« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Beware the Gang of Six

Senator Coburn and his Gang of Six are ensconcing growth of government under budget austerity

Imagine for a moment a private financial services firm caught running a ponzi scheme in which public funds were spent on lavish projects for the manager’s friends.  Astoundingly, instead of incarcerating the perpetrators and returning the money to the investors, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) negotiates with the criminals.  That’s right.  The SEC collaborates with the criminal executives to force the public to contribute more money to the institution and leave it there longer, in order to rectify the scheme and achieve solvency.  Sounds perverse and preposterous?  Well, some Republican senators are concocting a similar approach to “solving” the budget crisis created by the Democrats.

Last December, Senators Tom Coburn and Mike Crapo, two reliable conservatives, supported the Debt Commission’s report which would attempt to cut the budget deficit by raising $3.3 trillion in taxes over 10 years.  Although Coburn admitted that he would have authored a different proposal, he supported the full package because “our country deserves us to sacrifice like the call we’re going to make to everyone else to sacrifice to accomplish what we have to accomplish and that is to get out of this hole.”

Unfortunately, the good Senator from Oklahoma has shown that he is so committed to tackling the deficit that he is willing to cut a deal with the Democrats, even if that means increasing taxes.  The Hill reports that Coburn, along with Mike Crapo and Saxby Chambliss, are in negotiations with Democrat Senators Conrad, Durbin, and Warner, to work out a long term solution which would leave everything on the table, including tax increases.  They are now being referred to as the Gang of Six.  Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal reported that the same band of lawmakers were considering a bill that would trigger increases in revenue and reductions in spending if an agreement is not reached in the near future:

“The tax-writing committees would be given two years to overhaul both the individual and corporate tax codes, with general instructions to close tax breaks and minimize or eliminate tax deductions while lowering tax rates. The committees would be given a target for additional revenues to be raised by the new code. The deficit commission’s version of tax reform would net $785 billion in additional revenues over 10 years.

If Congress failed to enact the tax code overhaul, the legislation would mandate an across-the-board tightening of tax deductions to meet the higher target.”

While we applaud Senator Coburn’s alacrity in trying to cut the budget deficit and tackle entitlement reform, he is misguided in his eagerness to empower those who plundered the treasury with the keys to ‘fix’ it.  Let’s be clear.  There is no revenue problem.  The budget crisis is a result of decades’ worth of greedy leftist politicians who squandered tax payer dollars on programs and handouts to special interests.  These policies and politicians need to be vitiated; not the hard earned money of the American people.

Cutting the deficit is not an ends to itself.  It is a means to reinstate our government back to its constitutional mandate.  Raising taxes for the short-term objective of cutting the deficit only empowers the very same criminals to misuse and misappropriate the public funds once again.  Besides, stymieing economic productivity through tax increases is a counterintuitive way of balancing the budget in the long run.  Coburn’s incessant calls for sacrifices on the part of the American people are understandable, but it should be the Democrats and their indissoluble rent-seekers who need to sacrifice.  Starve the beast, we say!

Parenthetically, this is the reason why a balanced budget amendment is not the most effective way to limit government.  Many states have such requirements, and in addition to the accounting gimmicks that are used to circumvent the law, Democrats use budget laws as excuses to raise taxes.  The best way to inhibit unlawful government is to enact a spending limit (say 19% of GDP).  This will preclude the left from focusing on the revenue side of the ledger.  It’s not about deficit reduction; it’s about government reduction.

A similar disconcerting aspect of the Debt Commission’s report that these Republicans are supporting is Social Security reform.  While conservatives adulate politicians for tackling entitlement reform, they do so on the assumption that the reforms will promote more liberty and limit government.  Unfortunately, the Debt Commission made no reference to reforms that would empower the citizen to control his or her own retirement.  They only recommended raising the retirement age, raising payroll taxes, means-testing benefits, or raising the exemption level.  Sadly, these Republicans are supporting some of the commission’s ideas as bold and courageous solutions to entitlement reform.

Let’s be clear again.  The objective of entitlement reform is not to make a Democrat-run program solvent.  Our objective vis-à-vis entitlement reform should be focused on returning the wealth to the American worker and taxpayer by promoting more liberty and prosperity.  There can be no discussion of raising the retirement age without offering young workers private accounts or an option to opt out.

There is no problem with diminishing Social Security benefits or raising the retirement age and making it more sustainable for those who choose to participate.  But how can we compel every American to contribute a large percentage of his income to a plan that will be means-tested and administered at the mercy of corrupt politicians?  Are we going to continue to control when a person can retire, perhaps until age 70?  Are we going to grant the very crooks who purloined the trust fund-the power to control more of our retirement funds?  Are we going to let them means-test our private capital that was originally intended to be an insurance program?  This is purely unconstitutional and should be the next civil rights issue for young voters.  We must demand that Republicans not sign onto the perpetuation and entrenchment of Social Security as a permanent form of involuntary servitude.

There is no doubt that Senator Coburn intuitively opposes tax increases and supports private accounts for Social Security.  However, it seems that his motivation to immediately negotiate any deal that could possibly close the budget gap outweighs his conviction to be dogmatic for the sake of liberty.  Most of all, he is willing to offer concessions that will enable the very people who started this mess to perpetuate it.

There is no way that the likes of Dick Durban will ever acquiesce to private retirement accounts or to tax reform that doesn’t raise any new taxes.  Any final deal with them will invariably abrogate some conservative principles.  Coburn is absolutely correct about the imminence of the budget crisis.  But, that must be dealt with by defeating the Democrats at the ballot box in 2012, not by negotiating with them.  The voters support our views, even regarding Social Security.

As we prepare for battle over budget and entitlement reform, we must remember who originally orchestrated our fiscal ruin.  We must ‘pin the tail on the donkey’.  Let’s punish the plunderers, not the new generation of taxpayers.

Red Meat Conservative (Cross-posted)

COMMENTS

  • jimmyneutron

    why these R’s feel like they can trust Democrats on any of these items! The Democrats have shown again and again that they are only interested in short term politicing and in demonizing Republicans at any and every opportunity.
    Also, why are they talking about raising taxes??? Especially before getting spending reduced and under control? I work my tail off and I certainly don’t feel undertaxed. Personally, I am sick and tired of paying for other peoples, rent, phones, bonuses, jets or whatever those scoundrals in DC have me paying for! How about this for a change – I pay my way through life and everyone else pay theirs? Sound fair? If you are really and truly unable to work or find a job we will help you out through the church or however we can (but our generosity has limits), but otherwise get a job.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    a day somewhere far in the future when the financial services industry won’t be the quintessential bad-guy in almost every bipartisan analogy.

    But I am just sensitive about that.

    • jmt1984

      No kidding, we can only dream though.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      being passed into law WITH EVERY FIBER OF OUR BEINGS? I DO.

      As I said below, I would love to see deal on entitlement reform that is coupled with a flat tax that eliminates ALL individual deductions etc and corp welfare tax subsides and that lowers rates. But we have to say NO to any triggers that make us tax collectors for the welfare state.

      • Death_of_the_Donkey

        is eliminating subsidies and tax breaks a tax increase? I look at it is returning to the free market as opposed to a tax increase and those that received a market distorting subsidy should be happy that they received it for as long as they did.

        • aesthete

          EITC is another “tax cut” that I would like to get rid of.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            including mortgage interest (probably has to phased out), child tax credit, home improvement credits, all of them. About the only things I would consider keeping would be the deduction of other taxes.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            that lower income folks need to pay some nominal amount as well

          • acat

            Everybody who has income needs to pay something.

            Make the bottom rate a miserly 1%. The idea is that *everybody* contributes.

            To do otherwise creates a socially unstable situation, eh?

            Mew

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            I favor means testing as a possible solution and/or returning the program to the supplement FDR meant it to be but am open to more radical change as well depending on the details and transition period.

            Drug addicts need gradual rehab!

          • acat

            I’m happy to agree with you.

            If the program is even still running by the time I hit the mandatory age, I’ll get means tested out, in part because I don’t plan on receiving a dime so am saving enough to live a simple life…on my terms.

            Add means-testing. Remove the “upper ceiling” on contributions. Raise the retirement age. and start converting accounts of everyone born after 1970 over to defined contribution, not defined benefit plans – something like 403b/401k plans.

            Every dollar of social security money I pay out I plan on never seeing again…

            Mew

          • rightwingmom52

            Not likely to happen during the rest of my working years, but I wish I could just stop the forced SS payments and keep a little more of my own paycheck.

          • catt

            Adding means-testing means that some people will pay into the system but not get anything out. Removing the upper ceiling on contributions means that the bulk of contributions will be from people who won’t get anything out. So then how does that fit with turning it into something like a 403b/401k plan? Everyone has an account similar to a 403b/401k but means-testing determines whether you actually get to take money out of your own account?

          • acat

            This is what I mean. Note, I’m using arbitrary dates, but .. it’s also an arbitrary solution. I think it’d work, and could be sold to people .. if we can avoid the demonization the left is bound to unleash….

            First assumption. The lock box is full of nothing but government IOUs.
            Second assumption. The whole program has devolved into a ponzi scheme.
            Third assumption. This is going to be expensive, in every definition of the word.

            People born before 1960 get the current program, with some tweaks. This remains a defined-benefit plan, so to keep it solvent, it has to be restricted based on their other assets, i.e. means testing. Further, these same people are earning the highest income of their careers, and this plan needs money, so we must raise the artificial ceiling. Once this group retires, they will be paid out of the federal general fund. That’s a pain point.

            People born after 1970 get transferred to the new program. All the bonds that are in the lockbox get converted to a type that can be sold on the open market, and transferred into defined-contribution plans. Since this is defined-contribution, they get almost every penny in their individual lock box. The catch is, they’re still helping pay for the first group, so may face higher overall taxes. That’s really just the first pain point restated, but .. it will hurt.

            The group in between, ideally, would be given an individual choice of either opting into a more agressively means-tested version of the older groups’ plan, or of opting into the younger groups’ plan. This group is the other pain point – once they decide, that’s it. No going back. That’s the other pain point.

            Finally, management of this money is very likely to be a political football. Not sure there’s a good way around that. Look at how politicized CALPERS got and you’ll see what I mean. The best we may be able to do is to specify what a government-grade plan looks like, then let individuals decide which government-grade plan they want. Sort of like buying car insurance in a mandatory-insurance state.

            Does this explain, cat?

            Mew

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            I suppose you mean that you would assess FICA taxes on all income. I could only agree with that if the rate was MUCH lower. But if we phase out the “insurance” mythology, wouldn’t it make more sense to just eliminate FICA and pay it all out of general revenues?

            One reason I have always objected to the claim that low income folks pay no taxes meme is because soc sec has been paid out of general revenues for decades and so is and has been a very regressive tax on the poor.

          • acat
        • silkywiley

          When you eliminate the tax deductions of various groups in exchange for a lower overall rate, you assume and trust that the politicians will not start tinkering all over again.

          Elimination of mortgage interest write off would have to be done over a very long period of time, as the value of real estate has the write off calculation in it. Think 25%-30% of value drop, can we do that? I don’t think so. It would deflate the value o real estate for decades. Talk about underwater mortgage, this would cut into the value of homes bought decades ago.

          Reagan negotiated wih O’Neil to get rid of so called loop holes for an overall reduction of the rates over a 5 year period, this brought about mass bankruptcies, devaluation of commercial assets, etc. but supposedly worth “the pain”. Of course with Bush the 1st, he reneged on the final year 5th drop in the overall rate. Count on any deal made by politicians to cut taxes, they will renege, they will tinker, they will grant their lobbyist special treatment.

          Keep clarity. Cut corporate taxes to keep industries in the US, cut personal taxes, make the tax cuts permanent, don’t institute a VAT tax, it will not replace the current system, it will just be an addition tax that suppresses the economy, by making purchases more expensive, thereby suppressing industries. You won’t get the deal you think you are getting.

          Cut the size of government, it will always find ways to increase and support itself. Keep it Simple. The politicians will create the complexity anyway, that’s how they get contributions. Just like only extending the Bush tax cuts for two years, they will get a ton of money from the people on their knees begging them to extend them again. Its a gravy train for them. Understand what you can accomplish and what you can’t.

          • Common_Cents

            “The politicians will create the complexity anyway, that?s how they get contributions. Just like only extending the Bush tax cuts for two years, they will get a ton of money from the people on their knees begging them to extend them again. Its a gravy train for them.” Silkey

            Never thought of it that way. By keeping policy/renewals short term they do create more opportunities for political payoff “transaction costs”. Kind of like a broker churning an investment account.

      • Marcus_Traianus

        Rooster-dude you will need to define exactly what corporate welfare is besides another throw-away line used to provoke negative emotion?

        We have one of the most unfriendly corporate tax rates/schemes on the planet. Hence one of the main reasons jobs are flying out of this country. Unless there is a comprehensive look at how eliminating tax incentives will impact jobs, R&D, etc. and there is also an actual alternate plan that can be passed into law, without modification, I would say leave it as is.

        Being pro-growth means eliminating tax increases for everyone. If we start eliminating various individual corporate incentives without decreasing, say the standard corporate tax rate, we might as well all learn to start speaking Cantonese.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          which refers to certain TARP-like deals including those by the FED and federal government that give big businesses advantages over potential competitors and thus protect market share. I’m with you in supporting dramatic reduction or elimination of corp tax rates across the board. I also would like to end ethanol and other subsidies. I have actually found some common ground between Galbraith and Freidman! Will get back to you on this tomorrow at the latest.

          • rickbull

            At RS, corporate welfare refers to the government picking winners and losers in the business world.

            A viable business doesn’t need tax credits and “incentives” if we can bring the business income tax rate down to a level within reason.

            Any business that can’t stand on its own, once the government gets out of the way and reduces taxes, is not a business — it’s a charity.

          • aesthete

            and to Marcus, whose question allowed for the excellent clarifications on the part of both of you!

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            and do a comprehensive column on this issue and the related one of job killing regs, other acats of Obama and dems

          • Marcus_Traianus

            you are playing a game of semantics.

            ‘Corporate Welfare” simply means what guys like Ralph Nader and David Lewis meant it to be; a negative connotation for any pro-business policy intended to encourage or promote commerce. People who use that term are generally anti-business or have socialist orientations .

            Now, I am not making an argument for deliberate government intervention in the free-market. Nor am I arguing for subsidies, in any form, which are clearly disingenuous attempts to specifically enrich individual industries or companies. But a market is governed by principles and competitive factors such as tax policy. Accordingly, businesses will always look for the most favorable conditions in a global market. That is a fact of managing a successful business.

            The art is finding a balance between ALL factors which contribute to the market environment (not just tax policy, but labor conditions, etc.) to make the appropriate business judgment.

            That said, we should eliminate specific tax or business policies which are undeniably supported by evidence they are subsidiary in nature. My thought is that would be one part of rewriting the ridiculous web of tax policy that currently governs our corporate environment.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            To me, the best policies that promote business are low tax rates and less regulation. I know there is some overlap in the differing definitions of Nader and us on the right though, like the subsidies. But the label that the left has used to define the issue does accurately describe it, and so it is hard to give up using it for our purposes. What else was TARP if not Big Biz corp welfare.

            But we are not playing semantics. We conservatives are against specific policies that are, in essence, transfer payments, ie welfare to large corporations. I do note that my original comment stated objections to “corporate welfare subsidies.”

            But yes, the long history of the left’s mostly misuse of the term is a problem. But Ialso wonder if this might be an issue where we could peel off some votes on the left on eliminating such subsidies.

            Marcus, can you think of some policies that the left considers corp welfare that are not the kinds of things that we would also object to? I just can’t think of them just now.

            I am going to try and research this further and in depth for a column this weekend and appreciate your input man.

  • drewk

    I think it’s painfully naive to assume that the deficit problem can be tackled without bipartisan compromise.

    Let’s say the Republicans have a wildly successful 2012. They win the White House, hold the House of Representatives, and pick up ten seats in the Senate. That would leave them three seats short of a supermajority, and it seems highly unlikely they could get any Democrats to go along with this sort of dramatic reduction in spending. Not to mention that this approach might be politically tricky for some moderate Republicans.

    It’s true that Americans are fond of lower taxes. And it’s also true that they’re fond of getting rid of a lot of the services and programs that are on the chopping block. The polls send a somewhat mixed message, but ultimately there isn’t a wide popular mandate for the more extreme spending cuts you seem to be looking for.

    • IJB

      But you’ll understand if we don’t take your advice…

    • jmt1984

      when you put it that way it does sound somewhat hopeless, but somewhat realistic at the same time. It will really depend on who else decides to retire in the next year or so.

    • Michael Dugas

      over health care by locking Republican out and not allowing debate or review? That kind of compromise? Or how they compromised over oil policy even to the point of ignoring laws and judicial orders?
      Compromise will NOT solve our current financial problems, especially when it is becoming apparent that the Democrats may have no interest
      in actually solving our economic problems and may be using it as a tool to force the political and socio-economical changes they desire.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      you cite. I think we should insist upon complete repeal of ObamaCare before discussing any compromise on follow-up health care policies unless we can call Obama’s bluff on tort reform.

      And that on Soc Sec we should protect current retirees and those age 55 and over to keep program as is. And that with respect to those under age 55 we should raise retirement age and recalculate the basis of benefits downward.

      Not sure I would try and privatize a portion while Obama is President.

      • rickbull

        “Not sure I would try and privatize a portion while Obama is President.”

        That would be the political equivalent of spitting into a hurricane.

        Full privatization of Social Security will have to wait until the right individual is in the White House, and probably until the public is completely fed up with government’s handling (mishandling???) of our retirement money.

        • dmccracken

          The public will be fed up with the government’s handling of their retirement when they find out all of the ways the government has defrauded them. The MSM is not going to give the whole story, so it is up to conservatives to do so.

          This either means the the Republicans need to spend money to get the message out, or wait until there is someone in the White House who, like Reagan, can take the case to the American people.

          Along with this, there needs to be a concerted effort to take back the educational system in this country, or any gains we can make will be very short lived.

      • rightwingmom52

        I guess I could squeeze in another couple of years working.

        In reality, my hubby and I don’t plan on drawing any SS despite the fact that we’ve collectively and forcibly contributed for over 60 years.

        • rightwingmom52
  • derechista76

    Coburn, Crapo, and Chambliss should demand Dems and Obama defund O-care before proceeding further in negotiations. If, as they say, everything is on the table, then the Rs in the gang should put O-care front-and-center. If decades of government growth in entitlements is the primary cause, it’s essential that the newest such behemoth be eliminated. If not, it’s proof that these Rs have gone totally Beltway.

  • jiminga

    of there being no difference between Dems and Repubs, ignoring the election results and proceeding with business as usual. Saxby is one of my senators and his RHINO actions will cause his defeat next time he runs. I pray he will be primaried. The Gang of Six should be renamed the Go Along – Get Along Club.

    • silkywiley

      Count on true politicians to find a complex and tax raising solution to every problem. Cut Spending, Cut Spending, Cut Spending, it is the only coherent and rational solution to our problems, both the soft economy and the deficit and debt.

      The problem: Government is taking up too much of the GDP, brought about by the Gang of Three Reid/Pelosi/Obama, which they hope will become an institutionalized percentage. They think that they can move the balance between the private sector and the government into a permanent larger government percentage. They know this will mean a diminshed standard of living for everyone, (but them of course) they don’t care, they like the idea. They like the elite/masses model. The don’t like the rustic individual living by their own leave. Wealth gives freedom. Individual wealth gives individual freedom.

      We who want to conserve the American model need to keep focused. So the clear solution is to cut back the government take to the Laffer Curve highest outcome. The government we can afford today is around a $2 trillion bill. Raise taxes to cover the extra $1.5 trillion they are spending and you get further diminishing returns. Less private investment, less entraprenuership, less government revenues. History clearly shows this correlation between raised taxes and lower revenues. Politicians apparently think they can defy reality. Or they know and don’t care. It is actually easier to be at the top of a dung heap than at the top of a wealthy free country.

      I am disgusted with the Republican politicians who are buying into this. Their solution will just institutionalize the goverment percentage. Gang of Six, great moniker, originally the wife of Moa and her cohorts.

  • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

    10/29/10, “Birth of a Movement, Tea Parties arose from conservatives steeped in crisis,” Wall St. Journal. “Ms. Kremer was filling her time with two blogs?one on gardening, one on politics….

    Ms. Martin, a software manager by training and part-time blogger,

    * was cleaning houses to help pay the bills after her husband’s temporary-staffing business collapsed.

    They were in danger of losing their home.

    As her family’s fortunes crumbled, Congress?

    including Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.),

    for whose campaign Ms. Martin had volunteered?voted for President George Bush’s bill to bail out the big Wall Street banks.

    Ms. Martin was enraged. “It wasn’t because the government didn’t bail my husband’s business out,” she says. “Sometimes it stinks when your business goes bad. But it’s part of our system.? The government doesn’t need to come in and hold a business up and keep it from failing.”

    In the span of a few weeks in February and March 2009, the two women met on a conference call and helped found the first major national organization

    * in the tea-party movement.“…Some people are so painfully naive they don’t realize that when the price of gas is $5.00 a gallon that’s the equivalent of a big tax increase. Those big trucks that deliver all the food to the grocery stores have to pay more too.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    is not a tax increase. The debt commission report showed substantially lower overall tax rates for each income bracket. I have absolutely no problem getting rid of all the special interest tax expenditures that have bloated our tax code over the years and made taxes into a complicated game that in some cases rewards bad financial decisions and the less than financially responsible.

    • rickbull

      “How much did you make?”
      “Send it in.”

  • LibertarianHawk

    Yes, I understand the notion of entering into negotiations with your ideal scenario and insisting that you won’t settle for anything less.

    But I’d also prefer to see us not excommunicate fine conservatives — like Tom Coburn — simply because they’ve come to the table.

    I feel confident in saying this much: as the process of fiscal reckoning gets underway, the libs are going to have to surrender a whole lot more of what they hold dear than we are.

    • satchman3

      I don’t see how we can say that the federal government debt/deficit are significant threats to ours and future generations but then take compromise (tax hikes) off the table as a solution. If we really believed that the federal finances are a threat to our nation then wouldn’t we be willing to compromise?

      Coburn is making the tough choices that need to be made. Nobody is going to unilaterally get their way and it is frustrating to see a good conservative like Coburn excoriated for doing what needs to be done.

  • johnt

    is made to be burned. Tax increases barely come in before going right back out again for “vitally needed government programs”.
    GOP senators are minows in with sharks. they imbibe the isolated culture, they carefully watch the media, they crave to be reasonable, they cave and sell us out.
    The sharks smile, they may be slowed but they never, never lose.

  • victrola

    I have seen tax rates bounce up and down all my life, entitlements however seem to never die. To permenantly raise the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare in a trade for tax increases would be an easy trade imo, and it would serve our long term interests better in shrinking the overall size of government. You’d also have less people on the dole (which helps our side in terms of votes) It would also be easy to go back and lower taxes and simplify the tax code with something like a flat tax AFTER the entitlement problem had been dealt with. Cutting taxes is easy, we even got it through with Obama, Pelosi and Reid in charge.

    I agree that our government does not have a revenue problem, we have a Senate problem where it requires 60 Senators to move something like entitlement reform forward. Adding up all the “mavericks” our Party is always going to have, and you’d probably need 65 Republican Senators in Congress to pass any real reforms without compromise. That’s never going to happen, my guess is 2012 will probably look like 2010 and we net around 6-8 Senate seats (which is a landslide) so we’ll have 53-55 Senate seats (at best) in 2012 with a Republican President. Bush tried to reform Social Security in a small way and it was DOA with the same numbers in Congress.

    My prediction is these programs will just hit a wall and only then will they be reformed. Maybe that’s best, it’s likely they’ll simply be canceled, but it could destroy our currency in the process and we have a real financial collapse.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      proposal that lowers rates in exchange for eliminating all deductions incl EITCredit…more later

      • victrola

        A flat tax goes against everything in their DNA, they don’t get the power to “level” individuals. A progressive tax code is the bedrock gospel of the Left. They would see a flat tax and entitlement reform that as two victories for conservatives, with nothing to take home for themselves if it was packaged in one deal.

        I think the best strategy would be how the liberals have played our side on immigration. Promise enforcement after amnesty (but the enforcement never comes) We raise taxes with entitlement cuts, than go back and cut taxes with something like a flat tax where we only need 50 Senators and have popular support. The entitlement reforms however will stick for generations.

        Unless the Senate rules change and we need less than 60, we’re going to have to make compromises to get these entitlements reformed. The other option is to just play chicken, but I’m worried what could be destroyed in the process.

        • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ dhorowitz3

          all true. As I mentioned below, there is no way that real good things can ever come out of a compromise deal with such legendary progressives as Dick Turban. There is no way they will give us real entitlement reform that empowers the individual and real tax reform like a flat tax.

          Even those dirty party purists like myself would be willing to compromise on something if we got private accounts for SS, vouchers for Medicare, drastic cuts in Medicaid, a flat tax, and an end to the subsidizing of the green hell. I would easily accept an elimination of some tax credits for that. Unfortunately, that will never happen if we choose to negotiate with Durbin and his ilk. They will demand real tax increases along with entitlement reform that only raises the retirement age or the payroll tax exemption. At a time when the Dems are lower than dirt among independents, we need not beg them to cut a deal.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            is probably impossible. The only possibility I would suggest attemoting would be

            protect ssa retirees and those age 55 and over
            increase retirement age for those under 55
            reduce tax rates for top brackets while also eliminating most if not all deductions/credits

  • Michael Dugas

    It seems the politicians on our side are the ones who compromise long before the Dems do. The other issue is time. Our economy doesn’t have the luxury of a lot of time in my opinion. There is a point where this ship won’t be able to turn around in

    • Michael Dugas

      …. This economy is getting to the point where fixing it is going to be so painful as to scare your run of the mill politician away from making the right choice. And I am not so sure that todays Dems care about fixing the economy, as it has become a tool to force the socio-economical change the demand.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • caboose

    a total doofus. He was duped by the liberals, including Simpson on the Debt Commission. I called his office and ask his staff why in the world he would vote to destroy the military retirement system, by the total assine requirement that military personnel wait until they were sixty years of age, to draw retirement pay. Would they be required to stay in service until age sixty? If not at what point would they be turned out of service and what would they live on until they were eligible to draw their earned retirement. Homeless shelters? The Staff person got his “Jaws Tight” and retorted, “They have to start somewhere.” I said the debt commission refused to recommend that the 47% of the free loaders, who do not paid taxes in this country, start paying their share. After all taxes are supposed to be used for paying for the services receive. I also ask why Coburn didn’t insist that those who do not pay taxes stop being rewarded for it at the end of the year. With his “Jaws still tight” he said, “we can only do so much.” I suppose like screw the Military Retiree, Active Duty Military Personnel, Widows and other veterans, and while they are at it, destroy their benefits, such as, Earned Healthcare. I have no respect nor confidence in the likes of Senator Colburn. He will sell out in a New York Minute!

  • thurman

    As said before, we have a spending problem.

    If I recall the Deficit Commission’s target was 22% of GDP, which is too high. I may be wrong on this, please correct me if so.

    The “tax reform” in the Commission and that the Gang of RINO/DINOs is talking about may in fact lower rates and cut out loopholes, but I am not holding my breath

    The NET result will be more tax revenue, so unless you’re talking about cutting ethanol or green subsidies or something else ridiculous, yes they are rasing taxes.

    Let’s see their actual proposals first as far as “loopholes”–i.e. if they’re talking about limiting the mortgage deduction for the “wealthy” or other rumors, then that is a tax increase, period.

    And what do you think the chances are that those “automatic tax increases” will come to fruition because Congress won’t have the cojones to make the entitlement cuts?

  • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ dhorowitz3

    put. Coburn has always been great when it comes to subsidies and the ethanol boondoggle. I have no doubt that he is trying his best to eliminate them.

    The problem is that 41% of the commission’s budget reduction plan comes from increased tax revenue. As you accurately pointed out, there is no way that it will happen without real tax increases in addition to any subsidy cuts which aren’t really tax cuts in the first place. And I can guarantee you that they are not referring to the Laffer curve when they say revenues will increase from the tax deal.

    Also, there is no way that any “tax reform” that could eminate from a group that includes Dick Turban will cut all the welfare disguised as tax cuts, yet leave in place all the real tax cuts. Undoubtedly, Coburn supports such an idea because he is not a RINO, he is a good conservative. I just think that he is too willing to go along with the clowns in order to achieve some cuts in spending. History has shown that any tax/budget deal that emanates from such compromises is light on the good stuff and heavy on the bad stuff.

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ dhorowitz3

      woops, that was meant for thurman.

  • coljackripper

    “The budget crisis is a result of decades? worth of greedy leftist politicians who squandered tax payer dollars on programs and handouts to special interests.”

    The budget crisis is due to decades worth of bad decision-making in both parties, but mainly Republicans, the so-called party of fiscal conservatism.

    In his 1981 budget, Reagan increased the debt by $1.9 Trillion. Then George H.W. Bush brought that to $3.4 Trillion. Then all that started collected interest for the next 17 years, and with compounding that grew to $8.2 Trillion by Sept. 30, 2010.

    During his administration, George W. Bush cut taxes AND increased spending, all on the childish prediction that revenues from Iraqi oil would somehow reimburse the expense of the war. But those war-time expenses were kept off the books, and so the skewed math an logic didn’t register with most Americans.

    And the ill logic continues with the likes of Sean Hannity expressing the sentiment that Iraq somehow owes us for removing Saddam Hussein from power, and if they refuse to pay, we should simply take the oil (what a dunderhead).

    It’s easy enough to look up, but Reagan, Bush, and Bush II all drove higher deficits during their terms than Carter, Clinton or Obama. One could argue that the end of the Cold War, and the first and second Gulf Wars were worth the cost, but it’s erroneous to lay the majority of blame on Democrats for the current budget crisis.

    And yes, yes. Freddie and Fannie are evil, and so are unions (HATE that 40-hour work week and strong middle class), and Joe McCarthy was just a poor, misunderstood Senator from Wisconsin, not a raging megalomaniac who fabricated fear to further his career.

    I know, I know. BANNED (although I used no profanity and no name-calling and I backed up my arguments). But ya gotta do what ya gotta do to keep your forum free from unwanted ideas and arguments, I guess.

    • acat

      Since the charts show quite clearly that deficits go way up when Democrats control congress.

      Remember that until the Contract with America, the GOP hadn’t held the House in decades .. even under Reagan.. and neither of the Bushies were deficit-hawks, nor had a GOP house for their full terms.

      The assertion that the deficit has gone up less under Obama than under any other president, though, is absolutely laughable.

      I’m not a moderator, of course, so .. if you’ve done something else to get banned, like being someone who was banned previously, you may be surprised.

      Mew

      • powertothepeople

        and I find it funny that so many, like the above poster, love to blame republican presidents for spending initiated by a democratic congress yet tout their democratic president even though it is a republican congress that did all the cutting. The only thing they have not been able to twist is the abuse the moron in the presidential seat has committed with a democratic congress. They simply lie and hope no one calls them on it or, as above, claim they backed up their argument.

        • acat

          There’s a whole generation who, if you ask “who writes the budget for the Federal Government”, really don’t know that the budget has to originate in the House, that the President gets to offer only “advice”, etc. etc.

          Our schools have gotten quite lax at teaching “civics” .. a class they invented because teaching history was “too hard”.

          Mew

          • powertothepeople
          • coljackripper

            The president PROPOSES the budget, the Congress passes appropriations, and the president can either sign or veto the appropriation bill.

            Yes, acat, the Congress technically writes the budget … AFTER the president’s proposal. But for all the pork Senators and Reps may add (which really only accounts for a small portion of spending), the final budget is pretty much what the president asked for, with a few tweeks.

            I paid attention in school. Are you sure you did?

          • acat

            Congress does not have any requirement *at all* to even read the Presidents’ proposal. That they do is due to something called “courtesy”. There’s no law – none at all – that require it.

            I not only paid attention, Jack.. I aced the classes. Back when it wasn’t any wimpy “civics” course either, Jack… back when the operation of the government was taught as part of history – with actual, you know, examples.

            Liked history so much I spent 4 years learning more about it in college. Liked it so much, after that, I’ve kept reading for the several decades since I got out.

            Trouble me not with your fantasy about how the system works, Jack. The reality is quite different.

            Mew

        • Michael Dugas

          Since public schools, years ago, stopped teaching US History and Government classes in exchange for Multiculturalism and left wing social studies a whole lot of people have no idea how our government is SUPPOSED to work. They don’t seem to realize that the House of Representatives are supposed to hold the purse strings and that spending legislation is supposed to originate in the House. Though I can’t blame some for being confused as lately it seems some legislation that should begin in the House, constitutionally, originated in the Senate first and then went to the House.

  • steelpier1

    and scolding people for watching FOX news, while demanding they watch CNN should never taken seriiously about anything, ever. With friends like this……

  • steelpier1

    and scolding people for watching FOX news, while demanding they watch CNN should never taken seriiously about anything, ever. With friends like this……

  • doubledok

    done!

    • acat

      1) How do you prevent Congress from doing “FairTax and” instead of sunsetting the current income tax?

      1a) Fair Tax is, when you strip away some of the bells, whistles, and abuse points, basically a national sales tax. Why wouldn’t congress just implement that on top of the income tax?

      1b) Fair tax has, with its’ rebate cheques, *precisely* the kind of social-tinkering apparatus that the Barney Franks of Congress love to tinker with.. why should I support giving them what they want?

      2) Because Fair Tax is basically a national sales tax, plus bells and whistles and abuse points, the rate goods and services are taxed at becomes both very important and very hard to see for the average person. Did my Starbucks double tall mocha no whip go from $4.50 to $4,67 because of taxes, higher chocolate prices, higher milk prices, etc. etc.

      2a) Cook County, home to Chicago, has an 11% sales tax. Why? Because it’s *hard to see*. New York City is similar. San Francisco is similar. Why do most urban centers have high sales taxes? Could it be because liberals, who dominate the politics of urban centers, *know* sales taxes are hardest to reduce?

      Seriously, the Fair Tax is appealing on paper – I supported it at one point – but I no longer do because it’s not a plan that’s ready for the real world.

      Mew

      • doubledok

        1) How do you prevent Congress from doing ?FairTax and? instead of sunsetting the current income tax?
        ONE & ONE A
        In FairTax: THE TRUTH – Answering the critics by Boortz & Linder
        THE PROCESS REQUIRES REPLACING INCOME TAX, NOT SUPPLEMENTING – BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

        1a) Fair Tax is, when you strip away some of the bells, whistles, and abuse points, basically a national sales tax. Why wouldn?t congress just implement that on top of the income tax?

        1b) Fair tax has, with its? rebate cheques, *precisely* the kind of social-tinkering apparatus that the Barney Franks of Congress love to tinker with.. why should I support giving them what they want?

        ALSO IN THE BOOK – THEY ARE NOT RE – BATE CHECKS BUT PRE-BATE CHECKS. DESIGNED TO PREVENT ANYONE FROM HAVING TO REPORT INCOME TO THE FEDS AND NEUTRALIZE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE FAIR TAX IS REGRESSIVE. THE POOR, AND EVERY OTHER CITIZEN ,ARE GIVEN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE FAIR TAX AT THE ESTABLISHED POVERTY LEVEL. NO ONE PAYS TAX ON FIRST PART OF INCOME.

        IT WOULD BE A LOT CHEAPER THAN THE GAME PLAYED BY IRS TODAY.

        2) Because Fair Tax is basically a national sales tax, plus bells and whistles and abuse points, the rate goods and services are taxed at becomes both very important and very hard to see for the average person. Did my Starbucks double tall mocha no whip go from $4.50 to $4,67 because of taxes, higher chocolate prices, higher milk prices, etc. etc.

        REVIEW THE PROCESS. ALL GOODS DECREASE IN PRICE BECAUSE THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF A PRODUCT ARE NOT TAXED, ONLY AT END USE. SO THE SAVINGS OF CHOCOLATIERS, FARMERS, SHIPPERS ETC NOT PAYING INCOME TAX AND PAYROLL TAXES, ETC – ACTUALLY REDUCES THE BASE PRICE OF NEARLY EVERYTHING IN THE CONSUMER WORLD. YOUR ON-THE-SPOT PRICE, WITH TAX INCLUDED MIGHT ACTUALLY BE LESS. AND YOU ARE PAYING WITH “PRE TAX” (UNTAXED) DOLLARS.

        THE TAX IS EMBEDDED IN THE PRICE, JUST LIKE AT THE GAS PUMP.

        2a) Cook County, home to Chicago, has an 11% sales tax. Why? Because it?s *hard to see*. New York City is similar. San Francisco is similar. Why do most urban centers have high sales taxes? Could it be because liberals, who dominate the politics of urban centers, *know* sales taxes are hardest to reduce?

        STATE AND LOCAL SLAES TAXES HAVE NO LIMIT AND ARE IN ADDITION TO THE INCOME TAX THOSE STATES COLLECT. I DOUBT MANY PEOLE HAVE 10% OF THEIR WAGE AVAIALABLE FOR PURCHASES THAT ARE NOT PRE-DETERMINED (TAXES, FEES, DUES, INTEREST, RENT, FOOD, UTILITIES, ETC.)
        ALL OF THESE COSTS ARE HIGHER BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT PYRAMID SCHEME REQUIRES WE PAY TAXES ON TAXED GOODS.
        AT EVERY STEP OF PRODUCTION, INCOME AND USE TAXES ARE PAID. THOSE TAXES ARE PASSED TO THE CONSUMER IN THE PRICE. SO, YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING EVERYONE ELSE’S TAXES ON NEW GOODS.

        FAIRTAX SETS A HARD, CONSTITUTIONAL LIMIT ON THE TAX RATE. NO EXEMPTIONS, NO DEALS. I SUSPECT THAT IF THE PROGRAM WERE PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED (YOUR ONLY VIABLE COUNTER-POINT), THE POPULACE WOULD IMPOSE SIMILAR CAPS ON STATE AND LOCAL ENTITIES.

        I LISTED THE SIDE BENEFITS ON ANOTHER POST – LET ME SEE IF I CAN LIFT THAT AND POST AS A COMMENT TO THIS .

        Seriously, the Fair Tax is appealing on paper – I supported it at one point – but I no longer do because it?s not a plan that?s ready for the real world.

        Mew
        I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU READ THIS BOOK OR GET THE AUDIO BOOK.
        SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS – FEW OPTIONS.
        DD

        • doubledok

          Congress should not have access to discretionary tax breaks nor supplemental spending ? FAIR TAX removes these potentials IF applied as intended.

          Elected officials discretionary granting of exemptions is the fuel of this demonic mechanism. So long as there is a tax on income, any government record of individual wealth and income, and discretionary power to excuse income tax – there will be permanent a avenue for corruption. Given human nature ala George Orwell?s?Animal Farm?, the only pathway to rationality is elimination of current tax rationale.

          Fair Tax, IF IMPLEMENTED AS DESCRIBED IN THE LINDER – BOORTZ BOOK appears to rationally disrupt the Progressive-Socialist fuel. When teachers can no longer deduct their NEA dues and workers are taking home ALL of their pay, the light of Libertarian-Capitalism may re-enter the historical teaching in public schools.

          The current income tax scheme remains the path to mediocrity in government and servitude of the industrious.

          Appreciate your thoughts, acat – DD

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            And don’t think for one second the gummint is going to stop – or be stopped – keeping info on income and assets. That is simply folly.

            And, when you deal with the fact that the guys who came up with the so-called embedded taxes have said that the FT people used their numbers out of context and they’re no where near right, you’ve got a fundamental problem.

            If you really want to starve the beast, a flat tax with no exemptions and no withholding will do the job nicely. Everybody’s got skin in the game then. And, the “prebate” is Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue just waiting to happen.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • acat

            but *only* if the “no witholding” language is included.

            I *want* people angry on April 15. I want them to be ripe to be recruited as new Tea Partiers.

            Mew

          • acat

            However, since I’m watching a particularly old and sluggish server reboot, I’ll give them to you.

            Compare what’s in Linder and Boortz book with the history of Amtrak. The Fed, back in 1971 (Nixon) lumped all the dying passenger rail lines together as Amtrak. They’ve never been profitable, in part because they can’t replace underutilized train routes since congresscritters insert language that direct Amtrak to provide rail service to podunktowns …

            Let’s take another example. Flood insurance.

            Did you know, DD, that flood insurance is only underwritten by the federal government? Did you further know that, unlike regular homeowners insurance, flood insurance rates haven’t moved much at all (thank Congress…) while benefits have gone up? Did you know that anyone can buy flood insurance? They’ve got TV spots. For a federal program. That’s losing money. That’s keeping actual insurance companies priced out of the market.

            Do you really expect me to believe that congress, who mandate the trains run to nowhere *on time*, and who mandate the cost of flood insurance, won’t dink around with the prebate?

            Sorry. Not buying it.

            And since the server is now up, I have .. not more important fish to fry, perhaps, but certainly fish more critical to my personal bottom line.

            Mew

  • williamjameson

    Saxby Chambliss in 2012. His time has come.

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908
      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        Newt Gingrich, more in a few minutes

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          You can do better than a laundry list.

          1. Cain & Gingrich are both running for President, or at least they both have committees.
          2. What about Westmoreland? I really know nothing about him.
          3. I doubt Erick would take the pay cut. :-)

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            to supplement my intentionally limited knowledge. I have been loathe to concentrate on local politics all my life because of the federal govt and fed courts usurpation of most issues that matter. DeVine, like Reagan, delegates! more later on possible challengers. Lynn Westmoreland is s state rep

      • williamjameson

        and also include former governor Sonny Purdue, Phil Gingrey, Gov candidate Karen Handel and GA Senator David Shafer.

  • politicallydisgusted

    ?our country deserves us to sacrifice like the call we?re going to make to everyone else to sacrifice to accomplish what we have to accomplish and that is to get out of this hole.?

    So we just say a lot of words and connect them to send a message and say nothing?

  • doubledok

    Somewhere credible savings amounts are available. These are what I recall from the book FAIRTAX:THE TRUTH 2008 that I only read once a couple of years ago. The supporting data appeared credibly researched and authoritative to my non-finance consideration. I am not a Fair Tax employee, operative, organizer, or official. I am just disgusted by the current US political and tax systems. I hope the GOP can reverse the monster. I see the FairTax as a simpler solution that unburdens the individual worker while demanding equal contribution from every consumer. The greatest strength is removing government from our income process.

    The following keys represent my view of these aspects of the FAIR TAX as I recall it. The list is certainly not exhaustive, for that, study the book or hear the audio book. The FAIR TAX plan includes control of gov’t spending, Constitutional limit on universal tax rate, and other rational systems like permanent elimination of income tax.
    + represents intended revenue increase
    # represents intended cost saving
    & represents intended incentive to growth or investment/savings

    1.+ Gray markets taxed
    2. +Illegal activities taxed
    3. &Off-shore money flocks to U.S. in absence of income tax
    4. &,+Manufacturing (JOBS) boosted by fair tax incentives
    5. &Conservation promoted as used goods not taxed
    6. #Radically fewer tax submitters to regulate
    7. #Tax embedded in price like current gasoline pumps
    8. #IRS smaller
    9. #US citizens no longer spending time on tax confusion
    10. # US companies no longer need consider tax issues in planning innovation
    11. #Pre-bate easier to administer than mailing out tax forms, W-2, W-4, 1099
    12. &Cost of goods lower due to taxes not added at each stage
    13. &Take home pay increased by no withholdings
    14. &Investment income tax free
    15. #&Cost of business reduced by not keeping employee tax records
    16. &Small business simplified – tax work no worse than state sales taxes
    17. #IRS smaller- less government cost
    18. #Congress funding dependent upon management of economy
    19. #Congress loses power to sell-out to special interests with “tax-breaks”unlike with flat-tax
    20. +&All new purchases taxed so no more unequal taxation by income, location, occupation, etc.
    21. #Tax cap by Constitutional Amendment
    22. #Tax courts vanish as current cases resolve
    23. +Non-citizens taxed on purchases like everyone else
    24. &All businesses compete on level playing field absent tax incentives
    25. &Savings encouraged because all $ are pre-tax $

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    1. Grey markets won’t be taxed, they’ll be a different shade of grey.
    2. Who are you kidding? Only a complete fool would make a statement like that.
    3. Probably not. The issue will be net tax and nobody knows what that will be.
    4. Guesswork. See #3.
    5. Please.
    6. Don’t kid yourself about regulation. Take tax payment away from individuals and move it to businesses the whole system becomes hidden and amorphous.
    7. Embedded taxes are a wet dream. The calculations are all overstated and WRONG.
    8. Yeah, right.
    9. Flat tax accomplishes the same thing.
    10. Yeah, right.
    11. Prebate is an absolute license to steal handed to “the poor” and to regulators. It will make the EITC look like a well run program.
    12. No. Embedded tax calculations are hogwash.
    13. Who’s kidding who. Prices go up more than enough to offset.
    14. Yawn.
    15. Are you kidding? Getting rid of SS and Medicare too?
    16. See 15.
    17. No. Marginal at best.
    18. Huh?
    19. Flat tax, no deductions, no corporate tax. Congress can fiddle with prebates ’til hell freezes over. Much worse, not transparent.
    20. Taxation will ALWAYS be “unequal” simply because “I” pay too much and “you” don’t pay enough. That is the dumbest argument on the list.
    21. Your laundry list of constitutional amendments will NEVER happen. Ever.
    22. Yeah, right. Who writes the laws? Hint, lawyers.
    23. Yawn. See “grey market”.
    24. Please.
    25. That one I’ll buy.

    The bottom line is that Fair Tax is an extraordinarily complicated switch from our current tax system. Nobody has a clue what the result would be, except that there are some certainties:

    • The end result will be radically different than you think. That’s the history of complicated legislation.
    • The Constitutional Amendments will NEVER pass.
    • The “prebate” is a license to steal.
    • By making all tax a consumption tax, no one has skin in the game. It is an invisible tax.

    Go sell this turkey on a Mike Huckabee for President web site. Those fools are clueless enough to think it’s a good idea.

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      Obviously this is a response to just above.

      • doubledok

        read the book. Because you mount a spurious non-response does nothing to refute the data established in the publication. I will generously suspect you are reacting to the original book (THE FAIR TAX BOOK) and this newer volume specifically addresses those early criticisms embedded in your casual retort.

        “The Constitutional Amendments will never pass” was also uttered by slave owners, male voters not wanting women to participate, then Governor George Wallace opposing equal rights, etc.

        Nearly all of your “it won’t work”s are currently working with fuel SALES taxes handling the same number of consumers. read the book, then present informed alternatives.

        Intellectual laziness begins with not knowing the subject you are addressing – I’ll make it easy for you – the ISBN for the audio book is 978-0-06-166247-8. THIS is the subject “FAIRTAX: THE TRUTH – ANSWERING THE CRITICS”

        • powertothepeople

          as this should be good. Do not disappoint us MBecker, lol.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          It was only slightly more impressive than your pathetic rendition of the crap in it.

          Good comeback on the constitutional amendments. And tell ya what. After we fight a civil war and 1/6 of the US population dies so we can have a Fair Tax I’ll concede that the amendments will pass.

          Intellectual laziness begins with a complete ignorance of the politics required to pass this turkey and is wrapped up with complete ignorance of how politicians work the system and they will game this thing to death. Except it’ll never pass because you won’t get the requisite con amends. Without a civil war, of course.

          In the old days I would have noted the obvious, that anyone who could promote such incomprehensible drivel with such a brain dead argument was on a fools errand. But those were the old days. Now I’ll just note that any credibility you might have been able to build up here is pretty well shot with this crap.

          Have a nice life with your audio book. Those are the refuge for people who can’t, or won’t, read or think.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            that really says it all with respect to you…

            Thanks Neil, I’m stealing this one.