, Ghilarducci said, “humans often lack the foresight, discipline, and investing skills required to sustain a savings plan.” She cited the 2004 HSBC global survey on the Future of Retirement, in which she claimed that “a third of Americans wanted the government to force them to save more for retirement.”

What the survey actually reported was that 33 percent of Americans wanted the government to “enforce additional private savings,” a vastly different meaning than mandatory government-run savings. Of the four potential sources of retirement support, which were government, employer, family, and self, the majority of Americans said “self” was the most important contributor, followed by “government.” When broken out by family income, low-income U.S. households said the “government” was the most important retirement support, whereas high-income families ranked “government” last and “self” first (www.hsbc.com/retirement).

On Oct. 22, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Argentinean government had seized all private pension and retirement accounts to fund government programs and to address a ballooning deficit. Fearing an economic collapse, foreign investors quickly pulled out, forcing the Argentinean stock market to shut down several times. More than 10 years ago, nationalization of private savings sent Argentina’s economy into a long-term downward spiral.

Income and Wealth Redistribution

The majority of witness testimony during recent hearings before the House Committee on Education and Labor showed that congressional Democrats intend to address income and wealth inequality through redistribution.

On July 31, 2008, Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, testified before the subcommittee on workforce protections that “from the standpoint of equal treatment of people with different incomes, there is a fundamental flaw” in tax code incentives because they are “provided in the form of deductions, exemptions, and exclusions rather than in the form of refundable tax credits.”

Even people who don’t pay taxes should get money from the government, paid for by higher-income Americans, he said. “There is no obvious reason why lower-income taxpayers or people who do not file income taxes should get smaller incentives (or no tax incentives at all),” Greenstein said.

“Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and performance at the same time,” Greenstein said, and “reducing barriers to labor organizing, preserving the real value of the minimum wage, and the other workforce security concerns . . . would contribute to an economy with less glaring and sharply widening inequality.”

When asked whether committee members seriously were considering Ghilarducci’s proposal for GSAs, Aaron Albright, press secretary for the Committee on Education and Labor, said Miller and other members were listening to all ideas.

Miller’s biggest priority has been on legislation aimed at greater transparency in 401(k)s and other retirement plan administration, specifically regarding fees, Albright said, and he sent a link to a Fox News interview of Miller on Oct. 24, 2008, to show that the congressman had not made a decision.

After repeated questions asked by Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Miller said he would not be in favor of “killing the 401(k)” or of “killing the tax advantages for 401(k)s.”

Arguing against liberal prescriptions, William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, testified on Oct. 24 that the “roots of the current crisis are firmly planted in public policy mistakes” by the Federal Reserve and Congress. He cautioned Congress against raising taxes, increasing burdensome regulations, or withdrawing from international product or capital markets. “Congress can ill afford to repeat the awesome errors of its predecessor in the early days of the Great Depression,” Beach said.

Instead, Beach said, Congress could best address the financial crisis by making the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 permanent, stopping dependence on demand-side stimulus, lowering the corporate profits tax, and reducing or eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Testifying before the same committee in early October, Jerry Bramlett, president and CEO of BenefitStreet, Inc., an independent 401(k) plan administrator, said one of the best ways to ensure retirement security would be to have the U.S. Department of Labor develop educational materials for workers so they could make better investment decisions, not exchange equity investments in retirement accounts for Treasury bills, as proposed in the GSAs.

Should Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, congressional Democrats might have stronger support for their “spreading the wealth” agenda. On Oct. 27, the American Thinker posted a video of an interview with Obama on public radio station WBEZ-FM from 2001.

In the interview, Obama said, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” The Constitution says only what “the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you,” and Obama added that the Warren Court wasn’t that radical.

Although in 2001 Obama said he was not “optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts,” as president, he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.

“The real tragedy of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused that I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change,” Obama said.

Karen McMahan is a contributing editor of Carolina Journal.

Some optimism, some fear, and a little bit of told ya so.

I believe there is a good chance that Obama’s desire to be loved combined with a sense of pragmatism, much like president Clinton, will temper his leftist tendencies.  I will hold my piece against him for now and wait to see how he governs. If it is more from the center, then I will give him credit. If not, I will oppose him.

3 practical fears (I could think of more but I have homework to do).

1. I fear for the courts. This result spells doom for the federal judicial system for a while if you ask me. Civil liberties and traditional values are going to continue to go through a difficult time in this country as a result of this election.

2. The fairness doctrine. Maybe I listen to too much talk radio and this isn’t a real threat, but I think there is a very good chance the fairness doctrine will be implemented. If so it will be a disaster for the country and for me personally because talk radio as we know it will disappear. If the Dems do go for it, then I will instantly become Nuclear Ricky and move into expletive-filled wrath mode.

3. Imputed income taxes. They would not affect me directly (yet), and again, I don’t know if this is actually something they Dems will try to do or if it just makes for compelling talk radio; however, if they go for it, it will prove ruinous to the country.

In related news, I’ll just point out that I was mostly right. The margin between Obama and McCain sits at around 6% right now, which is what I predicted.  It was not a landslide or even a huge margin in electoral votes either- the most Obama might end up with is 375.  This sounds like a lot, and it is if your knowledge or history only goes back 8 years.  However, if you look at election history as a whole, 375 is NO BIG DEAL.

Other observations: McConnell kept his seat here in my KY home.  This is incredibly important and symbolic.  Also symbolic is that the Dems were only able to pick off 17 seats in the House and 5 in Senate, as opposed to the 30+ and 8 or 9 that the media was calling for. Another thing: Proposition 8 looks like it has passed in California.

The point of all this is, even though Obama did win and won decisively, this is not a rout or extremely lopsided victory for the Dems and Liberals. It could have been much, much worse.

Why Obama’s associations matter

I am busy.  I don’t have time to lay out a case for this.  Thankfully, others have done a great job already.

Charles Krauthammer’s column puts it well:

But associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque and self-contained as Obama…

…Obama’s political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber — even a repentant one — he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he “didn’t do enough.”

Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright’s angry racism or Ayers’ unreconstructed 1960s radicalism?

No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.

First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. …Would you even shake hands with — let alone serve on two boards with — an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?…

…Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama’s core beliefs. He doesn’t share Rev. Wright’s poisonous views of race nor Ayers’ views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond.

Another columnist lays it out:

There are at least six reasons to fear that Obama will govern from the far left.

First, it’s all he really knows.  Obama grew up in a left-wing household, attended elite left-wing dominated universities, and spent the remainder of his formative years as a community organizer alongside the likes of Wright and Ayers.

Second, it’s how he votes.  In 2007, according to the National Journal, Obama’s voting record was the most liberal of any senator.

Third, it’s what he falls back on.  Obama is scripted to be “post-partisan.”  But when off-script he’s liable to blurt out that those who resist the leftist agenda bitterly “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to those who aren’t like them.”  And when his wife said that, as an adult, she has never been proud of America, Obama defended her statement as applied to American politics.  This is “god damn America” lite.

Fourth, it’s what his base wants.  There really isn’t much distance between Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers and the “General Betray-Us” crowd.

Fifth, it’s what he can pretend the times demand.  When economic hardship causes people lose their faith in free markets, all kinds of radical mischief becomes possible.

Sixth, with the Democrats almost certain to have substantial majorities in both houses of Congress, who would constrain a President Obama?

These quotes are butchered to make them a quick read.  Click on through if you so desire.

MooveAlong.org

Democrazy Inaction.

Abolish July 4th!

101% income tax rate!

heh. I’m looking forward to this movie.

Poor Alex…

Now we know why John McCain is against abortion: he wants to send babies to war!

In all seriousness, I really feel sorry for this kid.  There are few things worse for a young boy than a snarling momma bear, and I do not envy the next 18 years of Alex’s life.

Keep it up, moveon.org!  Show America what you are really about!

Wonder no more! In Obama’s own words

I’ve done a little digging regarding Obama’s vote against the Induced Infant Liability Act- a 2002 Illinois bill that would compel doctors to provide medical care to a baby (fetus? It’s outside the uterus at this point, remember) who survived an abortion attempt, and has been born alive.  I am actually just curious: what possible reason could he have to do such a thing?  To what mental gymnastics must a professing Christian subject himself in order to avoid soul-crushing guilt on such a vote?

I wonder no more.  Here follows the complete text of Obama’s comments immediately prior the bill’s vote, beginning from pg 84 of the transcript.  If I may be so bold as to paraphrase, his reasoning seems to be thus: “I am voting against the bill because it will not hold up to constitutional scrutiny, because a fetus born alive, lying there on the hospital table (some would call that a baby, but I will be careful not to), is not a person under the laws of the United States.  And this is a good thing because it protects the right of women to have abortions.”

I think that’s a fair representation.  I’m not trying to make the man sound evil at all.  If you have a more lucid understanding of his reasoning here, I’d love to hear it.  Isn’t it odd, though, the Barack Obama seems to think that the Constitution of the United States and that of the state of Illinois does not afford any sort of protection to a living, crying… um… thing… lying on a hospital table?

Anyway, the text as promised (I’ve included the context- you can skip down to Obama and you won’t miss much):

ACTING SECRETARY HAWKER:
Senate Bill 1093.
(Secretary reads title of bill)
3rd Reading of the bill.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator O’Malley.
SENATOR O’MALLEY:
Thank you, Madam President, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate. Senate Bill 1093, as amended, provides that no abortion procedure which, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall assess the child’s viability and provide medical care for the child. The bill further provides that if there is a medical emergency, a physician inducing or performing an abortion which results in a live born child shall provide for the soonest practical attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion to immediately assess the child’s viability and provide medical care for the
child. The bill additionally provides that a live child born as a result of an — of — of an abortion procedure shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.    All reasonable measures consistent with good
medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child. I’d be pleased to answer any questions there may be.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Any discussion? Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Thank you, Madam President.    Will the sponsor yield for
questions?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
He indicates he will.
SENATOR OBAMA:
This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won’t belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O’Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was — is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the — the fetus or child, as — as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living.    Is that correct? Is that an accurate
sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator O’Malley.
SENATOR O’MALLEY:
Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the — the way children are treated following their birth under these
circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a — a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Well, it turned out — that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman’s right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your — you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it’ll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide
treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as — as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won’t make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I — I won’t, as I said, belabor the point. I think it’s important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and — and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a — a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We’re going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I’ll be voting Present.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Further discussion? If not, Senator O’Malley, to close.

Actually, after reading that meandering- no- trainwreck of reasoning, I am still wondering.

Taxes

2 days have passed since April 15th, but I’m still thinking about taxes. I am poor. I don’t pay jack in taxes. As a matter of fact, I received a letter in the mail from the IRS last summer telling me they wanted to send me more money… I am totally serious. Apparently, I was eligible for the Earned Income Credit- a system by which the government actually gives a person more money than they paid in taxes that year. It’s like spending a dollar for a 50 cent hot dog, and getting $2 back in change. The government doesn’t have money- it gets all of its money from citizens, so that means this extra money is coming directly out of the pockets of people who worked hard enough to earn more- which means the EIC is nothing more than a mechanism for the redistribution of wealth. It’s socialism by definition. That’s not really meant to be a pejorative, it’s just a descriptor. It’s interesting that people don’t seem to like being called socialist, or even liberal nowadays- they prefer progressive. I have a newsflash for those people, though:

There is absolutely nothing progressive about taking more money from people who work the hardest.

I believe I have some credibility on this. I come from the definition of a lower to middling middle-class family. Neither parents went to college. I am only aware of 2 relatives who attended college: an aunt who went back in her 40s, and a cousin who now drives a truck. My stepmother’s family is slightly more educated, but it would be hard to describe any part of my family as having ever had anything other than a modest income. There are no trust funds, no significant investments, no nest eggs.

So it should carry at least a little weight when I say to the federal government: we don’t want other people’s damn money. Now I am not stupid, and as I said a few months ago I do not consider it inconsistent to go ahead and take whatever I am offered, from whatever source it may come- government education grants included. There is a difference between the way principles are applied in the micro and macro, and in the micro if I am offered extra money, I am going to take it because there is very little I can do in the macro to make the government give money back to whom it belongs.

I wonder how many people reading this haven’t yet heard of the Fair Tax. It’s a terrible name- it ought to simply be called the Consumption Tax or Income Tax Replacement system or something more descriptive. It’s probably the most important economic idea out there right now, with more potential to revolutionize the United States economy than anything in history. Here’s a rundown of the idea:

1. Repeal the 16th amendment to the Constitution.

   This is the amendment which makes is legal for Congess to tax income. After it is repealed, there will be no constitutional basis on which Congress could enact both and income tax AND sales tax (something which they could do now if they wanted!).

2. Abolish the IRS.

   The IRS costs billions of dollars a year to operate. It would have to be replaced of course, but the replacement would be much cheaper and slimmer. The IRS monitors something in the 100 millions range of tax paying entities (individuals AND businesses)- the replacement bureau would only exists to send people their rebate checks, and to collect the sales tax from businesses when it’s charged at the register- something businesses currently do just fine in all the states with state sales tax anyway. So no big deal. Also, there is something like $3 billion spent each year by people just to DO their taxes- this money would be put to more productive means, such as investing for the future or running a business, or just buying groceries.

3. End all federal payroll taxes.

   Income tax, FICA, social security, medicare and all other federal taxes will not be taken out of paychecks, and instead funded by the consumption tax. Your take home income instantly increases by 30-60%, depending on how much you currently earn. Just have a look at your check and figure up what it would be with federal taxes put back in. And by the way, your employer has to pay 7.5% of your check out of his pocket, too- which really means it comes out of your pocket. So you will actually see an even GREATER increase.

4. End all taxes on businesses, investments, or any other income determined taxes.

   This is probably the most important principle to understand in the proposal, but also the hardest to get a grasp on. I’ll make it very simple. Let’s say you start a hot dog business. People love your hot dogs, and you sold 50,000 last year for $2 a piece- not bad! Now, 25 cents of each hot dog goes to buying from your supplier, 50 cents to pay your workers, and 25 cents to pay for your little stand. Which leaves you a $1 per hot dog- or $50,000- profit. Being the first time you’ve ever run a business, you didn’t think about paying the taxes on your business until April comes around… oops. You realize the government is going to demand around 20% of your profit, which leaves you with only $40,000 left. Darn. Well, you really liked making $50,000, and you think people would pay more for your wonderful hot dogs, so what are you going to do next year? That’s right- you’re going to raise your hot dog prices to generate an extra $10,000- so you are now going to charge $2.20 per hot dog, and make your customers pay the taxes for you. This is not because you are an evil person- it is because you are a smart person. This is what businesses do every day- when you buy anything from tires to earrings, YOU are paying the taxes, not them. If their taxes disappear, the prices you pay for goods will drop. So not only will your income increase, the prices you pay for goods will decrease.

   One more point about this- if you own a business in Italy where you are paying taxes on your business, and you could conceivably run this business in the US, and the US repealed all taxes on businesses, wouldn’t you move your business from Italy to the US? Of course. And that’s what 80% of overseas corporations said they would do in a formal survey given to them a couple years ago. This alone would bring in hundreds of billions of new dollars into the American economy- not to mention new jobs, more competition and innovation, and therefore lower prices.

5. Replace these taxes with a 23% sales tax on all goods and services.

   According to numerous studies done by economists, this 23% rate will generate the same amount of money the government currently takes in- it is neither a tax increase nor a decrease. The only thing that changes is the mechanism. You’ll hear elsewhere on the internet or the news that the 23% tax rate is a lie and that it’s actually 30%. The truth is, both are correct- it’s just a difference in how it is calculated. I’d walk through the calculations but it’s more important just to realize that no one is trying to be misleading here- if you are in the 30% income tax bracket now, the number to compare the tax rate to under the consumption tax would be 23% and not 30%. Another important aspect of this to note is that, currently, there are millions of cheaters in the underground cash economy that do not pay income taxes, such as drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal immigrants etc. All of these people buy things, and this underground economy- which is estimated to be at least $2 TRILLION a year of untaxed income- would be a source of new revenue for the government. In the previous point, I asserted prices will drop because businesses are not paying taxes. The sales tax added on to these lower prices would cause the total you pay for, say, a new car to be relatively close to what you are now paying. But remember, you have an increase in purchasing power due to taxes not being taken out of your check, and receiving a monthly rebate check- my next point.

6. Everyone receives a monthly rebate check on taxes paid for necessities.

   This check will be in the neighborhood of $200-500 per person (rough figures there- doing the math off the top of my head). This means that people who only spend money on necessities do not pay any federal taxes, which is the same as the current system. For example, I did not end up paying any taxes this year or last year because my income was too low- everything taken out of my paycheck was sent back to me as a tax refund. Instead of a tax refund, everyone would receive a monthly rebate check in addition to keeping your entire check. If you spent more in taxes than what you receive back in the rebate check, that is your net paid tax. Naturally, rich people spend much more money, and will therefore pay much more in taxes. If you spend even less on taxes than your rebate check, than you are getting the equivalent of an Earned Income Credit, like I received last year. So that should keep the socialists happy.

But probably the most important point about the Fair Tax: it would transform April 15th into just a normal, beautiful spring day. However, if I had my way, it would become known as Freedom Day- commemorating our liberation from an archaic tax system that penalizes productivity and rewards laziness.

That’s it. Any questions?

William F. Buckley, Jr. | 1925-2008

Today the world lost one of the most important men of the last century.  In the leftist dominated post WWII environment, Bill Buckley took conservatism and made it the respectable, formidable political force which it is today. To put things in perspective, if there had been no William F. Buckley, there is a good chance there would have been no President Ronald W. Reagan, no Rush Limbaugh (and therefore no conservative talk radio), and no National Review Magazine (and perhaps an absence of the host of other conservative periodicals out there).  At least, they would not exist in the same way they do today.

A sad day indeed.

“Gun Free Zone” for everyone but the killer.

DE KALB, Ill (CBS) ― A gunman opened fire on a geology class at Northern Illinois University Thursday afternoon, killing five people before taking his own life on stage as panicked students ran and ducked for cover.

NIU President John Peters said a total of 22 people were shot, including the gunman. Four people, including the gunman, died at the scene; two others died later at area hospitals. (Link)

One gun in the hands of one professor or student who was trained to use it could have stopped this massacre. But the school administration in its infinitely Liberal wisdom had, like most college campuses, and the like the campus I currently attend, banned all firearms on campus.

And so you have 6 people dead when there should have only been one dead: the shooter.

This is a microcosm of the fruit of Liberalism, folks.  The truth is that there are evil people in the world, and they have guns; good people ought to be allowed to have them too.

I’m writing a letter to Lee Todd.