Fair Tax – not an oxymoron

I want to take a moment to plug something called the Fair Tax, details on which can be found at http://www.fairtax.org. Simply put, this tax proposal would abolish all current taxes (yes, all) and replace them with a single, nation-wide, sales tax. This tax would be paid by anyone who purchases products or services (except for those below the poverty level), meaning it’s an across-the-board tax that everyone pays, both rich and middle-class.

Doing away with all taxes would allow the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and allow the states to introduce an amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. Making it apply to anything anybody buys (with the exception of used items, like used cars) is fair, because nothing is exempted (not even food, which currently – at least in Texas – is not taxed). Business-to-business transactions are not taxed, allowing companies to invest more in their growth and stimulating the economy. Workers keep more of their paychecks, because payroll and Social Security/Medicare taxes are no longer deducted. No more tax cheats, because nobody will have to file a tax return.

And the proposed tax rate is 23%.

Whoa, now, you’re probably saying, 23% is a lot of money. The Fort Worth sales tax rate, after all, is only two percent, and the Texas sales tax rate is only 6.25%. And this is a nationwide tax? So going to a state like Alaska (which currently has no state sales tax) would cost more?

Well, yes. But businesspeople who take vacations and deduct them from their business taxes would no longer be able to do so. Businesses who spend money investing in their company’s growth would not pay taxes, nor would they pay payroll taxes on their workforce – which could translate into either greater investment or higher wages. And if a company finds itself more profitable because of increased productivity (i.e. happier employees) they may be more willing to pass those profits on to their employees in the form of bonuses and wage increases.

But even if they didn’t, workers would realize a de facto wage increase by the lack of income, SS, and Medicare taxes deducted.

The FairTax website contains a number of calculators that allow people to see the impact of the current system on their income, versus the proposed impact of the FairTax system. The website also touts the number of Nobel Prize winning economists and others who back the system, as well as the number of Congresspeople who have come out in support of the proposal. However, there has been no movement to allow this proposal to be debated before the House Ways & Means Committee.

I believe, after looking at the result of the calculations on the website, I’d much rather pay the FairTax when I buy something than have to go through the annual hassle of filing a Form 1040, and I’d love to see more money in my paycheck as a result. As long as the Democrats are in control of Congress, however, I don’t see this happening, because taxes are a way of keeping the citizenry under control, as well as legalized theft, and the Government’s way of saying that our money isn’t really ours.

Head for the website and read about it, and if you agree that it’s a better way to go, let Chairman Charles Rangel know by adding your name to the resolution to be submitted. It’s one step on the road toward finally taking our country back, one piece at a time.

At the point of a gun

I have no problem with taking care of the environment. I try and be responsible when recycling, I don’t litter, I don’t change my antifreeze in the street and allow it to run down the gutter. I know our resources are limited, just by the fact that this is the only planet we’ve got.

But I resent being told by somebody else that I’m not doing enough, that I’m going to be taxed in order to force me to do more than my part, and that other nations (whose governments are, to put it mildly, not democratic) demand a larger slice of the pie from us.

It was reported by CNSNews and Newsmax.com that developing nations walked out of the Copenhagen talks on Monday (Dec. 14), demanding a larger amount of money from developed countries without agreeing to any curbs on their own greenhouse emissions.

Basically, this amounts to a temper tantrum by the developing nations. They don’t want to play by the rules – indeed, they don’t want to play by any rules – yet they want us to not only abide by the rules, but pay them for not playing by them.

Absurd.

There is apparently now no way any “substantive” climate change treaty will be hammered out in Copenhagen, and that is a good thing. American sovereignty was in dire danger had such a treaty been signed. Such a treaty would have created an international agency whose main (and perhaps only) goal would have been the subjugation of developed nations to its will – and redistributing wealth from the developed countries to the developing ones.

Even though the Senate would have been required to ratify the treaty for it to become binding upon the US, there are some backdoor methods already being employed to force Americans to spend more on energy and conservation, essentially taxing us for our prosperity. The Environmental Protection Agency has declared carbon dioxide a “pollutant” and has declared its intentions to regulate CO2 emissions without regards to market forces. This amounts to an unconstitutional tax, and is just one more reason why Congress and the rest of the Washington bureaucracy is not only crooked as a dog’s hind leg, but also completely out of touch with reality. CO2 is a pollutant? We’d all better stop breathing now!

Seriously, though, the apparent failure of the Copenhagen talks can only be viewed as a good thing, but countries who believed they’re “owed” a living by the United States should think again. One pundit on Newsmax wrote that America has no problem with working in friendship with the rest of the world, but friendship has its limits. If those developing nations cannot gain what they want by relatively benign means, there may be more violent attempts in the future. It may be that these nations may come knocking at our door (or attempt to knock it down) to take from us what they themselves did not and will not earn.

And now for something completely different…

(with apologies to Monty Python)

I gotta say that the MP3 player may be the single most useful invention (in terms of entertainment, that is) in human history. Mine is a veritable soundtrack of my life, and it’s nice to be able to listen to the music I want without commercials, annoying DJs (of which I used to be one), and lots of songs that I don’t like but fit into the “format” of a particular station.

For example, on my MP3 player, I have tunes ranging from Tony Bennett to Ozzy Osborne, from Linkin Park to Merle Haggard, and from Percy Faith to Foreigner. I can listen to Michael Bublé and, in the next song, hear a tune from Pat Benetar, then turn around and listen to an obscure instrumental from Bill Pursell (“Our Winter Love”) or an equally obscure tune from The Foundations (okay, maybe “Build Me Up Buttercup” isn’t all that obscure, but tell me you actually knew who sang that song). Or perhaps one of three different versions of “Ame Caline” (the original, in French, by composer Michel Polnareff, or the instrumental hit by Raymond LeFevre, or the vocal version in English by Little Peggy March of “I Will Follow Him” fame).

Yep, I love my MP3 player.

A Nation … or a Federation?

I’ve been reading a lot of stuff about not only the Constitution of the United States, but also some of the thoughts of the men behind it. In particular, I’ve been interested in the concept that the United States of America is not really a nation, per se, but more of a Federation. The strongest argument for this, of course, is the Tenth Amendment, which states that powers not specifically granted to the Federal government are reserved for the states, or the people. Another argument is that it was not the people who ratified the Constitution in 1787, but the thirteen new States.

This is an argument that is new to me, and nothing I was ever taught in school. Whereas “We, the People,” have been understood as the driving force behind our form of government, it was actually the States that agreed to this form by ratifying the Constitution. And it is the Constitution that puts the States on an equal footing with the Federal government.

Some might see this as even worse than having the Feds in control. In some states, such as South Carolina with Gov. Mark Sanford’s recent marital woes in full view, the residents might think that having their state on a power par with the Federal government would be a joke. Same might be said for the people of Illinois, for example.

But in reality, putting the states on the same pedestal as the Federal government is, as I see it, a good thing, because it forces the Feds to recognize from whence its power is derived. It is not an inherent fact that the Federal government can do whatever it wants because it’s the Government. In the Constitution, the States actually allow the Feds to do what the Constitution outlines, and no more. And it is the Constitution that allows the States to deny the Federal government the ability to do what it wants. But it’s not a widely-known fact, and even less widely accepted, especially by the elites in Washington. But there is recent precedent for the states standing up to the Feds.

In 2005, the Government passed the Real ID act, which would have resulted in a national ID card that each State would have been forced to accept as legal identification. It could have also allowed the creation of a database of individuals (along with their personal information) that would have provided the Feds with names and addresses of those who disagreed with its policies. Over 20 states invoked the legislative right of nullification, basically stating that the law was null and void within the borders of the state. Without this ability to enforce the law, the Feds could not implement it, so it essentially died. (Lest the right forget, this was a concept implemented during the Bush administration, with a Republican majority in Congress.)

Now, several states, including Montana and Ohio, have passed legislation essentially telling the Feds that they have no business in that state’s firearms industry. These bills state that, in the case of firearms manufactured, sold, and used within the borders of that State, that the much-misunderstood “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution does not apply. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has, predictably, stated that they can still enforce Federal gun laws in those states, but the States say that they can only regulate arms that come into the state from outside its borders.

These legislative efforts, as well as a letter sent from a Tennessee legislator to the other 49 states, indicate that the states are beginning to take seriously the usurpation of power from the States, and they’re not going to stand still. To that end, instead of writing to our representatives in Washington, we should be writing and calling our elected officials in our state capitals, like Tallahassee, Austin, Albuquerque, Denver, Boise, and Juneau. Because it’s clear that our current form of government, the one we grew up with all our lives, is not only in danger of falling, it’s possible that it was nothing more than a convenient lie to distract us from the real issue – which was federal usurpation of powers and rights that belonged to the states, or to the people – and still do.

“A Different Christmas Poem”

That was the title of the e-mail sent to me by a friend, which contains the poem that I’d like to share with you. The poem itself is attributed to Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Giles, U. S. Navy, who was stationed in Iraq when this poem was written. I don’t know when it was written, but I felt compelled to share this, on behalf of my nephew (U. S. Marines, Iraq and Afghanistan), my father (U. S. Army, Vietnam and Korea), my uncle (U. S. Army, Holland, WWII – KIA), and all the men and women in uniform that I know, and that I don’t know, but still keep us safe from evil and defend our Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Please remember them in your prayers every day, but especially this holiday season while they’re away from home.

The embers glowed softly, and in their dim light,
I gazed ‘round the room and I cherished the sight.
My wife was asleep, her head on my chest;
My daughter beside me, angelic in rest.
Outside, the snow fell, a blanket of white,
Transforming the yard to a winter delight.

The sparkling lights in the tree, I believe,
Completed the magic that was Christmas Eve.
My eyelids were heavy, my breathing was deep;
Secure and surrounded by love I would sleep
In perfect contentment, or so it would seem;
So I slumbered, perhaps I started to dream.

The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't too near,
But I opened my eyes when it tickled my ear.
Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know;
Then the sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.
My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear,
And I crept to the door just to see who was near.

Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,
A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.
A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old,
Perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.
Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,
Standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.

"What are you doing?" I asked without fear,
"Come in this moment, it's freezing out here!
Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,
You should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!"
For barely a moment I saw his eyes shift,
Away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts

To the window that danced with a warm fire's light
Then he sighed and he said "Its really all right,
I'm out here by choice. I'm here every night.
It's my duty to stand at the front of the line,
That separates you from the darkest of times.

“No one had to ask or beg or implore me,
I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before me.
My Gramps died at Pearl on a day in December,"
Then he sighed, "That's a Christmas 'Gram always remembers."
My dad stood his watch in the jungles of 'Nam,
And now it is my turn and so, here I am.

“I've not seen my own son in more than a while,
But my wife sends me pictures, he's sure got her smile.”
Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag,
The red, white, and blue... an American flag.
”I can live through the cold and the being alone,
Away from my family, my house and my home.

“I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet,
I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat.
I can carry the weight of killing another,
Or lay down my life with my sister and brother
Who stand at the front against any and all,
To ensure for all time that this flag will not fall."

" So go back inside," he said, "harbor no fright,
Your family is waiting and I'll be all right."
"But isn't there something I can do, at the least,
Give you money," I asked, "or prepare you a feast?
It seems all too little for all that you've done,
For being away from your wife and your son."

Then his eye welled a tear that held no regret,
"Just tell us you love us, and never forget
To fight for our rights back at home while we're gone,
To stand your own watch, no matter how long.
For when we come home, either standing or dead,
To know you remember we fought and we bled
Is payment enough, and with that we will trust,
That we mattered to you as you mattered to us."

And another thing...

...whatever happened to the days when an NFL player simply returned the ball to the referee when he scored a touchdown? I remember coaches used to tell their players, "Act like you've been there before" when they refer to the end zone. These days, all they want to do is dance and strut and act like they're the best thing since sliced bread.

News for you: Without the fans (many of whom blindly pony up huge bucks even in the face of a stiff recession and the threat of unemployment), your final college football game would have been your final game, period...and your "general studies" degree or your "sports management" diploma would be worthless, and you'd be out of a job.

Geez, why do I even watch?

You've got to be kidding

I had some time to reflect on the Rush Limbaugh issue (see below), and I had a thought - the National Football League itself (leaving the owners out of this for now) has a dismal track record when it comes to fairness.

Case in point #1: Adam "Pacman" Jones is suspended, then released, by the Dallas Cowboys for having a fight with his bodyguard in a hotel lobby. Previously, Pacman had been suspended by the NFL in 2007 for a season because of his behavior (which included many fights and a shooting incident in Las Vegas, among other things), and he had a history of violent behavior. He has not caught on with another NFL team, tried to sign with the Winnipeg Blue Bombers of the Canadian Football League but didn't, and is now trying to land a professional wrestling job. Contrast that with today's Carolina Panthers/Tampa Bay Buccaneers game, in which Panthers defensive back Dante Wesley was ejected for unnecessary roughness for launching himself at Bucs punt returner Clifton Smith, who had just signaled for a fair catch. For those unfamiliar with the rules, when a returner signals for a fair catch, he has to be allowed to make the catch and the defender cannot touch him. Wesley didn't just "touch" him, he leveled him in missile-like fashion. Smith stayed on the ground for several minutes, but walked off the field under his own power. So, if Wesley was only thrown out of the game for that kind of hit, why was Jones not pursued for his ability to hit? Oh, but there was a gun involved in one of his off-the-field incidents. To me, thuggishness is thuggishness. Wesley should be suspended for his hit, because it's no different than what Jones was alleged to have done for his entire career. If Wesley isn't suspended, it's another example of the NFL's hypocricy.

Case in point #2: Rush Limbaugh is booted off the investment team looking to purchase the St. Louis Rams because of bogus quotes that it turns out he never made. The issue of his involvement in the investment team was supposed to be confidential in the first place - and whoever leaked it is probably due for some legal problems over and above the libel suits which will likely be filed. But the investment team cut him loose because they said he would be a distraction. Conversely, someone like Michael Vick - who was convicted of animal cruelty because of his involvement in an Atlanta dog-fighting ring - is reinstated to the league. Rush was never convicted of a crime, but was vilified by people with an agenda - and it was a clear-cut case of character assassination because none of the quotes he was alleged to say could be proven as having come out of his mouth. Besides, there are plenty of owners who hold conservative views that are even to the right of Limbaugh, and they own football teams. My opinion of this entire mess is that, because Vick is a marketable commodity for the NFL, he was allowed back in so the NFL (and its owners) could increase their profits. Limbaugh was dropped from an ownership investment team because somebody has it in for him - and that "somebody" is most likely the left-wing liberal media.

And along those lines: Why was Limbaugh kicked off the Rams investment group when somebody like Keith Olbermann is allowed to announce highlights on NBC's "Football Night in America?" Olbermann has uttered some of the most vile, hate-filled statements against not only conservatives, but women as well, on his nightly "show" (I refuse to call it a newscast, because it involves no news). And his statements have been recorded and verified. Limbaugh's so-called "quotes" have been proven to be false, yet most of the liberal media refuses to retract the stories. Even if they did, though, the damage has been done.

The NFL employs Olbermann during its hour-and-a-half pre-game show, as well as the half-time highlights, so that implies that the NFL approves of what Olbermann does on his off-time (at least, the time when he's not narrating highlights, which would include "Countdown"). So if they approve of such horrible, hate-filled, verifiable diatribe on the air, why do they disapprove of Limbaugh, who never said what he was alleged to have said?

There's no fairness there. There's no fairness if Wesley isn't kicked out of the league like Pacman Jones was. And if there's no fairness, then the NFL should be stripped of its anti-trust exemption and should immediately be sued. The need to make money on Philadelphia Eagles jerseys with Michael Vick's number on the back is secondary to the need for justice, and the way both Clifton Smith and Rush Limbaugh have been treated is unjust in the extreme.