Tag Archives: Welfare

Creating Democrats One Squirrel at a Time

A lack of affordable housing forced me to move 24 miles south of the Fort Hunt area in Fairfax County, VA. I couldn’t find an affordable house that had a view of the Potomac River.

We had been renting a home there for five years and each winter, after the leaves fell from the trees in the backyard, we could catch a postage stamp–sized glimpse of the river from the dining room.

My thinking was if a glimpse was good, how much better would a year–around view be?

I wasn’t the only one with this opinion. Evidently politicians, Democrat lobbyists and environmentalists had cornered the market. The demand for river views boosted housing prices far outside my budget.

This brush with the market may have served to accelerate my departure from the Democrat party. More ‘affordable housing’ had been the battle cry and tax–dollar black hole for Northern VA Democrats since we moved here from Texas.

Yet when I needed an affordable house no concerned Democrat was to be found.

So the family moved into a house on the waterfront of Lake Montclair that we could afford. Down among the Republicans and gas–guzzler owners, many but one generation removed from the trailer park. But I’m afraid — like many California refugees that have fled to Arizona — when I left Fairfax I didn’t leave behind all my bad, leftist ideas.

Case in point: Our back deck has an excellent view of the lake. During the spring and summer (and soon maybe year around if the warmist Chicken Little’s are correct!) I sit on the deck and read the newspaper before going to work.

Three years ago I decided to spread the wealth and each morning began leaving two peanuts on the deck rail in front of my chair. Montclair is home to foxes, raccoons, beavers, hawks, many varieties of songbirds and innumerable squirrels. The peanuts were for the squirrels.

A routine was quickly established. Each morning I would replace the two nuts that had disappeared overnight and then begin with my coffee and paper. This went on for a few weeks until one morning there was a new development: A squirrel came to get the nut while I was still outside.

He/she/it watched me from the far edge of the deck and then cautiously came halfway down the rail. After a period of watchfulness, the squirrel would dart in front of me, halt long enough to snatch the peanut and then scamper away.

This was entertaining. So much so that I began exceeding my two–nut limit, replacing each snatched nut with a new one until I went back in the house.

Then the escalation really began. I started to think like a crack dealer. The squirrel is hooked on rail nuts, how about bending him to my will and forcing the squirrel to ask for the nut? So I would put the initial two nuts on the rail and wait.

After those were taken, I didn’t add replacements. Instead I waited until the squirrel returned and then I took a peanut off my table and slooowly leaned out toward the squirrel. I looked like a geriatric at the Early Bird Special reaching for the salt.

At first the squirrel wanted no part of this slow–motion enticement — much like a conservative applying for his first food stamp — but gradually I wore down his resistance. And before cooler temperatures arrived he was taking nuts out of my hand and occasionally resting one paw on my finger to steady himself as he grabs the nut, as you can see here:

http://youtu.be/e2yYF3Z2ld8

I was so proud of myself that frankly I overlooked multiple warning signs. Rocky (what other name could there be for a squirrel?) had been missing for most of a week and when he finally returned there was a bare spot on the back of his neck where the fur had been ripped away and a big gouge in the underlying skin.

I rationalized his wound and chalked it up to a domestic disturbance that got out of hand.

Then the next summer the process was repeated. A formerly sleek squirrel (Rocky II) appeared one day looking like Rodney Dangerfield. And his neck had the same ripped fur and ugly scab.

Since the average life span of a squirrel is one year, I wasn’t dealing with a rodent that had forgotten to wear his toupee. This was a different squirrel with the same wound. It’s obvious that breakfasting at the Shannon Country Buffet wasn’t exactly burning up the calories.

Rocky I & II’s weight gain had caused him to lose a step and the hawk that perches in the mimosa tree had had taken advantage of his gluttony. The only good news was his peanut–centric diet made him so fat the hawk evidently dropped him.

The new Rocky also resumed eating out of my hand. I don’t know if the previous Rocky had passed down knowledge of the peanut program by word–of–mouth, scratched a treasure map on a tree or if it is encoded in their DNA, but the word was out. Other squirrels would line up on the rail like crony capitalists waiting for a tax break. Soon the deck looked like earmark time in Harry Reid’s Senate. In fact, the goobers were so plentiful squirrels didn’t bother to eat many of the nuts and instead buried them in the flower boxes.

This spring marks the third year of my private sector peanut handout program and Rocky III is here with his neck — so far — intact. Unfortunately with his arrival I have to face the realization that I have created a culture of dependency in my own backyard.

Now when Rocky III arrives on the rail he ignores the two traditional nuts laid out for him and instead comes to a dead stop in front of me and stares until I personally give him a handout.

And I do, in spite of the fact these unearned giveaways make me the Barack Obama of Skyline Drive.

I started out with the best of intentions, feeding neighborhood animals, and wound up running a peanut kitchen for able–bodied squirrels that are entirely capable of fending for themselves.

The worst part is that I enjoy the feeling of benevolence and superiority I get from having squirrels dependent upon me. So much so that like Obama and his ever–expanding welfare benefits, I have no intention of ending the program, even though it would be better in the long run for the squirrels.

House GOP Has Nothing to Offer Conservatives

GOP surrenders principlesHere’s the situation: You’re in a high–stakes negotiation with an untrustworthy opponent. The opposition has violated every agreement the two of you have made in the past. Enforcement mechanisms are weak or non–existent.

In other areas of mutual interest your opponent regularly violates the law and dares you to do something about the violation. Your weak and vacillating leadership can’t be counted on in a pinch. And finally, the opposition lies shamelessly to the state media, doing its best to paint you as a fanatic and pathological liar.

So what do you do?

Bomb Iran is a good answer, but it’s not the answer for this question, because I’m talking about negotiating a budget deal with Democrats.

The Republican House leadership decision in this case was to sell out their conservative base in a brazen attempt to insure their own re–election at the expense of the nation’s fiscal future.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R–WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D–Sneakers) have presented us with a plan that shatters the spending ceiling that was the main result of the bruising sequester fight, dilutes the small budget cuts from the sequester and raises taxes (Ryan calls it a “fee” but if the feds get more money and it comes from our pockets it’s the same as a tax).

Ryan even has the gall to say the deal will balance the budget in ten years and sidestep the threat of government shutdowns in January and October 2014.

And those dates are what are really important for craven House negotiators. In fact, the real motivation for the deal is Ryan’s shutdown statement. House Republicans still think they suffered a near–death experience in the recent government shutdown. But instead of seeing Jesus and a bright light, they saw a Mayflower moving van and a bright white resume. For them if it’s a choice between selling out to the Democrats and losing their cushy Congressional job, sellout is just another word for job security.

The risk of a potential shutdown in January and October of an election year was simply too much uncertainty for these stalwarts to bear. So instead of simply passing a continuing resolution as has been done for the past few years and keeping the sequester savings, Ryan decided to remove all uncertainly and cave in this year.

Ryan and Speaker Boehner (R–Risible) think they can get away with this lie to conservatives because the result of increased federal spending and budget busting won’t have the personal impact on voters that Obama’s insurance lie had. You don’t get a letter from the government cancelling your future. You get a Chinaman repossessing the Washington monument.

The rationalization for this total surrender is threefold according to our betters: The agreement restores some defense spending reduced by the sequester, cuts the budget and brings the entire budget into balance in ten years.

Let’s start at the top. Ace negotiator Ryan was able to restore $2 billion in Pentagon spending next year in return for letting Democrats increase wasteful social spending by $ 22 BILLION! That’s a ratio of 11 to one in welfare to warfare spending.

The sequester was bad enough — defense took half the cuts, while social spending took the other half spread over countless pointless programs — but this disaster in multiplication makes that deal look positively prudent.

Second the budget cut. I admire Ryan’s poker face as he announced $26 billion in cuts over ten years. This means the federal government will be cutting $2.6 billion a year out of a budget that’s over $1 trillion! For comparison purposes, the city of Washington, DC spends more than $2.6 billion in four months. In 2012 the IRS issued $11 billion in fraudulent income tax refunds. In the same year the government wasted $95 billion in programs identified by the Government Accounting Office that duplicated other wasteful government programs.

In federal terms, Ryan’s $2.6 billion is pocket change.

Finally, the budget balances in ten years. This is not because spending will finally be brought in line with revenue, which is how individuals balance budgets. No, Ryan is hoping that federal tax revenues will grow enough through a recovering economy to finally match the spending right now. In the other nine years the deficit continues to pile up.

This is like a drunk driver careening the wrong way down the interstate hoping his blood will absorb enough of the booze for him to regain control before the car hits the bridge abutment.

David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director who saw firsthand how Republicans agreed to increase taxes for Democrat spending cuts that never came, says, “First, let’s be clear—it’s a joke and betrayal. It’s the final surrender of the House Republican leadership to Beltway politics and kicking the can and ignoring the budget monster that’s hurtling down the road.”

Earlier this week reporter Paul Kane of The Washington Post seemed confused that TEA party members were mounting challenges to incumbent Republican senators. The answer is simple; conservatives have no reason to support big government incumbentcrats, regardless of whether they are Senators or Congressmen. Keeping the likes of Boehner or Ryan or Orrin Hatch in office is not the be all and end all of our existence. If nothing else even an unsuccessful primary can be a wakeup call for these whited sepulchers.

Why fight for them if they won’t fight for us? Why waste the gas necessary to drive to the polls to vote for these weaklings?

The only difference between these Republicans and Nancy Pelosi is we go broke slower and there’s a slim chance we won’t have to attend a same–sex marriage ceremony to qualify for Social Security benefits.

Retreating to a compound in Idaho is looking better and better. And since Janet Reno is no longer attorney general, we might even survive until the Chinese foreclose.

Why Changing Demographics Mean More Democrats

spyonme1

spyonme1They always shoot the messenger. Even when he’s being optimistic.

And Mitt Romney was optimistic when he said only 47 percent of the potential electorate wouldn’t vote for him because they were dependent on the government. The actual Census Bureau figures are much worse.

The bureau reports 49.2 percent of your fellow citizens received some type of benefit from one or more government programs. A more accurate term would be ‘residents’ since when bureaucrats display their compassion by distributing your money, a lack of documentation is seldom an obstacle. These particular recipients are not conservative, small government voters. They constitute a large portion of the Democrat base.

People in the US that receive means–tested government benefits actually outnumber the people who worked fulltime in 2011. In the fourth quarter of 2011, 108,592,000 individuals were on the receiving end of federal goodies compared with only 101,760,000 working fulltime.

This is a catastrophic situation for supporters of conservative, small government and it threatens to undermine the nation’s social fabric. Possibly you feel sorry for these unfortunates, at least the ones that don’t loot Walmart when the food stamp verification system crashes. But they don’t return the favor.

Our current situation is the equivalent of enjoying a business dinner at a popular restaurant. At the conclusion of the meal other diners, waiters, valet parkers, kitchen staff and the hostess look at the remnants of your prime rib repast and vote to have you pay for everyone eating dinner that evening and add a 25 percent tip to the bill.

(I know some of you parents are thinking, “Hey! That’s exactly what happened to me when my daughter got married!” But these are strangers sucking you dry, not relatives.)

Or you go to the doctor’s office and while you sit in the waiting room, the other patients notice your elegant topcoat and they vote to have you foot the bill for everyone’s treatment that day.

Farfetched? Unrealistic? A similar scenario takes place every Election Day when people who are essentially wards of the state vote for politicians who tell you to foot the bill for the ward’s benefits. Please don’t bore me with “but these people pay taxes, too.” Paying sales tax with taxpayer’s money is hardly “paying taxes.” It’s closer to an inefficient form of recycling.

Although these recipients are the vast bulk of the Democrat base, they are not alone. The big government base (BGB) also includes federal, state and local government employees; government contractors, grant recipients and the non–profit sector.

Here’s how the numbers break out:

20,269,000 total government workers

13,700,000 non–profit workers

4,400,000 government contractors

100,000,000 enrolled in one of 80 different and overlapping “means–tested” welfare programs                            (this figure does not include Social Security or Medicare recipients)

         TOTAL BGB: 138,369,000 individuals

In fact the federal government alone employs more people than the top ten private sector employers combined! Federal: 18,000,000 (not counting military) Vs. 5,677,046 for General Electric, Hewlett–Packard, Home Depot, Kroger, Target, UPS, IBM, McDonald’s, Yum! Brands and Walmart.

Factor in another 9,000,000 or so formerly illegal voters after “immigration reform” and we are well on our way to Argentina.

This goes a long way toward explaining Obama’s re–election.

Of course not all the 100,000,000 welfare recipients are voting age and not all government workers and contractors pull the Democrat lever. I know of patriotic government employees and contractors that put the good of the country before their own economic interests and I say God bless them.

Unfortunately, those stalwart individuals are more than offset by working Americans under the delusion Democrats favor the middle class. And don’t forget the workforce also includes moles that work for MSNBC and other propaganda arms of the BGB, along with private university professors and other assorted leftists.

This is why it doesn’t matter that the Obamacare website cost $500 million in hard–earned tax dollars and Chinese renminbi. That’s more than Facebook spent in six full years according to reporter Andrew Couts.

But aside from the embarrassment, no one in the BGB cares. Their criteria for success is not does the website work, is the program efficient or are we using tax dollars wisely. The BGB measure of success is: Did I get my check and did it cash?

Voters living on Uncle Sam’s dime are not going to be voting to downsize government. BGB economics are based on the existence of a money tree, possibly growing in China.

The Chinese and our other creditors would be the greatest gift to conservatives since Ronald Reagan if they simply refused to lend the Uncle Sam any more money. Limiting federal borrowing will limit the size of the federal government. Even our rapacious leftists couldn’t tax their way out of that hole.

Unless the size of the government shrinks — and that includes benefits — there is no hope for avoiding soft socialism in our future. And — judging by the number of government agencies that have their own SWAT teams — maybe not so soft at that.

There are principled conservatives in office who refuse to vote to increase spending without a corresponding cut to balance the total. That’s fine, but it’s not enough. They must also refuse to add to the number of government employees or contractors without a corresponding reduction in force in another part of government.

Otherwise potential death spirals won’t be limited to Obamacare.

Myth: “Republicans also support Big Government – in defense spending”

Flag7

Flag7

There is currently a myth being spread across America that Republicans also support Big Government, in the form of generous defense spending, and that this is Republicans’ sacred cow. Anti-defense liberals and libertarians falsely claim that Republicans cannot credibly call for federal spending cuts and for limited government unless they’re willing to significantly slash defense spending.

But they are dead wrong. Read on, Dear Reader, and I’ll show you why.

Limited-government conservatism is an ideology that aims to reduce and limit the size of the federal government to the bounds authorized by the Constitution. Conservatives and libertarians alike agree that the federal establishment has expanded way beyond these authorized constitutional boundaries.

But generous defense spending is completely in line with the Constitution and the Founding Fathers’ intent. It is not a Big Government program, nor anyone’s sacred cow. It is, in fact, the #1 Constitutional DUTY of the federal government. The #1 reason for having a federal government at all is to have it defend the country and its citizens.

What does the Constitution say about defense? The Preamble to the Supreme Law of the Land explains why the federal government was established in the first place:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution lists 18 prerogatives of the Congress, nine (i.e., 50%) of which are related to military affairs, including “to raise Armies,” “to provide and maintain a Navy,” to regulate captures on land and water, to declare war, and to make regulations for the military. They authorize the full spectrum of the defense needed, from “providing for the common defense”, raising and supporting Armies, and providing and maintaining a Navy, to building arsenals, dockyards, and forts. As Ernest Istook of the Heritage Foundation has observed, “National defense receives unique and elevated emphasis under the Constitution. It is not ‘just’ another duty of the federal government.”

The Constitution not only authorizes a strong national defense (and consequently, robust funding for it), it REQUIRES it. Art. IV, Sec. 4 of the Constitution says as follows:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…

As you can see, the Constitution not merely authorizes, it REQUIRES a strong defense and therefore any measures necessary to build it – including any amount of funding required to build it. Any amount of defense spending is Constitutionally authorized and perfectly in line with the Constitution and therefore with the Limited Government Principle.

A key tenet – indeed, the overriding principle – of conservative philosophy is that we must obey the Constitution as it is written. We may not cherry-pick which parts of the Constitution we’re going to obey and which ones we won’t abide by. But that’s what liberals and libertarians like Raul Castro Labrador are doing. They cherry-pick the Constitution and abide only by those party they like, while ignoring the ones they don’t like and pretending they don’t exist.

Most of the Founding Fathers also supported a strong national defense as a top imperative. George Washington, told the Congress in 1790 in his first State of the Union address:

“Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. (…) To be prepared for war is one of the effective means of preserving the peace.”

James Madison, for a long time an opponent of standing armies, ultimately changed his opinion and said in 1788:

“How could a readiness for war in times of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?”

So according to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, defense is not a big government program, but rather a Constitutionally legitimate government function and indeed the highest Constitutional DUTY of the federal government. And if that is the case, a strong military (and generous funding for it) does NOT violate the Constitution and therefore also does not violate the Limited Government Principle.

In other words, Ronald Reagan did not invent the “peace through strength” philosophy – George Washington did, although he did not call it that way.

Consequently, the Limited Government Principle does NOT require any defense cuts, nor does any other tenet of conservative philosophy. Therefore, consistent application of conservatism, including the Limited Government Principle, does NOT require any defense cuts.

In fact, conservative ideology REQUIRES that a strong defense be built and generously funded, as stated by numerous conservative leaders from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan.

No, the Pentagon is not a Big Government program, nor is it anyone’s pet project. Defense is the #1 Constitutional obligation of the federal government and, as John Adams rightly said, “one of the cardinal duties of a statesman.”

So generous defense spending is fully consistent with the Constitution, the wishes of the Founding Fathers, and the Limited Government principle of conservatism.

So how much does the US spend today? Can deep defense cuts balance the federal budget?

The answer is overwhelmingly no. Washington’s trillion dollar annual deficits are so huge that, as the Heritage Foundation graph below shows, even eliminating military spending entirely would not even halve the budget deficit.

defense-spending-entitlement-spending-problem-600

The FY2013 military budget, under the FY2013 authorization bill was – prior to sequestration – $613 bn (for all military spending: the base defense budget, the Afghan war, and the DOE’s national security programs). That is 17% of the total federal budget and 4.01% of America’s GDP.

But under sequestration, the base defense budget faces a cut to $469 bn (3.07% of GDP) and by FY2014 will still be at a pathetically low $475 bn (3.11% of GDP).

sequestrationisapermanentcut

The House has recently passed a defense authorization bill authorizing $552 bn for FY2014 – for the base defense budget, the Afghan war, and DOE nat-sec programs combined. But even that sum is only 3.62% of GDP and just 15.33% of the entire federal budget.

So defense, the program that is supposed (under the Constitution) to be the federal government’s highest priority, is being shortchanged and will, even under the most optimistic scenario, receive only 15.33% of the entire federal budget! 84.67% of the federal budget will be spent on something else!

There is a big difference between being frugal and cheap.

Since the 1950s, defense spending has declined dramatically as a percentage of GDP and of the federal budget, from 50% of the total budget in FY1962 to just 15.33% today, and from 10% of GDP in FY1961 to 4.01% of GDP today – on track to slip to below 3% of GDP under sequestration.

 

national-defense-spending-560

Meanwhile, domestic spending – discretionary and mandatory – has splurged.

 

Non-Defense-Spending_130204

Do you see what is wrong here, Dear Reader? Washington has its priorities exactly backwards.

For a further comprehensive examination of the “the Pentagon is just another big government project” and “you can’t be a limited government conservative if you don’t support defense cuts” claims, please also read my article, “Defense and the Principle of Limited Government”.

Despite greatest level of government spending in history, more Americans are poor

Obama not helping the poor

For almost a century, progressives, socialists and centrists of almost every shade have spouted that in order to make things more fair, the government has to redistribute wealth from the richest to the poorest. During Barack Obama’s Presidency, taxes have been raised, government spending on the poor has exploded and yet, according to government figures, we are experiencing the highest levels of poverty in over fifty years.

In Decemeber, a government report showed that the government is spending almost $170 a day per household on those who are under the federal poverty line and receiving welfare. That’s $1,190.00 per week or almost $62,000 per year that was taken from someone more likely to invest in and build the economy.

In 2012, welfare paid better than a minimum wage job in 40 states. It’s not surprising then that 4.3 million Americans are on the program. Tack on other government programs and it gets easy to see why someone would rather stay home and on the dole than to start making a better life for themselves by taking a minimum wage job and working up to a better wage. 20% of all recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children have been on the program for more than five years. That is not a hand up, that is a handout.

To add insult to injury, nine states pay their welfare beneficiaries more than the national average for a teacher. Seven states pay more than $12/hr in welfare benefits. The top 10 benefit paying states average $13.68/hour wage equivalent. Why work?

Unfortunately for those that choose the easy early path, there is no way to climb out of poverty. Welfare recipients can’t get promoted or ask for a raise and eventually get above that line. Learning a trade or skill might start out at a lower hourly wage, but the more improved the worker, the more opportunities that present themselves and that will bring them out of poverty.

In 2011, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported that there were more than 80 over-lapped government assistance programs spending roughly $1 trillion dollars to aid the poor – the single largest budget item in 2011. That’s what the President said we needed to spend on Health Care for every single American. More than we spend on

If the huge expansion in social welfare programs were working, poverty would be dropping and more would be returning to work. Instead, we have the largest spike in those under the federal poverty line since the 1960’s and an economy that struggling under the weight of redistributive change, handouts and government over-regulation.

Single Mom in PA? Better to Live on Welfare than Make $69,000

pa welfare

If you are a single mom the entitlement programs offered in Pennsylvania are such that you are better off working for low pay than taking a good medium income position. There is little incentive to work hard and try to get a better position, including managerial, in a company because the government benefits often pay more.

Remember Julia from the Obama campaign? Well, apparently, Julia as a single mom, is best off letting the government take care of both her and her children. You can read more at Senator Rand Paul’s website or at the Washington Times.

Watch this clip and be appalled. It is understandably hard convincing people to work to improve their economic situation when they are already getting so much just by having children, being alive and breathing air.

 

Taxation Without Participation

It's easy to vote for higher taxes when you're not paying.

It’s easy to vote for higher taxes when you’re not paying.

Michael Kinsley described a “gaffe” as anytime a politician is caught telling the truth. This is particularly accurate for Republicans and conservatives as is demonstrated by the reaction to Mitt Romney’s comment regarding Obama’s base.

The setting was unfortunate — a $50,000–a–plate fundraiser — but the message was accurate. As he discussed campaign strategy — not governing philosophy — Romney explained: “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it… And the government should give it to them…

Our message of low taxes doesn’t connect…so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the five to 10 percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful…”

Romney neglected to mention another solid portion of the Obama base: the welfare–industrial complex composed of government workers and associated special interest groups. The simple fact is the more people receiving government handouts, the more government employees you need to distribute the geetus.

The size of the two populations increases in lockstep as does the size of the Obama base. There is no exit strategy for the War on Poverty.

And this is nothing new, as Ann Coulter pointed out, “Democrats’ problem with welfare reform always was that if it worked, we would need fewer of these well-pensioned public employees, a fact repeatedly acknowledged by liberals themselves.”

Democrat “compassion” for the poor and underprivileged always comes with a healthy dose of self–interest. Just like any attack on Republicans while defending welfare programs is done with elections in mind. They know a reduction in dependency threatens to result in a reduction in Democrats.

Why do you think the Obama administration imitates Tupperware and throws food stamp parties to urge people to apply for handouts? Why did the number of able–bodied participants in the food stamp program double after Obama suspended the work requirement? Why do a record 8.8 million Americans collect disability checks? Why do federal unemployment checks continue for almost two years? And why is the Obama administration spending a record 15.4 percent of the Gross Domestic Product on direct cash payments to individuals?

The answer is simple: Obama’s building his base. That’s why Democrats at their national convention had no problem with an Orwellian video that proclaimed, “Government is the only thing that we all belong to.”

Realizing this 47 percent voting block constitutes a problem isn’t a targeting decision made inside the Romney campaign. It’s an issue with the potential to rend the social fabric of the nation. It is a serious enough problem to offer Democrats a trade.

Conservatives agree to abandon photo ID requirements for voting if in return Democrats agree any citizen who is dependent on the federal government for his livelihood is not eligible to vote. This important reform would not mean a permanent loss of voting privileges and the creation of lifelong second–class citizens. On the contrary, as soon as the dependent citizen re–establishes financial independence the individual regains his vote. Regaining his vote acts as an incentive for personal responsibility.

When 47 percent of the populace is dependent on government benefits the nation is fast approaching a tipping point. Once the number passes 50 percent, American society will no longer have a crucial element of shared sacrifice. Instead the dependency block gets to vote for their share of increased benefits and taxpayers make the sacrifice. Even Democrats should be able to recognize that situation is unfair and inequitable.

For example, are McDonald’s customers allowed to set the price of a Big Mac? Do employees of Government Motors vote to set their own salaries? Do football teams get to vote on how many points the opposing defense will surrender?

There already exists a precedent for temporarily relinquishing the vote. Judges, Congressmen and even members of the city council are not supposed to vote or rule on matters in which they have a financial interest.

Naturally government employees would retain voting privileges. As would Social Security recipients, simply because seniors have been told since the program’s inception the money is not welfare. It’s not true now and it was a lie in 1935, but I’m not prepared to penalize seniors because the government misled them.

This reform would leave us with an electorate that bears the responsibility of paying for the government it advocates. Without this reform the Obamatrons continue to benefit unfairly from Taxation Without Participation.

In November one might cynically term Obama’s 47 percent “pocketbook voters,” only the pocketbook they’ll be voting is yours.

$15 Trillion Later




Cato Institute’s director of health and welfare studies Michael Tanner wrote The American Welfare State How We Spend Nearly $1 Trillion a Year Fighting Poverty – and Fail. The Cato Institute recently released his findings. They are, to say the least, not encouraging. Tanner states that America has spent $15 trillion in the “war on poverty” since 1964. And what do we have to show for all that money spent? A poverty rate that about the same as in 1964, an entrenched bureaucracy, and a population increasingly dependent on government handouts. When Johnson declared war on poverty, the US poverty rate was 19 percent and rapidly falling. Increasing prosperity caused by the free market, and civil institutions such as churches, charities, and fraternal organizations, was already making poverty a rarity in the US. Today the poverty rate is 15.1 percent and climbing.

The war on poverty has been a big success for the bureaucracy. At the federal level alone there are now 126 separate anti-poverty programs administered by seven different cabinet agencies and six independent agencies. On June, 2011, the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on the issue of “Duplication, Overlap, and Inefficiencies in Federal Welfare Programs.” General Accountability Office (GAO) Chief Operating Officer Patricia A. Dalton said:

… that the GAO could not identify all existing welfare programs in the various federal departments and agencies or determine how much they cost. She said further that she and the GAO could not give a specific number of welfare programs or even “hazard a guess” as to what percentage of those programs are actually accomplishing the purposes for which they were created.

Tanner stated that welfare spending increased under Bush, but Obama has thrown money at anti-poverty programs at an unprecedented rate. Since taking office, the Obama administration has increased spending on welfare programs by more than $193 billion. “The vast majority of current programs,” Tanner state, “are focused on making poverty more comfortable – giving poor people more food, better shelter, health care, and so forth – rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty. The best way to create wealth is not through government action, but through the power of the free market.”

But Johnson couldn’t leave well enough alone. In the name of “equal outcome,” he declared war on poverty and created the welfare system. On June 4, 1965, at a Howard University commencement address, Johnson expressed his support for equal outcomes policies directed at Black Americans. He linked economic rights with civil rights and equality of outcome with equality of opportunity.  [emphasis mine]  Johnson said, “It is not enough to open the gates of opportunity; all our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.”  [again, emphasis mine]  That comment led to race- and gender-based quotas and preferences, what we now refer to as affirmative action.

Now let’s turn our attention to equal opportunity. I was a rather slow and mediocre race car driver. My only claim to fame (such as it is) is that Bobby Allison once lapped me in a 5 lap race! But I had the same opportunities as Bobby Allison, and that is the point of this diatribe. I had the same access, the same equal opportunity, as Allison to money, cars, and sponsors. The fact that I didn’t have Allison’s talent for driving race cars was a personal impediment.

Yet had the same logic that Johnson used in 1964-5, I could have/would have been competitive with Allison, not by making me faster, but by making Allison slower and making him wait for me.

Failing to reach one’s goal (in my case, driving fast) would clarify the meaning of the words “access” and “opportunity.” But clarification would destroy the political usefulness of these words, along with the government programs that are used to justify them. No politician asks how access was denied. Politicians don’t stop to define words, suggesting that external barriers are the problem. and that government intervention is the only solution. “Equal access” does not automatically lead to “equal outcomes” in racing or anywhere else. But words like “equal access” have led to much political success.

Kurt Vonnegut, in 1961, wrote about equality of outcomes in Harrison Bergeron, and about Harrison’s ultimate rebellion against forced equality of outcomes. He was shot.

I think it’s fairly clear that after transferring $15 trillion to the poor that the concept of “equal outcome” has not, nor will it ever work. All we can do is ensure “equal opportunity,” then let the cards fall where they may.

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Europe Won’t Work in America

Spain’s economy is under such duress that the country is prepared to request a 40 billion Euro cash injection from the Euro zone this weekend. The request comes after Fitch Ratings reduced Spain’s credit by three notches on Thursday. This move will make Spain the fourth country to need a bailout since the European debt crisis began. The Spanish banking sector’s weakness and contagion from Greece’s debt crisis have put Spain’s economy in such a precarious position that the International Monetary Fund reported a need for 90 billion Euros to entirely cleanse Spain’s banking sector.

Much has been said about the problems of Greece and how those problems will impact the Eurozone. However, the size of Spain’s economy is over four times that of Greece’s. Spain’s 11.5% share of the Euro zone’s GDP has a far greater impact on European finances than does Greece’s 2.5%.

What the world is witnessing is the collapse of the European socialist economic model; the failure of government dependency. As more people become dependent on government, fewer people are left to pay the cost.

But it goes beyond simply spending other people’s money. The socialist entitlement mentality makes people less productive. As more and more people become less and less productive, an ever-smaller minority of productive people become responsible for shouldering the burdens of a completely lopsided, unfair system. When a tiny number of productive people are required to deprive themselves of the fruits of their own labor in order to finance the lives of the remaining population, where is the incentive for them to produce?

If that is not enough, reliance on a big government nanny state makes people less responsible for themselves, less self-reliant. That is the antithesis of the American way of life.

When European settlers colonized the New World, they left the security of Europe behind in favor of North America’s unknown wilderness. They left homes, family, friends and country behind in exchange for an opportunity to build better lives for themselves. They were freed from the constraints of Europe’s restrictive class system. They openly rejected the European way by leaving.

When the British Monarchy deemed to re-impose that system on Britain’s thirteen North American Colonies, that attempt was adamantly and thoroughly rejected. Hence the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution and the founding of the United States of America.

When America’s pioneers ventured west to traverse the Great Plains and cross the Rocky Mountains they were completely self reliant. They took care of themselves. They didn’t have, want, or need a big nanny state government to take care of them from cradle to grave.

This is the stuff of which America is made.

Because it gives them control over “the masses”, “progressives” have long sought to fashion America after the European socialist model, to make Americans more government dependent. There was FDR with the New Deal and Social Security. LBJ gave America the Great Society, Welfare Programs and Medicare. Now obama forces upon an unwilling America the crown jewel of European style socialism; government controlled medicine.

Every time obama holds a press conference he sounds exactly the way he has always sounded: he inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. his policies are working, but need more time. Congress needs to quit stalling and enact more of his policies. The private sector is doing fine but to grow the economy government needs to spend more money to create more government jobs at the state and local level.

Coming as it does on the heels of the Wisconsin recall election, where such policies were rejected, this shows precisely how out of touch obama is with the private sector, how the economy works, American history and the nature of America’s people…and with reality.

Europe won’t work in America. Neither will an out of touch narcissist who insists on imposing a long rejected European system upon America.

obama, you are fired.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/europe-wont-work-in-america/

Married To The Game: Where Have All Of The Entrepreneurs Gone?

miccheck

In this episode of the Married to the game, we discuss:

-Why Mitt Romney’s supporters should thank Newt.

-Why sex offenders should volunteer to remove themselves from society.  (self deportation)

-Where have the entrepreneurs gone?

-Can we make people “work” for their welfare?

-Why does Day Care cost SO MUCH???

-Have we reached a point where government regulation is killing our small businesses?

-What is America going to look like, if ONLY the irresponsible people continue to reproduce/have children?

-What if YouTube made you have to join an Actor’s Union to create and post videos?

-What did Michelle Ray do to risk Social Services being called on her?

CLICK HERE NOW to listen to the lengthy, yet fresh discussion.

 

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

The “Personal Energy Subsidy” No One Talks About

Members of Congress have recently been embroiled in a battle to stop what many have termed “Big Oil Company Subsidies.” These government-sponsored subsidies come in many forms, such as corporate tax breaks for common expense tax write-offs, and for depletion of equipment costs. Keep in mind, that these same tax breaks are also given to every other manufacturer in America, not just Big Oil Companies. Randall Hoven outlines the situation precisely in an article titled About Those Oil Subsidies.

The Big Oil subsidy outcry is just another ploy by the American left to bash the very fossil fuel that has been the main producer of affordable energy in America ever since the invention of the various versions of electricity generators and the subsequent evolution of the energy industry. As with any production company, the free market energy system is based on competition-driven cost controls, where affordability is job one. Allow big government to completely control the energy industry and the results will be higher prices for everyone who can afford to pay, while also using it as a tool for stealth wealth redistribution and vote-buying to stay in power. Now that the big government myth about the big oil companies not paying their fair share has been busted wide open, and some of the reasons behind that power grab have been theorized, let’s take a look at one of the biggest energy subsidies ever handed out by the U.S. Government. Personal, welfare-dependence-driven energy subsidies that cost U.S taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

In a democratic society, fairness, and equality are supposed to be the cornerstone of the system. When certain groups or sectors of society are given preference over another one by a government through the usage of tax dollars, this becomes a blatant example of taxation without representation. ( of ALL people not just some of them) Other words that may be used to describe this scenario may include Fascism, tyranny, socialism, and political oppression.  So how can big government manipulators explain why one sector of American society has to pay for their utility usage, while another very large sector receives a personal energy subsidy from the U.S. Government that the rest of society is made to pay for?

While the oil companies “subsidies,” which are in fact tax breaks, have been put at around $4 billion dollars a year, how much do the personal energy subsidies cost the taxpayer each year?   All states have their own personal energy subsidy programs, which are at least partly funded by federal tax dollars. The website Welfare Info is a good place to explore the current welfare system, and just what government “subsidies” the career welfare class receives.

[Note: There is a big difference between an American tax-paying, energy producing company getting legal tax breaks (unjustly termed “subsidies” by the leftists and enviro-terrorists) and a non-producing, non-taxpaying career welfare sector receiving personal energy subsidies to pay their utility bills at the expense of the working class in America.]

From the above welfare info site, the following personal energy subsidies are outlined as follows: (emphasis added)

Another of the welfare programs is the energy or utility assistance program which is intended to help those who cannot afford to pay for basic utility needs, such as heat, electricity and/or gas and water. Like the child support program, it will supplement part of or provide 100% of the monthly utility costs.

Although the state by state personal energy subsidy programs are unique, they all contain on commonality: One sector of American society is being made to pay for another sector’s energy bills through government programs, many of them consisting of utility companies forming “partnership programs” with state and local governments. So who qualifies for  these taxpayer-funded personal energy subsidies? Can a non-U.S. citizen have their utility bill paid by U.S. taxpayers, or receive other welfare payments ?

Again from Welfare Info: (emphasis added) “You must be a citizen of the United States or a qualified non-citizen legal resident, (restrictions apply).” So, not only are U.S. taxpayers being made to subsidize career welfare people’s personal energy bills, they are also being made to subsidize what amounts to payments to criminal illegal aliens who broke the law while entering the United States.

Again, how much do these personal energy subsidies cost the U.S. taxpayer?  The fact is, that the big government bureaucracy now has so many personal energy subsidy programs that it is all but impossible to put a total cost to the taxpayers on it, which appears to be have done by design over decades of nanny-state planning and dependency program creation. Utibility Bill Assistance  has a complete rundown of state by state personal energy subsidy programs, along with this explanation about another pair of federal personal energy subsidy programs:

There is also a federal program to provide utility bill assistance. The National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association is a primary educational & policy organization for the state and other organizations of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which is often referred to as LIHEAP. LIHEAP is a federal government program that provides grants to states to help struggling with assistance on their their electric, heating and cooling utility bills.

In addition to LIHEAP, another program available is the weatherization program, which over 5 million Americans have taking advantage of, and which can save over $300 per year in utility bill costs. ( several spelling corrections made)

When discussing taxpayer-funded “subsidies” and entitlement programs, the Liberal nanny-state worshipers have proven incapable of seperating retired, career-taxpaying Senior citizens receiving SSI payments ( and in some cases personal energy subsidies) from the non-producing, non-taxpaying career welfare sector of society. This is done to obscure the facts that tax dollars have been used to create a welfare dependency in America in exchange for the welfare class vote, which is the base of today’s Liberal Democratic party. Liberal political operatives disgustingly disrespect working-class Seniors by lumping them in with the non-producing welfare class, in an attempt to falsely paint themselves as champions of the poor.

In summary, should America end all energy subsidies, as Democrats have been demanding in Congress recently? That would have to include ending the above-explained personal energy subsidies, along with the Democrat-sponsored green energy fraud and power-mongering usage of taxpayer dollars to spread misinformation designed to keep them in power by enriching their crony-capitalists and tax dollar thieves as was seen in the Solyndra scandal.  To end all energy subsidies would in fact crush the base of today’s fake Democrats, their environmental green energy fear-mongering, and their welfare-dependent vote begging fraud they have hoisted upon the American people under the guise of “helping them.”

Footnote: While several personal energy subsidy programs do indeed help deserving people cope with today’s skyrocketing energy prices, as Barack Obama promised America during his 2008 election campaign, the creation of the welfare class dependency in America has deteriorated family values, work ethics and the very foundation of American exceptional-ism, personal responsibility and the idea of working for what you want out of life. For a very serious look at some of the results of this systemic destruction of American values, please see The Ugly truth of America’s Welfare Class.

 

 

 

 

 

Bob Beckel: Liberals Created A Dependent Society With Welfare

We live in a world of “Gotcha Journalism” that greases its wheels with quotes like the one in this video.  That is why I’m going to try to share it responsibly.  Bob Beckel, the “resident Liberal” at Fox News, made a startling comment today on The Five.  When briefly discussing entitlements, he said that Liberals had made a “terrible mistake” with things like public housing and welfare, and that they had inadvertently created a “dependent society”.  Video is below.

As a conservative audience, I can see the temptation to jump on Beckel’s quote and exploit it for all it’s worth.  Here we have a Liberal stating point blank that their policies have not only failed, but he’s implying that damage has been done to society.  It’s a pretty damning and powerful statement.

Judging by the reaction I got when I shared this quote on Twitter, there is much to exploit in the video, but… I think there is another powerful statement when you consider the full context of things.  Try, if you can, to imagine this being said on any other network.  You definitely would not have a Liberal admit something like this on MSNBC.  And even a milquetoast network like CNN wouldn’t dare to make such a proclamation.  You only get lucid moments like this on Fox News, and it’s sad.  And I have to say “lucid moments”, because it’s not like Fox is that much above the fray.  They have plenty of partisan reporting on their part too.  It’s just that every now and then, someone has the courage or the ability to speak truthfully, and for that I thank them.

Bob definitely gave the Right Wing something to crow about with this quote, but I also think he gave us, as Americans, something to think about:  If we’re ever going to actually solve some of the problems in this nation, we’re going to have to admit the instances where our side is wrong.

The FairTax Series: America's Road To Prosperity Part 2

In this installment of the FairTax series I want to cover the cost of compliance and enforcement with today’s tax codes. Before I go into the complexities of compliance and enforcement I want to spend a few minutes dispelling the favorite myth of the anti-FairTax crowd. One of the things that put me off the FairTax at first was the pooh-poohing of the plan by those who don’t want to see it implemented. I bought into the lies and distortions because I did not have enough knowledge of the FairTax to dispel these negative stories. This part of the issue is covered a little further into the book but I want to get this cleared up before I go any farther. I want you to understand the plan clearly, without the distortions thrown at me early in my exposure to the FairTax.

There have been some in Congress, along with the “tax the rich more” crowd, who have suggested a Value Added Tax or VAT. This would be a national sales tax added on to the cost of everything we buy today. This tax, proposed to begin at about 2%, would eventually be up in the 16% or higher range as it is now in some European countries. THE FAIRTAX IS NOT THE SAME PLAN. Those who do not want to see the FairTax implemented deliberately confuse the two plans to scare people like me, and you, away from the FairTax. This worked for quite some time as I was not knowledgeable enough to discern the difference. Be assured that when you hear VAT used in the same sentence as the FairTax it is a red herring designed to put you off the most intelligent proposal I have heard in my 61 years, The FairTax.
Now to the costs associated with our current system. In the debate about income and employment taxes we seldom hear of the costs involved. I am a simple man with a high school education so it doesn’t take very long for the tax structure to get the best of me. I haven’t been able to find any concrete numbers but the federal income tax code has somewhere between 67,000 pages, as stated in the 2nd FairTax book published in 2008, and 86,000 that I heard a politician mention a little while back. I can’t remember which politician or exactly when he gave that number but I do remember 86,000 pages being mentioned. I really don’t care which number is right, both are absurd. My wife has a college degree in accounting in which she achieved a 4.0 grade point average. She is a very smart lady and extremely good with accounting but even she can’t keep up with yearly changes and the odd nuances of the ever changing tax codes. As a result we have our taxes done by a local Certified Public Accountant who is very good and keeps up with all of the changes from year to year.Let me describe the differences very simply here before I go on to the main subject of this article. The FairTax is instead of, not in addition to, income taxes, employment (Social Security/Medicare) taxes, inheritance (death) taxes, gift taxes, etc. The Value Added Tax (VAT) is in addition to, not instead of, these other taxes. This is a huge difference when it comes to deciding whether to support the FairTax or not. Once I understood the difference in the two plans I could plainly see that the FairTax is a plan that is in my best financial interest.

This year, 2011, the IRS has a $12.633 billion budget. That is $12,633,000,000 of our money going to an agency to insure that everyone, well almost everyone, complies with the tax codes. Even with that amount of money being spent they won’t get all of the money “due” to the government in taxes. The IRS is not the most efficient tax collection system. They can find me if I don’t pay but they have a hard time finding out if members of Congress, congressional staff members, and even the head man at the Treasury Department, Timothy Geithner paid their taxes as they should. As I mentioned in the first segment, they won’t collect these taxes from the local drug dealer, prostitute, illegal alien, or anyone else who gets paid under the table for work.
Now let’s talk about the cost to We the People directly. The last figures I could find on the cost to prepare income taxes were from 2005. That year the U. S. General Accountability Office reported that taxpayers paid between $240 billion and $600 billion to prepare and file their tax forms. That is for 2005, 6 years ago. My costs have almost doubled since then to the $315 my wife and I paid to have our taxes prepared in 2010.

So, let’s take a quick look at what we have for the cost of compliance. The IRS alone will spend $12.633 billion in 2011, at least, to insure that some of us pay our taxes. Those of us who pay our taxes spend as much as $600 billion, at least as of 2005, to have those forms prepared. The GAO also stated that taxpayers can expect to pay as much as 20% of the cost of their taxes to have the forms prepared by professional tax preparers. That is another 20% in addition to the amount of the taxes owed (ours isn’t that high). The figures in this paragraph come from the IRS site itself, not the FairTax book. I guess these numbers are great if you are a CPA or tax lawyer but not so great for those of us who have to spend that money.

For those who say “so what, I don’t pay much in taxes and the rich can afford to pay more” I have a new perspective for you. Every dollar that is spent to prepare tax forms or taken by government is a dollar that those “rich people” can’t use to provide jobs for working class people like myself, or you. Also look at the downstream effects. Corporations and the “rich” who own businesses factor their tax liability into the prices they charge for their products and the wages they pay their employees. One way or the other we all pay for the taxes that are heaped upon those we consider “rich”, and those “evil corporations”. People who own businesses own them to make money for themselves to support their families primarily. They are going to make money regardless of how much they are taxed, or they are going to go out of business and let their employees fend for themselves in the employment lines. When they pass those expenses on to the customer it comes to the point that customers pay the taxes in the end through the cost of the product. The bottom line is that corporations don’t pay taxes, the customer pays the taxes. The corporation just becomes the tax collector for the federal government because that money goes straight to bureaucrats and politicians.

The economists who have studied the tax structure and developed the Fair Tax plan have determined that there is a 22% tax liability built into everything you purchase, above and beyond state and local sales taxes. This is where things get a bit complicated and are difficult to comprehend. For example, let me use the wagon we bought for one of our grandchildren last fall. We paid $99, not including sales taxes, for a small wagon with wood sides. These wood sides were barely stronger than balsa wood, not the hardiest or strongest of woods. That may or may not sound like a lot of money but let me delve into how the price of that wagon was arrived at.

The wagon is made of metal, with rubber tires and wood siding. Each of these materials has a manufacturing process. The ore for the metal has to be mined, processed into steel, stamped into shape, painted, packaged, and shipped to its final destination, the store where we purchased the product. The wood for the sides and the rubber for the tires go through this same process. At each step of the process taxes are assessed for the materials and labor needed to complete the process and those costs are included in the final price of the product. By the time we purchased that wagon, $22 of the cost were the built-in taxes added to the cost of producing that product. This includes evaluating the tax costs of those who provide the machinery that makes the wagon. So I pay roughly 32% of my income to the government and then pay another 22% in federal taxes, not counting state and local sales taxes, to purchase the wagon for my granddaughter. So we have a wagon I could have bought for $77 now costing $99.

Take out your latest pay stub and look at it. Look at the Gross Pay box, and then look at the Net Pay box. Now go back and look at the various deductions, federal income tax, social security/Medicare tax, miscellaneous federal taxes, and see how much they take from your paycheck each time you get paid. Quite an amount going to Congress to waste on themselves isn’t it? (The FairTax stops the 32% I pay on my income but doesn’t raise the 22% I pay for the wagon.)

If you will stop and think about it for a moment the current system is a can of worms that is so ungainly and complicated even those who write the tax codes can’t comply. Don’t believe me? Do some research on Rep. Charles Rangel (D- NY), the former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives. They write the tax laws and he just got pinched, or hand slapped to be more accurate, for evading millions in taxes. He claims he didn’t understand the laws and made a simple error, to the tune of several million dollars. He had the nerve to stand on the floor of the House of Representatives and complain about how complicated the tax codes are. Rangel writes those tax codes. You try to make that excuse fly and see if you find yourself with a finger wagged in your face or you join Wesley Snipes in prison for tax evasion.

The FairTax puts a stop to all of this nonsense. No need for the IRS, no need for complicated forms and CPA’s or tax lawyers, and a full paycheck coming to you every payday. How much would it help if the drug dealers were paying a consumption tax on their fancy cars, boats, airplanes, etc? What about the millions of tourists who visit the United States every year? Under the FairTax plan they would be helping pay the taxes that support Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and social welfare systems. Right now almost 50% of American citizens do not pay any income tax at all, not to mention the illegal aliens who use an overly large portion of our “free” services. What if John Kerry had to pay taxes on the $7 million boat I mentioned in the introduction to the series!!!!!!!!

How would you like to get a gross pay check instead of a net pay check? How far would that money go to help you provide for your family? You are paying a 22% tax on everything you buy, food, clothes, a bicycle for your child, a car to get to work in, shoes for your feet, light bulbs, toilet paper, food, everything. Imagine not having to pay the income tax on top of these embedded taxes. And a bonus is that it wouldn’t hurt the “poor” people in our society. Even those paying no income and social security taxes are paying the embedded taxes.
So let me review what we have learned in this installment. We the People are paying millions to have our taxes prepared by professionals because the tax codes are too complicated for us to do it on our own. The IRS will spend billions on auditing and compliance, for those of us who they audit. Those who engage in illegal activity do not pay income and social security taxes while those of us who are honest hard working folks pay through the nose. The “poor” aren’t going to be hurt by this. And best of all, We the People can be rid of the IRS, and take the favoritism and vote buying out of the hands of the politicians. Those who use taxes to increase their power, wealth, and prestige through taxation lose a great deal of that power and give it back to We the People where it belongs in the first place.

In the next installment I will delve into the business and financial aspects of the FairTax, how it would help in bringing business and manufacturing back to our shores from other countries, and why the money being hidden in offshore accounts would be brought back to provide jobs and increased opportunity for American citizens.
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
November 25, 2011

« Older Entries