For nearly my entire life I’ve heard “get the U.S. out of the U.N., and the United Nations out of the United States.” For a period of my life I found that sentiment somewhat curious. I suffered under the illusion (advanced by government-run school monopolies) that if all the people of the world could meet together, our problems could be resolved. Over the years, however, my position has shifted and hardened. The United Nations is the crucible of tyranny that encourages festering corruption and promotes the elitist mindset. Just as one must lance an infected area, the pus that the U.N. represents must be purged from our shores and cleansed from our nation’s agenda.
Looking back at 2009, United Nations diplomats and their flunkies had more than 18 million dollars in unpaid parking tickets to the city of New York and the five boroughs. Understandably, in the grand scheme of international finance and intrigue, this is a paltry sum, but it is representative of the parasitic nature of the United Nation’s presence in our land. When the elegant headquarters building was constructed at Turtle Bay in 1952, it appears likely that many were filled with hope and optimism for a new global initiative that would improve the lives of every global citizen. It was another utopian lie. Today the massive structure is crumbling and unsound. Billions of dollars will be required to restore the edifice overlooking the East River to a functional level. Unfortunately, a functional building does not guarantee a functional General Assembly or Security Council.
In a recent column in “Townhall.com” (10/17/2010), former Ohio Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, proposed relocating the U.N. to Geneva, Switzerland. The international clown school (UN) already has a satellite office there, so Blackwell reasoned that the move to Geneva would drastically lower the costs for maintaining the U.N. headquarters. Given that the United States contributes or is assessed 22% of the UN’s annual operating costs amounting to 1.8 billion dollars per year, Blackwell suggested that with a move to Geneva, the United States could reduce its portion to six per cent which is more in line with our portion of the global populace. The savings for our country would exceed 1.3 billion dollars annually. It isn’t going to happen. Our political class doesn’t have the courage or the foresight to pursue a policy that seems so reasonable. The striped-pant, tuxedo dressed diplomatic corps would vigorously howl if they believed that their opportunities for interacting with the tin-pot dictators of the world might be compromised or made somewhat more difficult.
In January of this year two columnists for “Forbes.com” had a better suggestion for relocating the UN. In my view, it’s an inspirational suggestion mainly because I have been promoting this idea since mid-2008. Joel Kotkin and Robert J. Cristiano (1/12/2010)were the authors. Their proposal was for the entire New York infrastructure of the United Nations to be transplanted to Dubai….among the United Arab Emirates. The world’s tallest building, the Burj Khalifa, was completed in January. It soars 2700 feet into the air, has 160 floors and contains 3.3 million square feet of unoccupied space. Only ten per cent of the structure is currently occupied, so the UN would have ample space, a world-class airport and every imaginable amenity available for its self-indulgent representatives and staff. In addition, there is ample parking space available so that New York wouldn’t shoulder the loss of all those unpaid parking tickets. By the way, that $18 million in unpaid tickets could fund 20-30 cops per year including bribes. This Dubai remedy seems to me to be a win-win-win-win solution. The building owners increase the occupancy, the UN gets a brand spanking new facility with much more space, the Third World nations will be gratified to have the global busy-body in their midst, and the United States’ taxpayers can save some bucks. To me, this is the perfect solution short of our total withdrawal from the UN (which I prefer). As a starter, I want them out of sight and out of mind. Instead of soiling Manhattan, the clowns can play in the Mid East litter box. As Iran becomes feistier, the elegant diplomats can stand on the helipad at the top of the building, and track the incoming ordinance.
If Frank Sinatra were still with us, he would probably sing, “Dubai, Dubai, Doooo.”
Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com
Monday, December 13, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
Food for Thought
Addressing the impact of pending legislation is always a risky undertaking. At any step along the tortuous path to passage the piece can be amended…either marginally or significantly. Despite my caution I will forge ahead to analyze the underlying basis for the Food Safety Act (the former S. 510) that has been folded into the continuing resolution for maintaining federal spending in lieu of a budget. Will the bill do everything its critics claim it does? Is the concept as beneficial and benign as promoted by its advocates? Frankly, I don’t know, but I DO know that I cannot trust any sweeping legislation from MY government.
The EPA was introduced by Nixon to regulate and moderate air and water. The implied goal was that their mandate involved not allowing room temperature air or water to become “chunky.” We now have in this nation some of the cleanest air and water in the industrialized world. We have developed new technologies and practices for protecting the environment without dismantling the economic engine. But the EPA and its gaggle of anti-capitalists couldn’t stop with success. They insisted on regulating, squeezing and demanding until they, along with greedy labor, forced many of our domestic manufacturers to pack up and relocate off shore. Admittedly, the EPA and labor unions were not the only responsible parties for the decimation of our heavy manufacturing base. I use them only as an illustration of how a government agency goes amok.
Like any bureaucracy, public or private, once a department or agency has fulfilled its mandate, it must seek greater fields to harvest. Smaller concerns yield greater power which morphs into an over- regulating Nanny environment. Bureaucracies must grow to increase their budgets and their power. Eventually they metastasize into tyrannical behemoths that cannot be thwarted no matter how silly or harmful their rulings may be. Proponents of the “Food Safety Act” cite the necessity for limiting the damage to people from e-coli, salmonella and other nasty things that are infrequently found in our food supply. Hallelujah! We need never fear the ravages of sickness or death again because the all-knowing, all-caring and reasonably restrained FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is on the job.
Even if the proponents are telling the truth about the relatively limited purview of the FDA, can they guarantee us that the agency will not grasp for a broader jurisdiction? Can the advocates assure us that Monsanto and ADM with their unlimited funds for lobbying and bribery will not seek to have naturally grown products regulated beyond the cost of production? Can those who seek this legislation honestly promise that the entire food supply of the United States will not, at some future point, be limited to genetically engineered products whose bad effects or side effects may not manifest themselves for a couple of generations? Yes, they may guarantee, they may assure and they may promise, but their statements are as worthless as lips on a chicken.
The so-called “Food Safety Act” represents the camel’s nose. Once the ungainly beast secures an entry into our food supply, the ears will follow as just a little more regulation is deemed necessary. Our beneficent, all-knowing leaders will then decide that if some regulation is good, more is preferable, and the camel’s hump will sidle into the tent. Small farmers, gardeners and survivalists will complain about the camel’s stench, and Big Brother will respond with a “reform” package, the Food On Our Labels Safety act….FOOLS. The new reform will firmly place the entire camel inside every tent (except those who can afford exemptions). Food variety will suffer, and food production will dwindle. Our future will include Mid-East petroleum, Chinese manufactured products and South American food. The best way to avoid the camel’s stench in our tents is to kill it before it comes in. It is past the time for open season on camels.
Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
The EPA was introduced by Nixon to regulate and moderate air and water. The implied goal was that their mandate involved not allowing room temperature air or water to become “chunky.” We now have in this nation some of the cleanest air and water in the industrialized world. We have developed new technologies and practices for protecting the environment without dismantling the economic engine. But the EPA and its gaggle of anti-capitalists couldn’t stop with success. They insisted on regulating, squeezing and demanding until they, along with greedy labor, forced many of our domestic manufacturers to pack up and relocate off shore. Admittedly, the EPA and labor unions were not the only responsible parties for the decimation of our heavy manufacturing base. I use them only as an illustration of how a government agency goes amok.
Like any bureaucracy, public or private, once a department or agency has fulfilled its mandate, it must seek greater fields to harvest. Smaller concerns yield greater power which morphs into an over- regulating Nanny environment. Bureaucracies must grow to increase their budgets and their power. Eventually they metastasize into tyrannical behemoths that cannot be thwarted no matter how silly or harmful their rulings may be. Proponents of the “Food Safety Act” cite the necessity for limiting the damage to people from e-coli, salmonella and other nasty things that are infrequently found in our food supply. Hallelujah! We need never fear the ravages of sickness or death again because the all-knowing, all-caring and reasonably restrained FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is on the job.
Even if the proponents are telling the truth about the relatively limited purview of the FDA, can they guarantee us that the agency will not grasp for a broader jurisdiction? Can the advocates assure us that Monsanto and ADM with their unlimited funds for lobbying and bribery will not seek to have naturally grown products regulated beyond the cost of production? Can those who seek this legislation honestly promise that the entire food supply of the United States will not, at some future point, be limited to genetically engineered products whose bad effects or side effects may not manifest themselves for a couple of generations? Yes, they may guarantee, they may assure and they may promise, but their statements are as worthless as lips on a chicken.
The so-called “Food Safety Act” represents the camel’s nose. Once the ungainly beast secures an entry into our food supply, the ears will follow as just a little more regulation is deemed necessary. Our beneficent, all-knowing leaders will then decide that if some regulation is good, more is preferable, and the camel’s hump will sidle into the tent. Small farmers, gardeners and survivalists will complain about the camel’s stench, and Big Brother will respond with a “reform” package, the Food On Our Labels Safety act….FOOLS. The new reform will firmly place the entire camel inside every tent (except those who can afford exemptions). Food variety will suffer, and food production will dwindle. Our future will include Mid-East petroleum, Chinese manufactured products and South American food. The best way to avoid the camel’s stench in our tents is to kill it before it comes in. It is past the time for open season on camels.
Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Who's Counting?
The 2010 Census results are in the final stages of tabulation and validation. Even so, I suspect that the numbers we are given will be, at best, approximations and, at worst, fabrications. Taking the census is a constitutionally mandated function that is found in Article 1, Section 2 of our pre-eminent governing document. The primary (and only constitutional) purpose of the “actual Enumeration” is to determine representation for the United States House of Representatives. The congressional districts are to be designed so that each member of the House represents a similar number of citizens. There are other uses for the census data that are outside the constitutional requirement, and the data that are collected have gone far beyond mere enumeration. Some would argue that the information sought by census takers transforms the census from a representation determinant to an intrusive social engineering mechanism. Indeed it does as many of the data are used to identify community clusters of poverty, households that lack amenities that may be more prevalent in other economic strata (e.g. 1 bathroom versus 2 bathrooms), or households that suffer because the available square footage per resident is lower than the typical figure.
The Constitution requires that we execute an “actual Enumeration.” In other words…count the people. The Constitution does NOT demand that all manner of intrusive busybody questions be asked. The Constitution does NOT call for or anticipate that computer modeling be used to “fill the gaps of knowledge.” The Constitution does NOT require that millions of people be hired for temporary positions. The Constitution does not demand that those millions of temporary workers ferret out minute details of people’s lives. If the long form census document were abandoned, then enumerators could COUNT, models would be unnecessary and the temporary boost in employment figures wouldn’t be so dramatic. Just like everything else the federal government undertakes, the census has become too cumbersome, too unwieldy and has distorted its original purpose.
Now that my rant about the census has ended, let’s look at the impact for Ohio’s congressional delegation. Currently, we have 18 M.O.C. (members of Congress), but early indications are that we will slip to 16 for the next decade. Because the House of Representatives is limited to 435 members from the 50 states (57 in Obama math), the total population is divided by 435 then apportioned accordingly. The growth in the Southwest, particularly Texas, has minimized the impact of Ohio’s relatively stable population of roughly 11 million people. So, the influence of the Buckeye State on the national scene will be diluted once again, and our impact on the Electoral College will slip from 20 to 18 electoral votes. The Presidential votes in a winner-take-all system in Ohio mean that we represent just fewer than seven per cent of the Electoral College. The reasons for our stagnate growth and our diminishing electoral influence are many, and I will explore them at a later time. I wish to briefly examine how the Census results will impact Ohio.
The Congressional districts are determined by the Ohio General Assembly. Following the November 2010 midterm elections, the GOP will assume control of both chambers with overwhelming numerical advantages. In the House the Republicans hold 59 seats and the Democrats have 40. The Senate favors the GOP by a 23 to 10 margin. Historically, the redistricting process has involved the two parties working together to equally distribute the pain of lost congressional seats. If that model were to be implemented this time, I would expect Dennis Kucinich and Jean Schmidt will see their districts carved and dismantled. It would not surprise me, however, for the GOP to exercise its new power and place four Democratic incumbents in primary races for two districts. To quote the inept Colonel Klink, “verrry interesting.” However the redistricting process unfolds (I understand that it has been drawn already), the GOP General Assembly will face some justified criticism. Work with the “D’s” and it’s the same old business as usual…the two parties working to undermine the will of the electorate. Exercise the raw power of the numbers, and the GOP becomes the party of bullies who run roughshod over the minority. Whatever route the majority chooses to follow, they have ten years to recover.
Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
The Constitution requires that we execute an “actual Enumeration.” In other words…count the people. The Constitution does NOT demand that all manner of intrusive busybody questions be asked. The Constitution does NOT call for or anticipate that computer modeling be used to “fill the gaps of knowledge.” The Constitution does NOT require that millions of people be hired for temporary positions. The Constitution does not demand that those millions of temporary workers ferret out minute details of people’s lives. If the long form census document were abandoned, then enumerators could COUNT, models would be unnecessary and the temporary boost in employment figures wouldn’t be so dramatic. Just like everything else the federal government undertakes, the census has become too cumbersome, too unwieldy and has distorted its original purpose.
Now that my rant about the census has ended, let’s look at the impact for Ohio’s congressional delegation. Currently, we have 18 M.O.C. (members of Congress), but early indications are that we will slip to 16 for the next decade. Because the House of Representatives is limited to 435 members from the 50 states (57 in Obama math), the total population is divided by 435 then apportioned accordingly. The growth in the Southwest, particularly Texas, has minimized the impact of Ohio’s relatively stable population of roughly 11 million people. So, the influence of the Buckeye State on the national scene will be diluted once again, and our impact on the Electoral College will slip from 20 to 18 electoral votes. The Presidential votes in a winner-take-all system in Ohio mean that we represent just fewer than seven per cent of the Electoral College. The reasons for our stagnate growth and our diminishing electoral influence are many, and I will explore them at a later time. I wish to briefly examine how the Census results will impact Ohio.
The Congressional districts are determined by the Ohio General Assembly. Following the November 2010 midterm elections, the GOP will assume control of both chambers with overwhelming numerical advantages. In the House the Republicans hold 59 seats and the Democrats have 40. The Senate favors the GOP by a 23 to 10 margin. Historically, the redistricting process has involved the two parties working together to equally distribute the pain of lost congressional seats. If that model were to be implemented this time, I would expect Dennis Kucinich and Jean Schmidt will see their districts carved and dismantled. It would not surprise me, however, for the GOP to exercise its new power and place four Democratic incumbents in primary races for two districts. To quote the inept Colonel Klink, “verrry interesting.” However the redistricting process unfolds (I understand that it has been drawn already), the GOP General Assembly will face some justified criticism. Work with the “D’s” and it’s the same old business as usual…the two parties working to undermine the will of the electorate. Exercise the raw power of the numbers, and the GOP becomes the party of bullies who run roughshod over the minority. Whatever route the majority chooses to follow, they have ten years to recover.
Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Big Bang - Local view
One of my favorite bumper stickers claims that “An armed society is a polite society.” Works for me. For those of you who remember the Cold War, we had a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) when the Soviet Union and the United States were the two nuclear superpowers. Although nuclear proliferation throughout the globe has, to some degree, removed the certainty of mutual destruction, the principle still endures. If you possess the ability and the will to retaliate, then those who seek to harm you will be very cautious and careful to not provoke you. Although each of the major powers had a sense of the overall capabilities of the other, there were generally some knowledge gaps regarding deployment schemes and technological upgrades. In other words, it was the unknown factors that led to a reasonable hesitancy to engage the opponent. Even when a nation had the firepower to destroy an adversary, it was aware that the opponent could, in turn, decimate it. Stalemate.
When proposed, the Second Amendment to the Constitution was deemed to be a necessary reiteration of an individual’s right to protect himself/herself. Clearly the Founders believed that an armed citizenry was a major deterrent for those in government who were inclined towards tyranny. It should be obvious that all governments drift toward tyranny when their power accumulates to the level that the citizens feel impotent and frustrated. It should also be noted that tyranny is not only the outgrowth of evil intent, but can morph from the government’s overzealous efforts to do “good.” Elitists who manipulate the levers of state power always believe that their visions for a society are superior to the competing ideals. So, given the geometric growth of our out-of-control government and its plethora of laws, rules and regulations that circumscribe and limit our freedom, then an armed citizenry is critical if freedom is to endure.
Another vital aspect of our right to bear arms is in the realm of personal protection. If a potential perpetrator suspects that a likely target may be packing, the perp may hesitate and seek greener pastures. It follows, therefore, that if ALL citizens could exercise their rights to bear arms, then opportunistic criminals would find their targets of opportunity severely curtailed. This represents the local community version of Mutually Assured Destruction. It shouldn’t require a JD in Constitutional Law to understand that many states and localities have “infringed” upon a natural right by their implementation of overly restrictive laws and ordinances that in essence disarm the populace. The McDonald v. Chicago and D.C v. Heller were helpful, …..but not definitive. Certainly two of the most toxic anti-Second Amendment cities were put in their places (somewhat), but the narrow SCOTUS margins encouraged the disarmament crowd to continue tweaking their restrictive measures in hopes of passing Court muster. The slim margins within the court were further compounded by the narrow scopes of the decisions. The likelihood of a clear MAD policy in the realm of personal protection will always be at risk as long as state and local governments seek to usurp our natural and constitutional rights. In addition, if the SCOTUS fails to unequivocally and emphatically uphold and restore our rights to bear arms, then those who wish to do harm, within and outside government, need merely to target more selectively.
It has been argued that a citizenry that can be armed would not be a deterrent against terrorists. After all the argument goes, a terrorist is committed to martyrdom, and an armed citizen can do nothing to short-circuit his (or her) fast track to paradise. My understanding of the theology underlying martyrdom is that the terrorist must destroy infidels to earn his ticket to the heavenly realm and its bevy of virgins. If the crazed zealot unsuccessfully executes the mission, then he/she simply becomes a dead spiritual warrior with no appreciable heavenly benefit. In my view an armed and observant citizenry has the capacity to preempt fast-track trips to paradise. If the alert, armed citizen is present when an individual with theologically-based murderous intent begins to implement the deadly plan, the conscientious and armed citizen can, perhaps, help the zealot to meet his maker….and enjoy eternity alone.
Health conscious people, dentists and accountants all warn us that prevention is the best cure for whatever may ail us. It follows, therefore, that when confronting crime, terrorism or an out-of-control government, then a forewarned and well armed citizenry may be our best and maybe our only cure. When one watches the news or reads the papers, one becomes aware that ALL of our natural rights as identified in the Constitution are under assault. Thoughtful citizens must understand that our rights cannot be taken or given away. Concerned citizens must exercise every available mechanism for protecting our rights. Free citizens will NOT allow our rights to be infringed or abridged.
Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
When proposed, the Second Amendment to the Constitution was deemed to be a necessary reiteration of an individual’s right to protect himself/herself. Clearly the Founders believed that an armed citizenry was a major deterrent for those in government who were inclined towards tyranny. It should be obvious that all governments drift toward tyranny when their power accumulates to the level that the citizens feel impotent and frustrated. It should also be noted that tyranny is not only the outgrowth of evil intent, but can morph from the government’s overzealous efforts to do “good.” Elitists who manipulate the levers of state power always believe that their visions for a society are superior to the competing ideals. So, given the geometric growth of our out-of-control government and its plethora of laws, rules and regulations that circumscribe and limit our freedom, then an armed citizenry is critical if freedom is to endure.
Another vital aspect of our right to bear arms is in the realm of personal protection. If a potential perpetrator suspects that a likely target may be packing, the perp may hesitate and seek greener pastures. It follows, therefore, that if ALL citizens could exercise their rights to bear arms, then opportunistic criminals would find their targets of opportunity severely curtailed. This represents the local community version of Mutually Assured Destruction. It shouldn’t require a JD in Constitutional Law to understand that many states and localities have “infringed” upon a natural right by their implementation of overly restrictive laws and ordinances that in essence disarm the populace. The McDonald v. Chicago and D.C v. Heller were helpful, …..but not definitive. Certainly two of the most toxic anti-Second Amendment cities were put in their places (somewhat), but the narrow SCOTUS margins encouraged the disarmament crowd to continue tweaking their restrictive measures in hopes of passing Court muster. The slim margins within the court were further compounded by the narrow scopes of the decisions. The likelihood of a clear MAD policy in the realm of personal protection will always be at risk as long as state and local governments seek to usurp our natural and constitutional rights. In addition, if the SCOTUS fails to unequivocally and emphatically uphold and restore our rights to bear arms, then those who wish to do harm, within and outside government, need merely to target more selectively.
It has been argued that a citizenry that can be armed would not be a deterrent against terrorists. After all the argument goes, a terrorist is committed to martyrdom, and an armed citizen can do nothing to short-circuit his (or her) fast track to paradise. My understanding of the theology underlying martyrdom is that the terrorist must destroy infidels to earn his ticket to the heavenly realm and its bevy of virgins. If the crazed zealot unsuccessfully executes the mission, then he/she simply becomes a dead spiritual warrior with no appreciable heavenly benefit. In my view an armed and observant citizenry has the capacity to preempt fast-track trips to paradise. If the alert, armed citizen is present when an individual with theologically-based murderous intent begins to implement the deadly plan, the conscientious and armed citizen can, perhaps, help the zealot to meet his maker….and enjoy eternity alone.
Health conscious people, dentists and accountants all warn us that prevention is the best cure for whatever may ail us. It follows, therefore, that when confronting crime, terrorism or an out-of-control government, then a forewarned and well armed citizenry may be our best and maybe our only cure. When one watches the news or reads the papers, one becomes aware that ALL of our natural rights as identified in the Constitution are under assault. Thoughtful citizens must understand that our rights cannot be taken or given away. Concerned citizens must exercise every available mechanism for protecting our rights. Free citizens will NOT allow our rights to be infringed or abridged.
Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
Friday, December 3, 2010
Fair to Middling
This is our fifth and final entry about the Fair Tax (perhaps). This analysis has not explored every nuance and consequence that would occur should we radically transform our system of federal taxation from an income-based to a consumption-based model. For example, there are estimates that compliance costs for the present tax structure range from $250 billion to $400 billion per year. With a consumption oriented and simpler tax system, many of these non-productive wasteful costs would be redirected into the general economy. Consider it a “non borrowed stimulus” wherein the taxpayers or businesses choose how the resources are allocated rather than mandated by complex indecipherable tax law. Certainly there would be some application or administrative costs for the Fair Tax and those costs would be higher in the beginning because of the fact that six states are not presently structured to levy the tax at the cash register, but overall the compliance costs should be dramatically lower than we are experiencing in the current system.
As an ardent supporter of liberty and individual choice, I find that the opportunity to have more personal power over my tax liability to be an appealing prospect. I do understand, however, that many of my fellow citizens will not be persuaded by a freedom-based argument. These citizens resist taking responsibility for their government and often confuse government involvement with security. As I stated earlier, I believe that if we could implement the Fair Tax, then a significant portion of the electorate would embrace their new freedom. Perhaps they’ll become motivated to expand their liberty and opportunities. So, how do we sell this puppy? How do we market the concept of enhanced liberty to our cohorts? How, pray tell, do we get it done?
First, we must identify and neutralize the opposition. In my view there are four significant clusters of interest that will forcefully resist any attempt to change the present federal tax mechanism. The first group is comprised of the entrenched political power structure. The politicians and their bureaucratic sidekicks relish the complexity of the current system because it allows them to tweak, to alter, and to manipulate the system to advance their preferred social agendas or to reward/punish various sectors of the nation’s citizens. The second source of fierce opposition will be the Internal Revenue Service bureaucracy and the legions of people throughout the fruited plain who benefit from trying to decipher the snarled convoluted tax code. Their livelihoods are anchored to the impossible-to-understand, always potentially punitive system that current intimidates so many of our citizens.
Corporations and special interest groups who are reaping benefits from extra consideration in the existing code will battle to retain their favored status. They are the ones who have proven themselves adept at manipulating the system (with the assistance of their treasured politicians) for their own benefit. Sometimes the tax code provides them an advantage by negatively affecting their competitors. At any rate, they may resist a more level playing (paying?) field. The final groups who will scream and howl if the Fair Tax is chosen are those individuals who gain from the current system through the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the child deduction. The prebate aspect of the Fair Tax may squelch a lot of their discontent, but there are many advocates for the tax-break recipients who will forecast massive starvation in the streets if the EITC, in particular, is ended. The opposition will be fierce and relentless, but I, nevertheless, hold to the proposition that implementing the Fair Tax will provide a large enough taste of freedom that our citizens may be more willing to consider constitutional government.
So, how do we sell it? First we have to acknowledge that many of us have a sense of entitlement that has been nurtured by the Nanny State, so appeals to the constitution, smaller government and more individual freedom will not resonate for a large portion of our audience. The bottom line is to replicate the tactics of the progressives by promoting blatant self interest, opportunism and perceived class warfare. Self interest is “keeping all of your check.” The approach would be to encourage everyone to carefully examine her/his check…the gross, then the net, and sell the sizzle: the all new Fair Tax will give you an instant raise by allowing you to KEEP YOUR OWN MONEY.
Winning the support of the political class is more difficult, but it can be done with a good amendment, a workable transition plan and raw political power. The power aspect will arise after the initial sales campaign to the citizenry. Following an “underground orientation” period to inform and develop the key cadre of supporters, then the massive education campaign for the citizens, the next step would be to organize “committees of correspondence (sound familiar?)” to bombard the legislators and other political types. As it develops, the organizational structure should be wide and deep enough to convince the politicos that the movement is real and is strong. We must remember that freedom is merely a byproduct for the average American. Keep your own money is the primary motivating message.
The business and special interest classes should be persuadable through reason and number crunching. I do understand, however, that they are not homogeneous…that each sits in a different niche. The Fair Tax, though, would drastically reduce paperwork for them, and make budgeting and planning much easier. The subsidized poor would probably embrace the concept of the Fair Tax with the prebate, but the real hostility will come from the poverty lobby. They have the same reverence for an easily manipulated tax structure as do the corporate honchos and the political harlots. Theirs will be a noisy, accusative, screeching, cacophony of doom that will occur if the Fair Tax is implemented. In a sense, they may be the most difficult constituency to counter because many in the mass media will provide them with a platform. This inevitability requires that an aggressive media campaign be implemented concurrent with the roll-out of the concept.
Can the Fair Tax be an effective and reasonable improvement over the present labyrinth of taxation? Yes, I believe, although I still have constitutional and philosophical reservations about it. I do believe that it is vastly better than what we now have. It is fairer (a little). It is less intrusive (somewhat). It allows for more personal freedom (it’s a step). It is too much money (that revenue-neutral thingy), but we can limit it to a percentage of sale maximum or a calculated amount based on a percentage of GDP.
It is a start, only a start. Our liberty has yet to be secured.
Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
As an ardent supporter of liberty and individual choice, I find that the opportunity to have more personal power over my tax liability to be an appealing prospect. I do understand, however, that many of my fellow citizens will not be persuaded by a freedom-based argument. These citizens resist taking responsibility for their government and often confuse government involvement with security. As I stated earlier, I believe that if we could implement the Fair Tax, then a significant portion of the electorate would embrace their new freedom. Perhaps they’ll become motivated to expand their liberty and opportunities. So, how do we sell this puppy? How do we market the concept of enhanced liberty to our cohorts? How, pray tell, do we get it done?
First, we must identify and neutralize the opposition. In my view there are four significant clusters of interest that will forcefully resist any attempt to change the present federal tax mechanism. The first group is comprised of the entrenched political power structure. The politicians and their bureaucratic sidekicks relish the complexity of the current system because it allows them to tweak, to alter, and to manipulate the system to advance their preferred social agendas or to reward/punish various sectors of the nation’s citizens. The second source of fierce opposition will be the Internal Revenue Service bureaucracy and the legions of people throughout the fruited plain who benefit from trying to decipher the snarled convoluted tax code. Their livelihoods are anchored to the impossible-to-understand, always potentially punitive system that current intimidates so many of our citizens.
Corporations and special interest groups who are reaping benefits from extra consideration in the existing code will battle to retain their favored status. They are the ones who have proven themselves adept at manipulating the system (with the assistance of their treasured politicians) for their own benefit. Sometimes the tax code provides them an advantage by negatively affecting their competitors. At any rate, they may resist a more level playing (paying?) field. The final groups who will scream and howl if the Fair Tax is chosen are those individuals who gain from the current system through the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the child deduction. The prebate aspect of the Fair Tax may squelch a lot of their discontent, but there are many advocates for the tax-break recipients who will forecast massive starvation in the streets if the EITC, in particular, is ended. The opposition will be fierce and relentless, but I, nevertheless, hold to the proposition that implementing the Fair Tax will provide a large enough taste of freedom that our citizens may be more willing to consider constitutional government.
So, how do we sell it? First we have to acknowledge that many of us have a sense of entitlement that has been nurtured by the Nanny State, so appeals to the constitution, smaller government and more individual freedom will not resonate for a large portion of our audience. The bottom line is to replicate the tactics of the progressives by promoting blatant self interest, opportunism and perceived class warfare. Self interest is “keeping all of your check.” The approach would be to encourage everyone to carefully examine her/his check…the gross, then the net, and sell the sizzle: the all new Fair Tax will give you an instant raise by allowing you to KEEP YOUR OWN MONEY.
Winning the support of the political class is more difficult, but it can be done with a good amendment, a workable transition plan and raw political power. The power aspect will arise after the initial sales campaign to the citizenry. Following an “underground orientation” period to inform and develop the key cadre of supporters, then the massive education campaign for the citizens, the next step would be to organize “committees of correspondence (sound familiar?)” to bombard the legislators and other political types. As it develops, the organizational structure should be wide and deep enough to convince the politicos that the movement is real and is strong. We must remember that freedom is merely a byproduct for the average American. Keep your own money is the primary motivating message.
The business and special interest classes should be persuadable through reason and number crunching. I do understand, however, that they are not homogeneous…that each sits in a different niche. The Fair Tax, though, would drastically reduce paperwork for them, and make budgeting and planning much easier. The subsidized poor would probably embrace the concept of the Fair Tax with the prebate, but the real hostility will come from the poverty lobby. They have the same reverence for an easily manipulated tax structure as do the corporate honchos and the political harlots. Theirs will be a noisy, accusative, screeching, cacophony of doom that will occur if the Fair Tax is implemented. In a sense, they may be the most difficult constituency to counter because many in the mass media will provide them with a platform. This inevitability requires that an aggressive media campaign be implemented concurrent with the roll-out of the concept.
Can the Fair Tax be an effective and reasonable improvement over the present labyrinth of taxation? Yes, I believe, although I still have constitutional and philosophical reservations about it. I do believe that it is vastly better than what we now have. It is fairer (a little). It is less intrusive (somewhat). It allows for more personal freedom (it’s a step). It is too much money (that revenue-neutral thingy), but we can limit it to a percentage of sale maximum or a calculated amount based on a percentage of GDP.
It is a start, only a start. Our liberty has yet to be secured.
Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Fair Thee Well
My ears are buzzing with your silent questions. Charlie, what about the poor? And, and …the underground economy? Well, take heart, Binky; we have some answers for you. The Fair Tax as currently designed does have an allowance for those who have lower incomes. Generally, I would find such an offset to be discriminatory because it does seem to impose a “progressive” element to the levying of the tax. There is, however, a mitigating aspect that I find acceptable. When implemented, the Fair Tax would provide a “prebate” to EVERYONE that represents 23% of the federally-designated poverty line for each respective household or person. For example, a single person living alone would receive a monthly prebate via direct deposit of $207.58. This figure represents 23% of the 2010 poverty level income of $10,830.00 for one person. For a family of four the prebate amount would be $422.63 which is 23% of the 2010 poverty level income for four of $22,050.00. So, the poor, the rich and the in-between would ALL get a direct deposit at the beginning of every month which, to some degree, minimizes the effect of the tax on individual taxpayers.
Earlier we discussed the embedded tax on current products and services. I’m going to provide an example of how those hidden costs accumulate. This analysis will not be exhaustive, but I do hope that it will be illustrative. Let’s use bread for our example. It’s a commodity that is purchased by nearly every household in the nation. To arrive at a true number for embedded taxes on bread, one would have to pro-rate all the federal taxes paid by the farmer, the grain elevator or buyer, the miller who grinds the flour or cracks the grain, the baker, the supermarket and all the miscellaneous shippers, truckers and handlers who facilitate the movement of the grain. Also, included in the final tally would be the pro-rated federal taxes for the seed distributor, the fertilizer provider (if used) and whatever extraneous treatments are needed to preserve the crop. Who knew that a tiny little grain of wheat or oats or barley or rye would be such a prolific generator of tax dollars for Big Brother and lots of paperwork for the private sector? Now that “faith of a mustard seed” analogy makes more sense, doesn’t it? There’s lots of power in those little seeds or grains.
When considering the example cited above, please remember than your dedicated public servants in Washington have been considering a Value Added Tax for debt reduction (yeah, right). Every step in the process from seed to bread to seed that adds value to the tiny little botanical grain would add more tax. Sneaky S.O.B.’s want your money, but also want to hide its collection from you.
There is a huge benefit that results from the Fair Tax that is often overlooked or minimized. When taxes are paid on final consumption, then every drug dealer, hooker, criminal thug and international tourist will be paying “their fair share.” Also, every individual who has entered the United States illegally will contribute to the tax coffers when they purchase something. In other words, a broad range of the underground economy will be forced into the sunlight merely because of their needs for routine products and services. When that inbred Saudi Prince brings his extended family and retinue of servants to Cleveland while commandeering an entire wing of a world-class hospital, his lavish lifestyle will generate a large sum of Fair Tax receipts….and no prebate for Abdullah.
So, you may ask, when the Fair Tax merely offsets the embedded tax, how can that be revenue neutral? How can those limited sources of money…minus the prebates…actually equal all the dollars collected from the hundreds or thousands of taxes that are in the government’s quiver today? It’s simple, Boy Wonder. No exemptions. Let me repeat that. No exemptions. No special clauses in the code. No non-profit ruses. No artificially structured entities to game the tax code. We all ride on the same pond, but we can choose our own boat. New Lexus versus used Lexus. Bakery bread versus Bunny Bread versus day old bread. Sears or Jenn-Aire. Freedom…it’s a beautiful thing. Political freedom is vital for a nation to thrive economically, intellectually and politically. Perhaps, just perhaps when the semi-comatose sheeple of our nation savor the taste of economic freedom, they will understand how desirable liberty is. Maybe then, they’ll finish the job.
Tomorrow I’ll explore how I believe that the Fair Tax can be sold, promoted and implemented.
Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
Earlier we discussed the embedded tax on current products and services. I’m going to provide an example of how those hidden costs accumulate. This analysis will not be exhaustive, but I do hope that it will be illustrative. Let’s use bread for our example. It’s a commodity that is purchased by nearly every household in the nation. To arrive at a true number for embedded taxes on bread, one would have to pro-rate all the federal taxes paid by the farmer, the grain elevator or buyer, the miller who grinds the flour or cracks the grain, the baker, the supermarket and all the miscellaneous shippers, truckers and handlers who facilitate the movement of the grain. Also, included in the final tally would be the pro-rated federal taxes for the seed distributor, the fertilizer provider (if used) and whatever extraneous treatments are needed to preserve the crop. Who knew that a tiny little grain of wheat or oats or barley or rye would be such a prolific generator of tax dollars for Big Brother and lots of paperwork for the private sector? Now that “faith of a mustard seed” analogy makes more sense, doesn’t it? There’s lots of power in those little seeds or grains.
When considering the example cited above, please remember than your dedicated public servants in Washington have been considering a Value Added Tax for debt reduction (yeah, right). Every step in the process from seed to bread to seed that adds value to the tiny little botanical grain would add more tax. Sneaky S.O.B.’s want your money, but also want to hide its collection from you.
There is a huge benefit that results from the Fair Tax that is often overlooked or minimized. When taxes are paid on final consumption, then every drug dealer, hooker, criminal thug and international tourist will be paying “their fair share.” Also, every individual who has entered the United States illegally will contribute to the tax coffers when they purchase something. In other words, a broad range of the underground economy will be forced into the sunlight merely because of their needs for routine products and services. When that inbred Saudi Prince brings his extended family and retinue of servants to Cleveland while commandeering an entire wing of a world-class hospital, his lavish lifestyle will generate a large sum of Fair Tax receipts….and no prebate for Abdullah.
So, you may ask, when the Fair Tax merely offsets the embedded tax, how can that be revenue neutral? How can those limited sources of money…minus the prebates…actually equal all the dollars collected from the hundreds or thousands of taxes that are in the government’s quiver today? It’s simple, Boy Wonder. No exemptions. Let me repeat that. No exemptions. No special clauses in the code. No non-profit ruses. No artificially structured entities to game the tax code. We all ride on the same pond, but we can choose our own boat. New Lexus versus used Lexus. Bakery bread versus Bunny Bread versus day old bread. Sears or Jenn-Aire. Freedom…it’s a beautiful thing. Political freedom is vital for a nation to thrive economically, intellectually and politically. Perhaps, just perhaps when the semi-comatose sheeple of our nation savor the taste of economic freedom, they will understand how desirable liberty is. Maybe then, they’ll finish the job.
Tomorrow I’ll explore how I believe that the Fair Tax can be sold, promoted and implemented.
Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Going to the Fair
Today I wish to explore some of the lesser known benefits of the Fair Tax. As we briefly mentioned in previous columns the Fair Tax would (as currently structured) eliminate all federal taxes on individuals and businesses except for excise taxes, extraction taxes (mining etc.) and fees. The AMT, the alternative minimum tax, is one that would be discarded under this proposal. The AMT is a noxious class-warfare, social-engineering device that was levied to capture tax dollars from high and middle income families who were/are entitled to deductions that, in effect, reduce their tax obligation to nothing or peanuts. In other words, even if you complied with the tax code and legally deducted expenses to which you were entitled, your government decided that you should pay taxes anyway—deductions be damned. This gem of equity was initiated in 1969 and updated in 1982 and is NOT indexed for inflation. So, in essence, some 18 years after the “update,” we find that middle income people are being pounded by this surcharge. This unethical tax that surprises so many citizens on April 15th will be tossed into the dustbin if the Fair Tax becomes law.
One of the engines of a vibrant economic system is capital (the others are freedom, creativity and effort). When you as a wage earner have paid your taxes, provided a living for your family and perhaps purchased a home, you may take whatever amount of money remaining and invest it. You have already paid taxes on it, remember. You may start a business, buy some land, a mutual fund or stock. When at a later time, you decide to sell your investment because you’ve retired or you have large expenses, then the government assesses you for your capital gain. These funds are, in effect, removed from the pool for business expansion and job creation. This job-killing, enterprise-choking tax will not exist under the Fair Tax.
Our present tax code is contained in more than 40,000 (yes, 40 thousand) pages. It is nightmarish in its complexity, and there is a multitude of anecdotal accounts of people calling the IRS for help and receiving conflicting information. In other words, the code is too difficult for the enforcers to understand. This phenomenon leads to an environment whereby it is nearly impossible for a long-form tax filer to be in total compliance. In a sense, even if you were diligent and patriotic, it might be possible to find you in violation of some obscure or vague regulation. Additionally, many wage earners and salaried people are unaware of the size of their federal tax bill. They live their lives based on the “net amount” in the paychecks without calculating the difference between gross and net. One of the beauties of the Fair Tax is its transparency. The employed individual receives the entire paycheck less VOLUNTARY deductions then is fully cognizant of the tax liability when a transaction occurs.
Earlier I discussed the complex maze that is the current tax code. There are two primary reasons for the existence of such an unintelligible mess: 1) special favors and exemptions (vote buying); and 2) stealth taxes. Members of Congress become nearly orgasmic when they can secure benefits in the tax code for well-heeled and politically generous sectors, corporations or individuals. Coincidentally, campaign contributions often correlate with the special benefits legislation. Hmmm, there’s a pattern developing here, Claudine. The Fair Tax will stop the protective backslapping buddy system that is our current tax code…if the amendment is written tightly enough to prevent “tweaking” for special interests. The “stealth” tax elements are those “minor” adjustments that appear to have little effect, but in the aggregate have a negative impact on taxpayers and the economy. The AMT is a prime example of a stealth tax that originally was targeted toward wealthy tax “avoiders” but has become just another broad-based “revenue enhancement.” Other stealth taxes could be the “tweaking” of the “progressive” brackets or altering the brackets on any number of tax schemes or schedules. The openness of the Fair Tax would minimize political opportunities for reaching into our purses and wallets.
One more benefit that I wish to discuss is the impact of the Fair Tax on non-profits. Presently many organizations operate under the umbrella of a non-profit, but actually promote political agendas. These so-called non-profits are exempt from federal corporate taxes. A couple of the more prominent examples of such entities are ACORN and NPR. NPR, for example, is a money swallowing shell game with its nearly incessant fund raising meanwhile it avoids paying federal taxes while the commercial sector must comply. The Fair Tax would eliminate this inequity without eroding the purchasing power of the public broadcast property. I should note here that I am adamantly opposed to “public broadcasting,” but until Congress sees fits to cease funding it, we can level the playing field as much as possible. Churches that function as non-profits would realize a massive advantage with the Fair Tax. Under the current system they operate as if their First Amendment rights for political speech have been sacrificed upon the altar of “tax free” status. With no appreciable differential in cash flow requirements, the Fair Tax would relieve churches of the fear that their status could be changed by the IRS if it were decided that they were “political.” Political speech is the most protected of all speech, and it seems to me that churches should speak without fear of retribution from the government. In my view, every church member with a conscience should support the Fair Tax for this reason alone.
More tomorrow. Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
One of the engines of a vibrant economic system is capital (the others are freedom, creativity and effort). When you as a wage earner have paid your taxes, provided a living for your family and perhaps purchased a home, you may take whatever amount of money remaining and invest it. You have already paid taxes on it, remember. You may start a business, buy some land, a mutual fund or stock. When at a later time, you decide to sell your investment because you’ve retired or you have large expenses, then the government assesses you for your capital gain. These funds are, in effect, removed from the pool for business expansion and job creation. This job-killing, enterprise-choking tax will not exist under the Fair Tax.
Our present tax code is contained in more than 40,000 (yes, 40 thousand) pages. It is nightmarish in its complexity, and there is a multitude of anecdotal accounts of people calling the IRS for help and receiving conflicting information. In other words, the code is too difficult for the enforcers to understand. This phenomenon leads to an environment whereby it is nearly impossible for a long-form tax filer to be in total compliance. In a sense, even if you were diligent and patriotic, it might be possible to find you in violation of some obscure or vague regulation. Additionally, many wage earners and salaried people are unaware of the size of their federal tax bill. They live their lives based on the “net amount” in the paychecks without calculating the difference between gross and net. One of the beauties of the Fair Tax is its transparency. The employed individual receives the entire paycheck less VOLUNTARY deductions then is fully cognizant of the tax liability when a transaction occurs.
Earlier I discussed the complex maze that is the current tax code. There are two primary reasons for the existence of such an unintelligible mess: 1) special favors and exemptions (vote buying); and 2) stealth taxes. Members of Congress become nearly orgasmic when they can secure benefits in the tax code for well-heeled and politically generous sectors, corporations or individuals. Coincidentally, campaign contributions often correlate with the special benefits legislation. Hmmm, there’s a pattern developing here, Claudine. The Fair Tax will stop the protective backslapping buddy system that is our current tax code…if the amendment is written tightly enough to prevent “tweaking” for special interests. The “stealth” tax elements are those “minor” adjustments that appear to have little effect, but in the aggregate have a negative impact on taxpayers and the economy. The AMT is a prime example of a stealth tax that originally was targeted toward wealthy tax “avoiders” but has become just another broad-based “revenue enhancement.” Other stealth taxes could be the “tweaking” of the “progressive” brackets or altering the brackets on any number of tax schemes or schedules. The openness of the Fair Tax would minimize political opportunities for reaching into our purses and wallets.
One more benefit that I wish to discuss is the impact of the Fair Tax on non-profits. Presently many organizations operate under the umbrella of a non-profit, but actually promote political agendas. These so-called non-profits are exempt from federal corporate taxes. A couple of the more prominent examples of such entities are ACORN and NPR. NPR, for example, is a money swallowing shell game with its nearly incessant fund raising meanwhile it avoids paying federal taxes while the commercial sector must comply. The Fair Tax would eliminate this inequity without eroding the purchasing power of the public broadcast property. I should note here that I am adamantly opposed to “public broadcasting,” but until Congress sees fits to cease funding it, we can level the playing field as much as possible. Churches that function as non-profits would realize a massive advantage with the Fair Tax. Under the current system they operate as if their First Amendment rights for political speech have been sacrificed upon the altar of “tax free” status. With no appreciable differential in cash flow requirements, the Fair Tax would relieve churches of the fear that their status could be changed by the IRS if it were decided that they were “political.” Political speech is the most protected of all speech, and it seems to me that churches should speak without fear of retribution from the government. In my view, every church member with a conscience should support the Fair Tax for this reason alone.
More tomorrow. Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)