http://www.lifenews.com/nat3903.html
Pro-Life Democrat Opposes Barack Obama And His Extreme Abortion Record
I get reports from Life News, which published this. In fact, I have had several exchanges with Steven Ertelt, who reports Hentoff’s article at his http://www.lifenews.com/nat3903.html . Barack Obama’s extreme “pro-choice” record includes opposing a partial-birth abortion ban and twice opposing the Infant Born Alive (after a botched abortion) Protection Act in Illinois, which called on forbidding setting aside a live baby to die.
Hentoff’s actual article can be read at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff042408.php3
But, thanks to Stephen Maloney for alerting me to the article.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Listen To Dennis Prager: The Age of "Foolishness"
Anyone who has recurrently looked in on this Blog, knows that I often refer to questions and emphases raised by Dennis Prager on his radio program. I emailed for over a decade before beginning it approximately a year ago, and always referred to questions and comments raised on television and radio talk shows. The most marked differences in the case of Prager, are the relative profundity of the questions raised (much of the discussion on other programs is relative pablum, by which I mean simplistic – see note at bottom), and the extent to which I often agree with his conclusions.
There are occasional instances in which I deeply disagree, which often seem rooted in my comprehensive Christianity relative to his Judaism. But, I very much appreciate his focus on moral beyond dogmatic considerations and his oft-stated maxim: “I prefer clarity to agreement,” which more tersely states Ludwig Wittgenstein’s century old definition of the philosopher’s task as that of defining questions more than promoting answers.
Anyway on Tuesday, Prager’s program in his “Ultimate Issues” series was a more focused discussion of his common assertion that his (baby-boomer) generation was the initiation of “the age of stupidity.” He clarified that he didn’t intend to imply unintelligence but a lack of wisdom. As he is an Old Testament student and Hebrew teacher, Prager will be familiar with Proverbs’ juxtaposition of “wisdom” with “foolishness.” I’ve heard him discuss this countless times and tend to agree with the observation and that it arose from the generally unprecedented ease and pampering of that generation’s youth. But, “the age of foolishness” works for me. There are plenty of brilliant people stewed in common errors of this time. I’m slightly younger, but I remember watching it from my youth.
I could discuss some of the details touched upon, but mainly there were just what I see as some low-level misconceptions about human nature that it was easy for a young generation to get swept up in, in an impertinent swirl of mass-culture consensus. But, it’s easier if you can listen to that hour (Hour 3 - The Age of Stupidity) of the program. http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=3&ContentGuid=e9c6008e-6187-4257-950c-24b5e9fd323a
“Pablum” is an interesting word. That’s what leapt to mind as what I wanted to say. But the word-processor identified it as a misspelling. Another online dictionary recognized it and confirmed the definition as trite or simple, but many did not. It is a shortening of the word “pabulum,” which is an infant’s porridge or cereal. The word is used for discussion that requires little in the way of chewing or thought. A more widely used word is simply “pap.”
There are occasional instances in which I deeply disagree, which often seem rooted in my comprehensive Christianity relative to his Judaism. But, I very much appreciate his focus on moral beyond dogmatic considerations and his oft-stated maxim: “I prefer clarity to agreement,” which more tersely states Ludwig Wittgenstein’s century old definition of the philosopher’s task as that of defining questions more than promoting answers.
Anyway on Tuesday, Prager’s program in his “Ultimate Issues” series was a more focused discussion of his common assertion that his (baby-boomer) generation was the initiation of “the age of stupidity.” He clarified that he didn’t intend to imply unintelligence but a lack of wisdom. As he is an Old Testament student and Hebrew teacher, Prager will be familiar with Proverbs’ juxtaposition of “wisdom” with “foolishness.” I’ve heard him discuss this countless times and tend to agree with the observation and that it arose from the generally unprecedented ease and pampering of that generation’s youth. But, “the age of foolishness” works for me. There are plenty of brilliant people stewed in common errors of this time. I’m slightly younger, but I remember watching it from my youth.
I could discuss some of the details touched upon, but mainly there were just what I see as some low-level misconceptions about human nature that it was easy for a young generation to get swept up in, in an impertinent swirl of mass-culture consensus. But, it’s easier if you can listen to that hour (Hour 3 - The Age of Stupidity) of the program. http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=3&ContentGuid=e9c6008e-6187-4257-950c-24b5e9fd323a
“Pablum” is an interesting word. That’s what leapt to mind as what I wanted to say. But the word-processor identified it as a misspelling. Another online dictionary recognized it and confirmed the definition as trite or simple, but many did not. It is a shortening of the word “pabulum,” which is an infant’s porridge or cereal. The word is used for discussion that requires little in the way of chewing or thought. A more widely used word is simply “pap.”
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Dr. David Berlinski and Dennis Prager Interview
This is Tuesday's easy to listen to interview by Dennis Prager of Dr. David Berlinski, whom Ben Stein spoke with in the movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.”
Tuesday April 22, 2008
H3: Ultimate Issues Hour: Atheism and Science With Dennis Prager
Prager H3: Dennis talks to David Berlinski, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle and a former fellow at the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques in Paris, France. His new book is The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.
Length: 00:34:14
Dr. David Berlinski is the scholar that Ben Stein visited in Paris in the movie.
Something about him intrigued me. I checked him out and I found out why.
In the late 1950's, a stronghold of positivist empiricism in academic philosophy that had held sway for 50 years was debunked by Harvard philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine. Quine was a mathematician-logician who was not pressing a transcendent reality. He agreed with the status quo academic standard that the empirical data was all that there was to begin our investigation with (I don't agree with that, BTW-I'm a Christian).
However, applying cold logic, he demonstrated that empirical data alone cannot establish and justify a belief system: we must apply certain aesthetic standards and objectives. Dr. David Berlinski is a secular agnostic Jew. But, he is a mathematician and logician. He watched the publication and celebration of authors like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens and felt compelled to speak out against the outrageous presumption that science has debunked important non-scientific “disproved” religious claims. We make and live by many assumed truths that science cannot prove or disprove, including most of the important matters of our life. As with the empiricist philosophers, these have noisily overstated the implications and the capacity of science. These contemporary “science” advocates (their metaphysical claims and curses have nothing to do with real science) are a tardy and relatively vulgar manifestation of an error long ago put to rest. I just love it when a neutral party demonstrates the audacious presumption of a false dogma.
In addition to this a much less turgid interview with radio talk-show host Dennis Prager, I will post links to his discussion on C-SPAN's Book TV, and and a reference to Berlinski's new book, "The Devil's Delusion,".
At C-SPAN’s Book TV page:
Author: David Berlinski – The Devil’s Delusion
About the Program
David Berlinski, teacher and author of books on mathematics, challenges the fields of science and atheist thought by arguing that science has not been able to prove the inexistence of a God nor explain the start of the universe. This event was hosted by the Discovery Institute in Washington, D.C.
About the Author
David Berlinski is the author of several books, including "A Tour of Calculus," and "Newton's Gift." A former fellow at the Institute for Applied System Analysis, Mr. Berlinksi is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
Go to this page and click on "Watch."
The Devil's Delusion
Militant atheism is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness. And these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement--one that now includes much of the scientific community. "The attack on traditional religious thought," writes David Berlinski in The Devil's Delusion, "marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion." A secular Jew, Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community's cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions: Has anyone provided a proof of God's nonexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on. Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated. This brilliant, incisive, and funny book explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it can be--indeed must be--the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world and ourselves.
Tuesday April 22, 2008
H3: Ultimate Issues Hour: Atheism and Science With Dennis Prager
Prager H3: Dennis talks to David Berlinski, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle and a former fellow at the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques in Paris, France. His new book is The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.
Length: 00:34:14
Dr. David Berlinski is the scholar that Ben Stein visited in Paris in the movie.
Something about him intrigued me. I checked him out and I found out why.
In the late 1950's, a stronghold of positivist empiricism in academic philosophy that had held sway for 50 years was debunked by Harvard philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine. Quine was a mathematician-logician who was not pressing a transcendent reality. He agreed with the status quo academic standard that the empirical data was all that there was to begin our investigation with (I don't agree with that, BTW-I'm a Christian).
However, applying cold logic, he demonstrated that empirical data alone cannot establish and justify a belief system: we must apply certain aesthetic standards and objectives. Dr. David Berlinski is a secular agnostic Jew. But, he is a mathematician and logician. He watched the publication and celebration of authors like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens and felt compelled to speak out against the outrageous presumption that science has debunked important non-scientific “disproved” religious claims. We make and live by many assumed truths that science cannot prove or disprove, including most of the important matters of our life. As with the empiricist philosophers, these have noisily overstated the implications and the capacity of science. These contemporary “science” advocates (their metaphysical claims and curses have nothing to do with real science) are a tardy and relatively vulgar manifestation of an error long ago put to rest. I just love it when a neutral party demonstrates the audacious presumption of a false dogma.
In addition to this a much less turgid interview with radio talk-show host Dennis Prager, I will post links to his discussion on C-SPAN's Book TV, and and a reference to Berlinski's new book, "The Devil's Delusion,".
At C-SPAN’s Book TV page:
Author: David Berlinski – The Devil’s Delusion
About the Program
David Berlinski, teacher and author of books on mathematics, challenges the fields of science and atheist thought by arguing that science has not been able to prove the inexistence of a God nor explain the start of the universe. This event was hosted by the Discovery Institute in Washington, D.C.
About the Author
David Berlinski is the author of several books, including "A Tour of Calculus," and "Newton's Gift." A former fellow at the Institute for Applied System Analysis, Mr. Berlinksi is currently a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
Go to this page and click on "Watch."
The Devil's Delusion
Militant atheism is on the rise. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have dominated bestseller lists with books denigrating religious belief as dangerous foolishness. And these authors are merely the leading edge of a far larger movement--one that now includes much of the scientific community. "The attack on traditional religious thought," writes David Berlinski in The Devil's Delusion, "marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion." A secular Jew, Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community's cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions: Has anyone provided a proof of God's nonexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on. Berlinski does not dismiss the achievements of western science. The great physical theories, he observes, are among the treasures of the human race. But they do nothing to answer the questions that religion asks, and they fail to offer a coherent description of the cosmos or the methods by which it might be investigated. This brilliant, incisive, and funny book explores the limits of science and the pretensions of those who insist it can be--indeed must be--the ultimate touchstone for understanding our world and ourselves.
Monday, April 21, 2008
If Nothing Else," Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" Should Tell You Something, Just In Case You Haven't Noticed
I got out Friday night, to see “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” I had made arrangements to possibly see it with a few more people, in the next few days, and I happily will, and have opportunity to discuss it. But, after seeing the film and reading reviews online, one thing stands out particularly starkly to me.
I watched comment on the film leading up to its release and the reviews of those who saw it early. There is enough positive comment to read on the web. Here are a few at a good ones at: PipeLine News.org, http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=expelled4.19.08.htm , and The American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/post_83.html . But, everything in what are considered major, usually traditional news outlets, totally and pretty abruptly trashed the movie, calling it ignorant, or dishonest propaganda.
Consider two things about that:
1) Without going to a specifically theistic source, before the popularity of the Internet, you could have read NOTHING positive about the film. That’s the world that I was raised in, born in the late 50’s and a young man in the 70’s.
2) And 2 (and this is what stood out so starkly) Stein’s movie discusses how a academic and science organizations are closed to the mere suggestion that an intelligent author might be responsible for the design of systems more complex and capable than anything human beings have ever created. And, they are hostile to the point that those who even dare to draw their fundamentalist naturalist dogma into question suffer sanction socially and/or professionally. Many whom Stein interviewed would not even appear on camera, for fear of reprisal. But these established news sources are so similarly insulated that they can scarcely deliver up a report that does not endorse and defend this and other aspects of the pop-culture status quo.
These people would like the public to think that they are the real, objective source of news. But, the population of these establishment news sources is a) a fraction of one percent of the American population. And b) regardless, is philosophically restricted.
Do I think that this is an intentional distortion of the news? No, I don’t. In fact, I’m certain it is not. To make such a charge would be like their charges that Ben Stein is involved in dishonest propaganda. They are entirely genuine. They just don’t know any better. These days, the information of the fossil record and the complex systems is so extensive that it could hardly be more obvious that the differences are not over the data, but over predispositions in interpreting the data. The systems look to be of design if you do not foreclose the idea from the very beginning. And, if you do, the complexity of the system only display the wonders that evolution can perform, regardless of the lack of fossil evidence and the lack of explanation of how such a process began and continued to reproduce through stages of development. Other options are off the table.
This is how the establishment scientists arrive at their conclusion: they have nowhere else to go. Lack of evidence is just that; the evidence is incomplete and we will supposedly know eventually. But, that’s the point of Stein’s movie: that other options may not even be entertained. Stein is not asking, as some caricature the whole notion of intelligent design that a Biblical or any other account of creation be taught in public schools. The only argument is that scientists shouldn’t be shut off from discussing what they see as the evidence of design in the system. Anyway, they aren’t trying to deceive us. THEY REALLY BELIEVE that someone like me is impenetrably stupid.
They say that God cannot be studied by science. Obviously, the author of nature cannot be tested by nature. It’s a bogus argument, anyway. Not only can God not be empirically tested, but any theoretical empirical evidence would be of something less than what ordinary language means by the term, God. But, the critical journalists are annoying. The Pipeline News article cites a good example at Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html : a writer who has no idea what he’s talking about is presuming to pronounce both scientific and moral judgment on Stein and the film, when he seems to have little more than a freshman pop-biology foundation of authority to stand on. This is really simple stuff: plainly, these persecuted scientists are vastly more scientifically aware. No matter: they parrot the establishment, however feebly.
Stein speaks with scientists who contend that there should be openness in interpretation of the data, but have either seen or experienced suppression of the mere mention of heresy from the establishment Darwinist confession, not about change due to natural selection (which is an uncontroversial fact), but about any consideration of the evidence that complexities in nature suggest intelligent design and/or that Darwinism offers no explanation for the origin of life. The notorious evolutionist and ant-religionist Dr. Richard Dawkins *author of the God delusion finally admits a possibility that life on earth might be the product of an intelligent designer. But, such a designer would have to have been a highly evolved species of an alien civilization who planted life on our planet. In other words, intelligent design may be considered as a possibility…just not by God.
The supposition of God or an alien author are alike metaphysical (extra-empirical) ideas. But one needn’t feel obligated by supposing the existence of space aliens. God on the other hand, might have the temerity to hold standards for His creation…a most beastly idea. One scholar in the movie makes the clear statement that the dispute is not scientific, but a metaphysical one. And, it is plain to me that once that insolent anti-God metaphysical posture is established in a systematic mind metaphysical, they almost inevitably become supercilious and scornful of infidels: just the sort of religious adjudication that they ostensibly oppose. And all of the hyper-Darwinist scholars in Stein’s movie evidence this tendency.
The movie was good. Stein is just trying to leverage the question to consciousness via the pop-culture medium of film. At bottom, the issue is not at all scientific evidence. The issue is freedom of speech. And, speech is being restrained not by scientific evidence, but by the typical human anxieties of power, money, and fear. And, as with any entrenched interest, when they can’t respond to questions with answers, they respond with moral judgments and/or intellectual ridicule: “You’re evil! You’re stupid!” It’s a contemporary Inquisition. And these of the pop-science establishment are the dogma-pounding fundamentalists. I’ve seening the film twice
Ben Stein is visibly amused by the selective disdain of different metaphysical postures, and troubled by some of the historical logical ramifications of Darwinism. America will decide what path it follows. If we move wrongly as a society, it will get dark...here, as it has in Europe. But, Christians needn't despair. In what were thought more darkened parts of the world, when I was young' in Asia and Africa and South America, Christianity is burgeoning. Even if Europe and America progress toward cultural self-immolation, these parts of the world will thrive. The New Testament foresees that "the last will be first." And, a culture that stews in self-worship, will achieve what it has earned.
I watched comment on the film leading up to its release and the reviews of those who saw it early. There is enough positive comment to read on the web. Here are a few at a good ones at: PipeLine News.org, http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=expelled4.19.08.htm , and The American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/post_83.html . But, everything in what are considered major, usually traditional news outlets, totally and pretty abruptly trashed the movie, calling it ignorant, or dishonest propaganda.
Consider two things about that:
1) Without going to a specifically theistic source, before the popularity of the Internet, you could have read NOTHING positive about the film. That’s the world that I was raised in, born in the late 50’s and a young man in the 70’s.
2) And 2 (and this is what stood out so starkly) Stein’s movie discusses how a academic and science organizations are closed to the mere suggestion that an intelligent author might be responsible for the design of systems more complex and capable than anything human beings have ever created. And, they are hostile to the point that those who even dare to draw their fundamentalist naturalist dogma into question suffer sanction socially and/or professionally. Many whom Stein interviewed would not even appear on camera, for fear of reprisal. But these established news sources are so similarly insulated that they can scarcely deliver up a report that does not endorse and defend this and other aspects of the pop-culture status quo.
These people would like the public to think that they are the real, objective source of news. But, the population of these establishment news sources is a) a fraction of one percent of the American population. And b) regardless, is philosophically restricted.
Do I think that this is an intentional distortion of the news? No, I don’t. In fact, I’m certain it is not. To make such a charge would be like their charges that Ben Stein is involved in dishonest propaganda. They are entirely genuine. They just don’t know any better. These days, the information of the fossil record and the complex systems is so extensive that it could hardly be more obvious that the differences are not over the data, but over predispositions in interpreting the data. The systems look to be of design if you do not foreclose the idea from the very beginning. And, if you do, the complexity of the system only display the wonders that evolution can perform, regardless of the lack of fossil evidence and the lack of explanation of how such a process began and continued to reproduce through stages of development. Other options are off the table.
This is how the establishment scientists arrive at their conclusion: they have nowhere else to go. Lack of evidence is just that; the evidence is incomplete and we will supposedly know eventually. But, that’s the point of Stein’s movie: that other options may not even be entertained. Stein is not asking, as some caricature the whole notion of intelligent design that a Biblical or any other account of creation be taught in public schools. The only argument is that scientists shouldn’t be shut off from discussing what they see as the evidence of design in the system. Anyway, they aren’t trying to deceive us. THEY REALLY BELIEVE that someone like me is impenetrably stupid.
They say that God cannot be studied by science. Obviously, the author of nature cannot be tested by nature. It’s a bogus argument, anyway. Not only can God not be empirically tested, but any theoretical empirical evidence would be of something less than what ordinary language means by the term, God. But, the critical journalists are annoying. The Pipeline News article cites a good example at Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html : a writer who has no idea what he’s talking about is presuming to pronounce both scientific and moral judgment on Stein and the film, when he seems to have little more than a freshman pop-biology foundation of authority to stand on. This is really simple stuff: plainly, these persecuted scientists are vastly more scientifically aware. No matter: they parrot the establishment, however feebly.
Stein speaks with scientists who contend that there should be openness in interpretation of the data, but have either seen or experienced suppression of the mere mention of heresy from the establishment Darwinist confession, not about change due to natural selection (which is an uncontroversial fact), but about any consideration of the evidence that complexities in nature suggest intelligent design and/or that Darwinism offers no explanation for the origin of life. The notorious evolutionist and ant-religionist Dr. Richard Dawkins *author of the God delusion finally admits a possibility that life on earth might be the product of an intelligent designer. But, such a designer would have to have been a highly evolved species of an alien civilization who planted life on our planet. In other words, intelligent design may be considered as a possibility…just not by God.
The supposition of God or an alien author are alike metaphysical (extra-empirical) ideas. But one needn’t feel obligated by supposing the existence of space aliens. God on the other hand, might have the temerity to hold standards for His creation…a most beastly idea. One scholar in the movie makes the clear statement that the dispute is not scientific, but a metaphysical one. And, it is plain to me that once that insolent anti-God metaphysical posture is established in a systematic mind metaphysical, they almost inevitably become supercilious and scornful of infidels: just the sort of religious adjudication that they ostensibly oppose. And all of the hyper-Darwinist scholars in Stein’s movie evidence this tendency.
The movie was good. Stein is just trying to leverage the question to consciousness via the pop-culture medium of film. At bottom, the issue is not at all scientific evidence. The issue is freedom of speech. And, speech is being restrained not by scientific evidence, but by the typical human anxieties of power, money, and fear. And, as with any entrenched interest, when they can’t respond to questions with answers, they respond with moral judgments and/or intellectual ridicule: “You’re evil! You’re stupid!” It’s a contemporary Inquisition. And these of the pop-science establishment are the dogma-pounding fundamentalists. I’ve seening the film twice
Ben Stein is visibly amused by the selective disdain of different metaphysical postures, and troubled by some of the historical logical ramifications of Darwinism. America will decide what path it follows. If we move wrongly as a society, it will get dark...here, as it has in Europe. But, Christians needn't despair. In what were thought more darkened parts of the world, when I was young' in Asia and Africa and South America, Christianity is burgeoning. Even if Europe and America progress toward cultural self-immolation, these parts of the world will thrive. The New Testament foresees that "the last will be first." And, a culture that stews in self-worship, will achieve what it has earned.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
On Huckabee And Conservatives, Dennis Prager And The Fair Tax, And John McCain's Economy Comments
I still have not been posting regularly, though I have been cruising other Blogs. There is much on my mind that I want to get into. But alas, current considerations come to the front.
First of all, I’ll just mention John McCain’s discussion of the economy, yesterday. I still hold out hope that he might be drawn to the cause of The Fair Tax, the economic promise of which I now consider critical. But John McCain expressed once again, his fervor for constraining spending, which must attend any changes or qualifications in our tax system. McCain’s repeated vow to veto earmarks (“I’ll veto them and make the authors famous…”) Is a first step, but essential and paradigmatic of his resolve that must be applied relative to considerations of government and taxes and spending.
As for taxes, McCain proposed a simpler filing method as option for individuals to the detailed filing of exemptions and deductions. Frankly, as often as I disagree with McCain, his resolve on a few things like this and winning against Islamic fundamentalism almost makes me cry.
Also, I had a Blog exchange about Huckabee, who announced HuckPAC today, and opinion among conservative Bloggers. And, Dennis Prager had segments on his radio program with Georgia Rep. John Linder about The Fair Tax and actor/writer Ben Stein about his movie which opens Friday: “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” I will see the movie and expect that I will comment. But, today I will write about Prager’s embrace and discussion of The Fair Tax. I will send him a letter about some questions that he asked and why The Fair Tax is more important than just being a good idea, which I will post after the Blog exchange.
As part of today’s post, Adam Graham at Huckabee Alliance wrote:
…John Hawkins of Right Wing News did a poll of the right side of the blogosphere. You’ll recall a recent poll showed Huckabee an 18-15% favorite for the VP Spot in a national poll over Mitt Romney. Hawkins right-of center sample of bloggers chose Mitt Romney. This isn’t a huge deal because it’s within the margin of error nationally. However, Huckabee didn’t even show up with the minimum amount of votes to qualify for standing (5 points) and topped the list of least desired Vice-Presidential candidates. Here are the results in Reverse order from #15-#1:
15) Tom Ridge: Former Governor, Pennsylvania (5.0)
14) Tommy Franks: Former General (5.0)
13) Tim Pawlenty: Governor, Minnesota (5.5)
12) Rudy Giuliani: Former Mayor, New York (7.0)
11) Newt Gingrich: Former Congressman, Georgia (7.5)
10) Elizabeth Dole: Senator, North Carolina (7.5)
9) Mel Martinez: Senator, Florida (10.0) Condi Rice: Secretary of State (16.5)
7) Christie Todd Whitman: Former Governor, New Jersey (19.5)
6) Joe Lieberman: Senator, Connecticut (19.5)
5) Charlie Crist: Governor, Florida (20.0)
4) Colin Powell: Former Secretary of State (23.0)
3) Jeb Bush: Former Governor, Florida (23.5)
2) Lindsey Graham: Senator, South Carolina (26.5)
1) Mike Huckabee: Former Governor, Arkansas (42)
First of all, I don’t know what Tommy Franks did get on somebody’s naughty list. However, among elite conservative bloggers, a McCain-Huckabee ticket would be worse than a ticket with a pro-choicer on it (McCain-Ridge/McCain-Giuliani/McCain-Rice/McCain-Whitman, McCain-Powell), a Democrat (also pro-choice) (McCain-Lieberman), an illegible candidate (McCain-Martinez), and McCain’s co-leader in pushing for amnesty while attacking all amnesty opponents as bigots (McCain-Graham.) It’s shocking, really. Let’s no longer call this group, the rightosphere, let us call them instead the out-of-touchosphere. If there’s a been a reason for good cultural conservative to start and build strong blogs, this is exhibit A.
Larry
This year was very informative for me as a lifelong philosophical conservative, with all the "conservative" criticism of Huckabee. I zeroed in on three elements that inspired that animosity against Huckabee. Firstly, the establishment political commenters, writers and organizers were just culturally uncomfortable with Huckabee's unblushing profession of evangelical faith. A lot of the standard criticisms were cited, but I think at bottom this was just a little gauche in the circles they travel in. Note that many of them embraced the Mormon Romney, whose dogma was even more different. But, he was more duly modest about it, never saying pop-culturally uncouth (never mind that it is very appropriate) things like "My faith not only informs me, it defines me." For example, it animates his respect for life, the poor, justice, freedom, creation...all quite legitimate, as long as God has nothing to do with it.
Secondly, high-dollar economic conservatives didn't like The Fair Tax, which would tax the extravagances usually written off as "business expenses. For example, think of the tax on a corporate jet. When I was a salesman, we and our guests ate very well: it was all "written off."
But, in the case of most of these Bloggers, I think it was just a visceral reaction, confirmed by other critics, against Huckabee's gracious consideration of typically un-Republican issues and populations: what became referred to (largely erroneously) as Huckabee's "populism." He talked about "Main Street." and environmental stewardship, got union endorsements, affirmed the concerns of minorities, etc. In the minds of these people, all of this squared with charges, sincere and political, of "liberalism," which of course made many conservatives' skin crawl.
Dennis Prager:
I’m glad to see you firming up on support for The Fair Tax. I want address three things with regard to your discussion today. First and briefly, as you have before, you questioned why it is named “The Fair Tax.” The answer explains both why it is fair and why many wealthy individuals and traders tend to oppose it. Warren Buffett recently challenged corporate officers that he would give a million dollars if they could prove that they paid taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. Last I heard, there were no takers. Right now, the very wealthy have teams of experts to “write off” every luxury as a “business expense. Heck, salesman of corporations and clients and prospective clients always eat and drink very well. Why not? It’s all “written off.” Now, think of a 23% sales tax on items like jets and yachts and such: EVERYTHING that was heretofore a “write off,” would be taxed at 23% under The Fair Tax. Corporate officers would rather pay their teams of tax preparers and keep their “write offs” than have tax free businesses and capital gains and have to pay 23% on every extravagance. As I say, “people accustomed to privilege aren’t real excited about fairness.”
Secondly and most importantly, The Fair Tax is no longer just a good idea. The economic activity that its implementation would provoke is the only way I can see that America may meet the tsunami of entitlement liability that it has taken on that is now upon us, and hopefully without calamitous tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation, which is taxation by another name. Strangely, there is not enough focus on this. But hyper-inflation and probably both huge tax increases and benefit cuts are inevitable if something dramatic is not done: watch the value of your reserves and investments evaporate.
Thirdly, you asked about what would be problems with The Fair Tax. In short, there will be problems, but they are relatively negligible compared to the current system. My biggest concern has been that, especially in the Internet age, there will be great appeal to saving taxes on expensive items by trying to ship items into the US from tax-free offshore sources. Linder says things will be taxed when brought into the country, and they should be to keep American enterprise on an equal footing. But monitoring smuggling across our borders, and appraising and assessing all items shipped in, which will have to included elaborate scanning and invasion of packages, will be no small endeavor. But the crime of tax-evading smuggling raises the question of other even internal tax-evasion. For one thing, barter will expand dramatically. But goods will also be sold on the street in an expanded “black-market. Think for example, of tax-free jewelry and electronics: a 23% saving will be a huge inducement to this kind of dealing.
Yes, all of these will be HUGE considerations. But, at least, this tax-evasion will be stark and indisputable crime. Under the current system, the “crime” is usually very gray and technical, and conviction involves elaborate and expensive prosecution. Deductions and exemptions are claimed and accepted or denied, and adjudicated in long trials. In truth, we may (and I hope we) find that much more of our commerce and especially our government function should be reigned in to state and local jurisdictions. Wouldn’t you rather see local police and courts restraining and prosecuting the crooks on the street?
First of all, I’ll just mention John McCain’s discussion of the economy, yesterday. I still hold out hope that he might be drawn to the cause of The Fair Tax, the economic promise of which I now consider critical. But John McCain expressed once again, his fervor for constraining spending, which must attend any changes or qualifications in our tax system. McCain’s repeated vow to veto earmarks (“I’ll veto them and make the authors famous…”) Is a first step, but essential and paradigmatic of his resolve that must be applied relative to considerations of government and taxes and spending.
As for taxes, McCain proposed a simpler filing method as option for individuals to the detailed filing of exemptions and deductions. Frankly, as often as I disagree with McCain, his resolve on a few things like this and winning against Islamic fundamentalism almost makes me cry.
Also, I had a Blog exchange about Huckabee, who announced HuckPAC today, and opinion among conservative Bloggers. And, Dennis Prager had segments on his radio program with Georgia Rep. John Linder about The Fair Tax and actor/writer Ben Stein about his movie which opens Friday: “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” I will see the movie and expect that I will comment. But, today I will write about Prager’s embrace and discussion of The Fair Tax. I will send him a letter about some questions that he asked and why The Fair Tax is more important than just being a good idea, which I will post after the Blog exchange.
As part of today’s post, Adam Graham at Huckabee Alliance wrote:
…John Hawkins of Right Wing News did a poll of the right side of the blogosphere. You’ll recall a recent poll showed Huckabee an 18-15% favorite for the VP Spot in a national poll over Mitt Romney. Hawkins right-of center sample of bloggers chose Mitt Romney. This isn’t a huge deal because it’s within the margin of error nationally. However, Huckabee didn’t even show up with the minimum amount of votes to qualify for standing (5 points) and topped the list of least desired Vice-Presidential candidates. Here are the results in Reverse order from #15-#1:
15) Tom Ridge: Former Governor, Pennsylvania (5.0)
14) Tommy Franks: Former General (5.0)
13) Tim Pawlenty: Governor, Minnesota (5.5)
12) Rudy Giuliani: Former Mayor, New York (7.0)
11) Newt Gingrich: Former Congressman, Georgia (7.5)
10) Elizabeth Dole: Senator, North Carolina (7.5)
9) Mel Martinez: Senator, Florida (10.0) Condi Rice: Secretary of State (16.5)
7) Christie Todd Whitman: Former Governor, New Jersey (19.5)
6) Joe Lieberman: Senator, Connecticut (19.5)
5) Charlie Crist: Governor, Florida (20.0)
4) Colin Powell: Former Secretary of State (23.0)
3) Jeb Bush: Former Governor, Florida (23.5)
2) Lindsey Graham: Senator, South Carolina (26.5)
1) Mike Huckabee: Former Governor, Arkansas (42)
First of all, I don’t know what Tommy Franks did get on somebody’s naughty list. However, among elite conservative bloggers, a McCain-Huckabee ticket would be worse than a ticket with a pro-choicer on it (McCain-Ridge/McCain-Giuliani/McCain-Rice/McCain-Whitman, McCain-Powell), a Democrat (also pro-choice) (McCain-Lieberman), an illegible candidate (McCain-Martinez), and McCain’s co-leader in pushing for amnesty while attacking all amnesty opponents as bigots (McCain-Graham.) It’s shocking, really. Let’s no longer call this group, the rightosphere, let us call them instead the out-of-touchosphere. If there’s a been a reason for good cultural conservative to start and build strong blogs, this is exhibit A.
Larry
This year was very informative for me as a lifelong philosophical conservative, with all the "conservative" criticism of Huckabee. I zeroed in on three elements that inspired that animosity against Huckabee. Firstly, the establishment political commenters, writers and organizers were just culturally uncomfortable with Huckabee's unblushing profession of evangelical faith. A lot of the standard criticisms were cited, but I think at bottom this was just a little gauche in the circles they travel in. Note that many of them embraced the Mormon Romney, whose dogma was even more different. But, he was more duly modest about it, never saying pop-culturally uncouth (never mind that it is very appropriate) things like "My faith not only informs me, it defines me." For example, it animates his respect for life, the poor, justice, freedom, creation...all quite legitimate, as long as God has nothing to do with it.
Secondly, high-dollar economic conservatives didn't like The Fair Tax, which would tax the extravagances usually written off as "business expenses. For example, think of the tax on a corporate jet. When I was a salesman, we and our guests ate very well: it was all "written off."
But, in the case of most of these Bloggers, I think it was just a visceral reaction, confirmed by other critics, against Huckabee's gracious consideration of typically un-Republican issues and populations: what became referred to (largely erroneously) as Huckabee's "populism." He talked about "Main Street." and environmental stewardship, got union endorsements, affirmed the concerns of minorities, etc. In the minds of these people, all of this squared with charges, sincere and political, of "liberalism," which of course made many conservatives' skin crawl.
Dennis Prager:
I’m glad to see you firming up on support for The Fair Tax. I want address three things with regard to your discussion today. First and briefly, as you have before, you questioned why it is named “The Fair Tax.” The answer explains both why it is fair and why many wealthy individuals and traders tend to oppose it. Warren Buffett recently challenged corporate officers that he would give a million dollars if they could prove that they paid taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. Last I heard, there were no takers. Right now, the very wealthy have teams of experts to “write off” every luxury as a “business expense. Heck, salesman of corporations and clients and prospective clients always eat and drink very well. Why not? It’s all “written off.” Now, think of a 23% sales tax on items like jets and yachts and such: EVERYTHING that was heretofore a “write off,” would be taxed at 23% under The Fair Tax. Corporate officers would rather pay their teams of tax preparers and keep their “write offs” than have tax free businesses and capital gains and have to pay 23% on every extravagance. As I say, “people accustomed to privilege aren’t real excited about fairness.”
Secondly and most importantly, The Fair Tax is no longer just a good idea. The economic activity that its implementation would provoke is the only way I can see that America may meet the tsunami of entitlement liability that it has taken on that is now upon us, and hopefully without calamitous tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation, which is taxation by another name. Strangely, there is not enough focus on this. But hyper-inflation and probably both huge tax increases and benefit cuts are inevitable if something dramatic is not done: watch the value of your reserves and investments evaporate.
Thirdly, you asked about what would be problems with The Fair Tax. In short, there will be problems, but they are relatively negligible compared to the current system. My biggest concern has been that, especially in the Internet age, there will be great appeal to saving taxes on expensive items by trying to ship items into the US from tax-free offshore sources. Linder says things will be taxed when brought into the country, and they should be to keep American enterprise on an equal footing. But monitoring smuggling across our borders, and appraising and assessing all items shipped in, which will have to included elaborate scanning and invasion of packages, will be no small endeavor. But the crime of tax-evading smuggling raises the question of other even internal tax-evasion. For one thing, barter will expand dramatically. But goods will also be sold on the street in an expanded “black-market. Think for example, of tax-free jewelry and electronics: a 23% saving will be a huge inducement to this kind of dealing.
Yes, all of these will be HUGE considerations. But, at least, this tax-evasion will be stark and indisputable crime. Under the current system, the “crime” is usually very gray and technical, and conviction involves elaborate and expensive prosecution. Deductions and exemptions are claimed and accepted or denied, and adjudicated in long trials. In truth, we may (and I hope we) find that much more of our commerce and especially our government function should be reigned in to state and local jurisdictions. Wouldn’t you rather see local police and courts restraining and prosecuting the crooks on the street?
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Support The Fair Tax And Sign This Fair Tax Petition...PLEASE!
Support The Fair Tax And Sign This Fair Tax Petition...PLEASE!
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=changedc
I want to start writing some personal thoughts about my own situation and things I have strong convictions about. But, one thing I have talked and will talk about is The Fair Tax. Mike Huckabee made that a significant issue in his campaign. Many Huckabee supporters got involved in the Republican political process, for the first time. And, in my precinct, that of everyone else I talked to, and my subsequent Senatorial District Convention, there were Fair Tax Resolutions, and I’m sure the issue will appear at the state convention. Mike Huckabee was correct that it presents a huge simplification, balance across income of the federal tax system, and also taxes heretofore “underground” elements of the American economy like drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal aliens, and miscellaneous criminals who do not file, but do and must buy things. And, he also correctly and consistently stated that The Fair Tax would bring a great surge of investment and economic activity to The United States.
However, he should have more starkly linked that surge of economic activity to the fast-closing crisis of America’s inability to meet the mountain of entitlement liability that the federal government has taken on. Only such a dramatic change as The Fair Tax poses any possibility of meeting these liabilities without a titanic and, frankly crippling combination of tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation. Unless we move with great dispatch to promote economic expansion and the consequent revenue increase, probably all of these band-aids will be applied, and soon. And yes, they will be crippling, bringing great economic and physical suffering, as shortsighted liberal solutions almost inherently do. I’m sending/posting this because today I received an email from The Fair Tax organization, encouraging me to send the message below to encourage others to sign a Fair Tax petition to be presented to Congress, as I have:
If you haven’t any questions about how The Fair Tax would work or about possible problems, email me and I’ll tell you the potential problems I see. But simply put, those problems are infinitely smaller than the ones we now face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
With April 15th drawing near the folks at Americans for Fair Taxation (FairTax.org) are gathering 100,000 names for a "Pass the FairTax" petition to send a powerful message to Congress this Tax Day.
I just signed the petition at www.changedc.org and would encourage you to do the same.
The FairTax petition makes a powerful statement to Congress: It says there is a better way than the current income tax system with its 67,500 pages of cumbersome tax rules and regulations for which individuals and businesses spend $265 billion annually on filing and compliance. It's called the FairTax and it promises to unleash the American economy especially during these difficult times, and unshackle us, the American taxpayers, from yearly nightmare that is April 15th.
If you're not already familiar with the FairTax, here are the basics:
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including:
• A progressive national retail sales tax.
• A prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
• Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality.
• Repeal of the 16th Amendment through companion legislation.
Just imagine...bringing home your entire paycheck AND never having to file a tax return again! It's not a dream. It's called the FairTax, and you can help make it a reality.
If this sounds interesting, you can learn more at www.fairtax.org, and sign the "Pass the FairTax" petition there as well
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=changedc
I want to start writing some personal thoughts about my own situation and things I have strong convictions about. But, one thing I have talked and will talk about is The Fair Tax. Mike Huckabee made that a significant issue in his campaign. Many Huckabee supporters got involved in the Republican political process, for the first time. And, in my precinct, that of everyone else I talked to, and my subsequent Senatorial District Convention, there were Fair Tax Resolutions, and I’m sure the issue will appear at the state convention. Mike Huckabee was correct that it presents a huge simplification, balance across income of the federal tax system, and also taxes heretofore “underground” elements of the American economy like drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal aliens, and miscellaneous criminals who do not file, but do and must buy things. And, he also correctly and consistently stated that The Fair Tax would bring a great surge of investment and economic activity to The United States.
However, he should have more starkly linked that surge of economic activity to the fast-closing crisis of America’s inability to meet the mountain of entitlement liability that the federal government has taken on. Only such a dramatic change as The Fair Tax poses any possibility of meeting these liabilities without a titanic and, frankly crippling combination of tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation. Unless we move with great dispatch to promote economic expansion and the consequent revenue increase, probably all of these band-aids will be applied, and soon. And yes, they will be crippling, bringing great economic and physical suffering, as shortsighted liberal solutions almost inherently do. I’m sending/posting this because today I received an email from The Fair Tax organization, encouraging me to send the message below to encourage others to sign a Fair Tax petition to be presented to Congress, as I have:
If you haven’t any questions about how The Fair Tax would work or about possible problems, email me and I’ll tell you the potential problems I see. But simply put, those problems are infinitely smaller than the ones we now face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
With April 15th drawing near the folks at Americans for Fair Taxation (FairTax.org) are gathering 100,000 names for a "Pass the FairTax" petition to send a powerful message to Congress this Tax Day.
I just signed the petition at www.changedc.org and would encourage you to do the same.
The FairTax petition makes a powerful statement to Congress: It says there is a better way than the current income tax system with its 67,500 pages of cumbersome tax rules and regulations for which individuals and businesses spend $265 billion annually on filing and compliance. It's called the FairTax and it promises to unleash the American economy especially during these difficult times, and unshackle us, the American taxpayers, from yearly nightmare that is April 15th.
If you're not already familiar with the FairTax, here are the basics:
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including:
• A progressive national retail sales tax.
• A prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
• Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality.
• Repeal of the 16th Amendment through companion legislation.
Just imagine...bringing home your entire paycheck AND never having to file a tax return again! It's not a dream. It's called the FairTax, and you can help make it a reality.
If this sounds interesting, you can learn more at www.fairtax.org, and sign the "Pass the FairTax" petition there as well
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Support The Fait Tax And Sign This Fair Tax Petition...PLEASE!
Support The Fait Tax And Sign This Fair Tax Petition...PLEASE!
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=changedc
I want to start writing some personal thoughts about my own situation and things I have strong convictions about. But, one thing I have talked and will talk about is The Fair Tax. Mike Huckabee made that a significant issue in his campaign. Many Huckabee supporters got involved in the Republican political process, for the first time. And, in my precinct, that of everyone else I talked to, and my subsequent Senatorial District Convention, there were Fair Tax Resolutions, and I’m sure the issue will appear at the state convention. Mike Huckabee was correct that it presents a huge simplification, balance across income of the federal tax system, and also taxes heretofore “underground” elements of the American economy like drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal aliens, and miscellaneous criminals who do not file, but do and must buy things. And, he also correctly and consistently stated that The Fair Tax would bring a great surge of investment and economic activity to The United States.
However, he should have more starkly linked that surge of economic activity to the fast-closing crisis of America’s inability to meet the mountain of entitlement liability that the federal government has taken on. Only such a dramatic change as The Fair Tax poses any possibility of meeting these liabilities without a titanic and, frankly crippling combination of tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation. Unless we move with great dispatch to promote economic expansion and the consequent revenue increase, probably all of these band-aids will be applied, and soon. And yes, they will be crippling, bringing great economic and physical suffering, as shortsighted liberal solutions almost inherently do. I’m sending/posting this because today I received an email from The Fair Tax organization, encouraging me to send the message below to encourage others to sign a Fair Tax petition to be presented to Congress, as I have:
If you haven’t any questions about how The Fair Tax would work or about possible problems, email me and I’ll tell you the potential problems I see. But simply put, those problems are infinitely smaller than the ones we now face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
With April 15th drawing near the folks at Americans for Fair Taxation (FairTax.org) are gathering 100,000 names for a "Pass the FairTax" petition to send a powerful message to Congress this Tax Day.
I just signed the petition at www.changedc.org and would encourage you to do the same.
The FairTax petition makes a powerful statement to Congress: It says there is a better way than the current income tax system with its 67,500 pages of cumbersome tax rules and regulations for which individuals and businesses spend $265 billion annually on filing and compliance. It's called the FairTax and it promises to unleash the American economy especially during these difficult times, and unshackle us, the American taxpayers, from yearly nightmare that is April 15th.
If you're not already familiar with the FairTax, here are the basics:
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including:
• A progressive national retail sales tax.
• A prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
• Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality.
• Repeal of the 16th Amendment through companion legislation.
Just imagine...bringing home your entire paycheck AND never having to file a tax return again! It's not a dream. It's called the FairTax, and you can help make it a reality.
If this sounds interesting, you can learn more at www.fairtax.org, and sign the "Pass the FairTax" petition there as well
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=changedc
I want to start writing some personal thoughts about my own situation and things I have strong convictions about. But, one thing I have talked and will talk about is The Fair Tax. Mike Huckabee made that a significant issue in his campaign. Many Huckabee supporters got involved in the Republican political process, for the first time. And, in my precinct, that of everyone else I talked to, and my subsequent Senatorial District Convention, there were Fair Tax Resolutions, and I’m sure the issue will appear at the state convention. Mike Huckabee was correct that it presents a huge simplification, balance across income of the federal tax system, and also taxes heretofore “underground” elements of the American economy like drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal aliens, and miscellaneous criminals who do not file, but do and must buy things. And, he also correctly and consistently stated that The Fair Tax would bring a great surge of investment and economic activity to The United States.
However, he should have more starkly linked that surge of economic activity to the fast-closing crisis of America’s inability to meet the mountain of entitlement liability that the federal government has taken on. Only such a dramatic change as The Fair Tax poses any possibility of meeting these liabilities without a titanic and, frankly crippling combination of tax increases, benefit cuts, and monetary inflation. Unless we move with great dispatch to promote economic expansion and the consequent revenue increase, probably all of these band-aids will be applied, and soon. And yes, they will be crippling, bringing great economic and physical suffering, as shortsighted liberal solutions almost inherently do. I’m sending/posting this because today I received an email from The Fair Tax organization, encouraging me to send the message below to encourage others to sign a Fair Tax petition to be presented to Congress, as I have:
If you haven’t any questions about how The Fair Tax would work or about possible problems, email me and I’ll tell you the potential problems I see. But simply put, those problems are infinitely smaller than the ones we now face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
With April 15th drawing near the folks at Americans for Fair Taxation (FairTax.org) are gathering 100,000 names for a "Pass the FairTax" petition to send a powerful message to Congress this Tax Day.
I just signed the petition at www.changedc.org and would encourage you to do the same.
The FairTax petition makes a powerful statement to Congress: It says there is a better way than the current income tax system with its 67,500 pages of cumbersome tax rules and regulations for which individuals and businesses spend $265 billion annually on filing and compliance. It's called the FairTax and it promises to unleash the American economy especially during these difficult times, and unshackle us, the American taxpayers, from yearly nightmare that is April 15th.
If you're not already familiar with the FairTax, here are the basics:
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including:
• A progressive national retail sales tax.
• A prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
• Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality.
• Repeal of the 16th Amendment through companion legislation.
Just imagine...bringing home your entire paycheck AND never having to file a tax return again! It's not a dream. It's called the FairTax, and you can help make it a reality.
If this sounds interesting, you can learn more at www.fairtax.org, and sign the "Pass the FairTax" petition there as well
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)