About Me

Name:JayPeriod
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

McCain Picks Up New Endorsement

Posted by JayPeriod on Friday, February 08, 2008 9:53:40 AM
It was reported today that there is one more person happy with the results of Super Tuesday; Mexican President Felipe Calderon.  In an article in the Los Angeles Times, he is said to have been pleased with the outcome Tuesday.  Apparently, he saw some very positive signs from those primaries in regards to "immigration reform."

Clearly, the Mexican President saw in the victories of Obama, Clinton and McCain the very real possibility that his citizens would receive an easy path to becoming American citizens.  This would allow them to continue to work here and send our money to his country.  Why wouldn't he be excited about the prospect of continuing the $25 billion influx of free money to his economy?

What he stated he saw was an atmosphere where most Americans are ready for reform.  I suppose he missed last October when Americans jammed Congressional phone banks to let representatives know, in no uncertain terms, that we will not accept any form of amnesty.  I suppose he missed the outrage of Americans at the possibility of illegals getting stimulus rebates.

Unfortunately, moderate Republicans (read: RINOs) have convinced independents and the mainstream media that McCain is the only hope that the Republicans have.  They have blasted the base, conservatives, because we want to hold our ground.  They have tried to convince everyone that McCain represents the new conservatism.   They have tried to convince us that issues don't matter.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

McCain's speech to CPAC  yesterday did nothing to convince me that he has learned his lesson on immigration reform.  Quite the contrary, he actually seems very smug that he is correct and we just need to get over it.  This must have made President Calderon very happy.  So, let's go ahead and nominate McCain.  Just make sure you learn to speak Spanish, and maybe we need to print our money in Spanish to make it easier on Mexican banks in the mean time.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

New Republican Strategy: Give Them What They Want

Posted by JayPeriod on Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:44:11 PM
When you have an immature child, kicking and screaming, wanting their way, sometimes it's just easier to give them what they want and let them learn to deal with the consequences.

With McCain gaining steam in the Republican primaries, I have been hearing more and more Conservatives who have a new strategy for the general election.  With it looking more and more like a McCain-Clinton or McCain-Obama race, Conservative minds like Rush Limbaugh are thinking the unthinkable; voting Democrat.  On the surface it might sound crazy, but the more I think about it, it just might have some merit.

The general thought is that with McCain, we get liberal thinking and actions.  McCain has worked with the liberals in Congress more than any other Republican since Jeffords.  Many have wondered why he hasn't switched sides.  He has the adoration of the liberal press and often abandons some of the strongest Conservative principals.

As Rush, and others, have pointed out, if we are going to get liberal talk and action, we might as well have a liberal in office.  If that is the case, at least we can look forward in hope.  If someone is going to set America back, let it be a Democrat, then we can get the White House, and hopefully Congress, back in the next cycle.

As I've looked at the candidates this year, I have had a big problem with almost all of them, at least the ones that have been up front.  I understand that I will not find any one candidate that I agree 100% with, I just want someone that I don't disagree with on major points.  That just hasn't happened this year.

While the Conservative platform is varied, with abortion and gun rights among principal points, the most important factors in this election are national security, immigration and the economy.  There just doesn't seem to be one candidate that fits the Conservative bill in all those issues.  That is troublesome.

So, with that in mind, I'm warming to the idea of electing a Democrat.  It will be hard to pull the lever for someone so socialistic minded as Obama or Clinton, but if it is for the ultimate good of the country, I may just have to swallow hard and do it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Needed: True Conservative

Posted by JayPeriod on Friday, January 18, 2008 3:10:52 PM
On the eve of the South Carolina primary, the Republican part is still looking for 1) a front runner and 2) a true conservative.  It think if they party can find its true conservative, it will have found its front runner.  To this point, the conservative base is not excited and may not be motivated to venture out to the polls.

I believe, though, there is a true conservative in the race.  Fred Thompson has the credentials to be that candidate.  I'm not alone in my beliefs, either.  Today, Townhall columnist David Limbaugh also expresses his opinion that Fred can well represent the GOP in November.

Fred Thompson is a true Constitutionalist.  Fred believes that government is too large and has a plan to reduce it.  He is a straight-talking individual.  With Fred, you know where both you and he stand.  His voting record in the Senate affirms his commitment to conservative values.

I'm not making this endorsement lightly, either.  As a resident of Tennessee, Fred Thompson was my Senator.  I am a person who believes in being in constant communication with my elected representatives, and Fred was no different.  I found Fred to be responsive and understood the needs of Tennessee, as well as the US.  When action was needed, Fred took action.  I had one personal problem with the US Postal Service in our town and Fred took action and made my complaint known to the Postmaster General, acting as my advocate with them.

While I have never met Fred face to face, or even had need to speak to him by phone, I have found him a man of the people.  I do believe he is a conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan.  I believe he will protect us from dangers abroad, from illegal immigration, will cut taxes as well as spending, and make for a firm, positive face for America to the world.  He is what the GOP needs.

I know there are those who are concerned that he will not be able to challenge either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama.  This is completely unfounded.  As I have pointed out in many posts, conservative values always win elections.  Compromise, such as that of Giuliani, McCain and Romney will only give the Democratic nominee the opportunity to claim to be the most conservative.  We cannot allow that to happen.

I hope as people head to the polls over the next fews weeks, they will remember to look for the conservative in the race.  Don't let the MSM tell you there is not one.  There is one and he needs our support.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tax Relief

Posted by JayPeriod on Friday, January 18, 2008 11:50:32 AM
The President, Congress and every Presidential candidate is talking about immediate tax relief.  I can think of no better tax relief for the American people than to eliminate the IRS today.  Yet, no one is talking about that.

If taxes were removed from everyone's paycheck, everyone would immediately have extra money.  Of course, you have to be a worker to get this kind of tax relief.  Now, how fair is that?

At this point, there is only one plan to eliminate the IRS and payroll taxes.  That is the FairTax plan.  Yet, there is no clear plan to push this plan to the front.  How sad.  A plan such as this, would really bolster the economy and consumer confidence.

Of course, all of this is aside from the over $60 billion wasted on earmarks that could have been cut out.  That, as well, would have a profound impact on the economy, in a positive way.  But, let's not muddy the waters by talking about responsible spending.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ACLU On The Wrong Side Yet Again

Posted by JayPeriod on Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:47:17 AM
The ACLU has come out this week to say that bathroom stall sex is a protected right, defending disgraced Senator Larry Craig.  As time goes on, I'm constantly amazed at the "rights" the ACLU is able to find in the Constitution.  At the same time, the cases they fail or refuse to take tells us a lot about what they really think about individual rights.

At the same time they are defending Craig's right to have gay sex in a public restroom, there is no word from them on the cases of the Shifflett's and Mafi's.  Those cases involve actual rights being violated, by judicial fiat, to strip them of their parental rights.  This speaks volumes about the communist founded ACLU.

What I take from this is that the agenda of the ACLU is to destroy America, and its values, from the inside.  This, again, lines up with the threats of the communists of the 1950s, to destroy and take over America from the inside.  Viewing the cases the ACLU decides to take, and those they reject or refuse, no reasonable person could deny otherwise.

Sadly, we, the American people, seem complacent.  There is no outrage.  There is no uproar.  While there have been votes to establish the will of the American people on such topics as traditional marriage, the ACLU has fought to have those votes overturned.  On a few occasions, nothing has been done to fight back.

It is very unfortunate that more people do not see the agenda of the ACLU.  I refrain from calling it hidden as it is anything but.  Apparently, most still believe the ACLU has America's "best interest" at heart.  I hope this will change and we can run the ACLU out of our beloved country.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rights Violation Updates

Posted by JayPeriod on Monday, January 14, 2008 4:47:48 PM
In recent weeks, I've highlighted a couple of stories of families whose rights have been violated by out of control judges.  I have found a few updates and wanted to share them.  One is good news, one is incredible arrogance.

In the case of Denise Mafi, the mother who was threatened by Judge Scott Johansen, has had her court dated abandoned.  It does not mean the it has been dismissed, but it is a step in the right direction.  The Home School Legal Defense Association has taken on the case and is arguing that the judge over stepped his bounds and violated her rights.  The court has canceled the January 19 court date they had set to determine if she should be jailed for not registering her children for school.

In the case of Jonathan Shifflett, the 11-year-old boy abducted from his home by a SWAT team because his father refused to allow paramedics to take him to the hospital after an accident, the sheriff, Lou Vallario, is defending his decision to use excessive force and a SWAT team because, according to him, Jonathan's father, Tom, stated that if the sheriff was going to take the boy, he should "bring an army."  This constituted a threat to him.  I have news for this sheriff, if someone showed up to take my children against my will, I might feel the same way.  The sheriff cited other incidents where Tom was protecting his property, but of which no charges were ever filed.  Therefore, the sheriff believes that if you plan to defend your property and family, you are deserving of having your home invaded by the KGB.

Both of these instances have gotten a lot of public outcry.  Things are happening and those violating rights are feeling the heat.  Hopefully, this will spark enough outrage across the country that incidents like these will cease to happen.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Clinton vs. Bush Justice Departments

Posted by JayPeriod on Monday, January 14, 2008 4:28:23 PM
We keep hearing in the mainstream media just how bad the justice department under President Bush is.  They talk about the rights that have been stripped due to programs such as the wiretapping of al-Qaeda members and the Patriot Act.  We are warned that if we don't keep our eye on them, they will demolish the Constitution.

Hogwash!

What we have had out of the Bush Justice Department is a program to track and spy on enemies of the United States.  They have tapped the phones of those who side with bin Laden and use that intel to protect us.  They have denied terrorists access to lawyers and American courts.  Seeing how liberal those courts are, they'd likely hand over the keys to the country if they did hear from these terrorists.  They have also put into place programs which are intended to protect us from invasion and defeat.

It's been over 6 years since an attack on our soil.

Clinton's Justice department, on the other hand, brought us such incidents as Waco and the Elian Gonzales tragedy in Miami.  In each of these events, it was not terrorists who suffered, but America families.  Their rights were stolen.

We've been told that the Branch Davidians in Waco were a danger to our way of living.  We have had it pointed out that the group in Waco was a cult.  Well, last time I checked, being a cult wasn't reason to have your property assaulted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

The only reason BATF has ever given for storming the compound in Waco is that they had purchased a large amount of firearms.  There had been reports of other offenses, such as holding some against their will or underage marriages, but that's no reason to bring in the BATF.  The only reason BATF would be warranted would be firearms violations.  Even at that, the leader, David Koresh, was seen in town on multiple occasions and could have been arrested there.

No, Janet Reno determined that an all out military-style assault was needed.  In the aftermath, all were lost.  Most importantly, rights were lost.

The same think happened in the case of Elian Gonzales.  His mother risked, and lost, her life to get her son out of Cuba.  His relatives in Miami were trying to get him asylum so he wouldn't have to go back to Cuba.  Yet, the Clinton Justice Department decided to bow to the media darling, Fidel Castro, rather than offer him political asylum.  So, the family's home was stormed, circa 1939 Germany and Soviet Russia, and the boy was taken.  He was sent back to Cuba, where he will stand no chance at a decent life.  The family's home and rights were invaded and stolen.

Clearly, the Bush Justice Department has had the rights and protection of the American people in mind.  Clearly, the Clinton Justice Department did not.  Yet, the mainstream media fails to show the difference.  Instead, they focus on the Bush Justice Department firing a handful of employees who were found to be not fulfilling their duties.  Oh, and don't forget that Clinton fired all of them when he came to power instead of just a handful.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nazi Colorado, USA

Posted by JayPeriod on Friday, January 11, 2008 8:08:19 AM
I just wanted to give a follow up to the article I wrote the other day on the home invasion of a family by their local SWAT team.  WorldNetDaily has posted a follow up article which has many quotes from the mother of the family, the Shiflett's.  Please read this story and the follow up.  We need to make sure this kind of action is removed from our nation.  As someone in the article points out, the police didn't mind breaking in with the SWAT team on a family that didn't want to take their child to the doctor, but they won't even arrest an illegal immigrant stealing someone's Social Security number.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Did Someone Think First?

Posted by JayPeriod on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 3:18:19 PM
I suppose since it has to do with the government, I should suppose that no one thought before they acted.  The FDA has been approving new drugs on its fast track and more and more drugs are being pulled for having dangerous side affects that they couldn't have possibly know because there weren't enough tests.  Now, Congress moved to stop global warming (oops, global climate change) that they may have acted too fast and may do more damage to the environment.

As part of the new energy bill, regular light bulbs are being outlawed because they use just too much electricity.  In doing so, they are causing the planet to warm and melt the ice caps.  We are going to be forced to purchase the expensive compact florescent lightbulbs, CFLs.  This will save the planet.

Or, so they thought.  A study that was released in Great Britain shows that the amount of mercury in the CFLs may be high enough to require you to leave the room for 15 minutes if it breaks.  Some debate this idea, but in any event, that mercury will be released into landfills as they are thrown away and broken as other trash settles on top of it.  That mercury will then trickle down into the water tables, killing wildlife and plant life.

The alternative is for us to turn them into recycle centers, which will have to be set up to handle the bulbs.  Of course, they'll want to charge us for this recycling, which most won't pay, so the bulbs will end up in the landfill any way.  Our government has outsmarted itself once again.  All this could have been avoided if they just wouldn't get into this knee-jerk reactionary mindset.  With more and more scientists, in all fields, walking away from the idea that man is affecting climate change, due in part to the complete lack of actual evidence, it seems a little research and thinking would have been well advised before we start killing fish and plants with high levels of mercury.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Do They Even Listen?

Posted by JayPeriod on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 2:55:25 PM
As someone who makes a regular habit of contacting my elected officials, sometimes I still have to wonder if they really are listening to us.  We are not a direct democracy, but are a representative democracy.  That means we don't get to vote on every issue, but rather elect someone to make those choices for us.  That, of course, implies that they listen to us, but I'm not so sure that really happens.

You need look no further back than this past summer, when the Shamnasty bill was being considered.  Clearly, an overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of any form of amnesty for illegals in this country.  Any form.  Yet, Congress and the President continued to work on compromises which would have granted just that.  In fact, it took an extreme amount of phone calls, jamming phone systems, to get them to turn away from this disgrace.

Also, in state after state, the people vote in overwhelming majorities for the protection of traditional marriage.  Yet, several states are now considering bills which go directly the opposite direction.  It's as if they just don't care and think they know better than us.

Last year, the Democrats were put into power, not because of the war, but in spite of it, on the promise of a more fiscally responsible government.  Yet, the recent appropriation bills that were sent to the President were littered with irresponsible spending and earmarks.  Of course, they were whittled down after several threats of veto.  So, here we are, one year later, and our government is no more responsive to us or concerned with what we think.

I sincerely hope in the coming year, the American people will wake up and hold their hands to the fire.  We need to make sure they know that we are not happy and we are not going to take it any more.  But, are we, the American people, really that fed up?  Maybe they are waiting for our voice after all.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

So, Where Is Janet Reno?

Posted by JayPeriod on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:56:27 PM
It was just a few weeks ago that I wrote about judges stealing educational rights from parents with the irresponsible judge in Utah, Scott Johansen, threatening to take the kids of Denise Mafi because she chose to homeschool.  He had determined that his belief that homeschooling was bad trumped her parental rights.  It was just one more place where liberal, activist judges were completely comfortable with destroying both our rights and our Constitution.  Read it here.

In a move reminiscent of Janet Reno's siege of the home of Elian Gonzales' family, a magistrate in Colorado sent a SWAT team to steal an 11-year-old boy from his family following an accident in their home.  The parents and other children were handcuffed, at gunpoint, after the Gestapo team broke down the door to the family's home.  The boy was drug against his will to the hospital for medical evaluation under the supervision of the local social services.

The story begins as the young boy and his older sister we joking around and the boy grabbed the door handle of his sister's car as she drove away.  He fell and bumped his head.  His parents rushed to his aid and carried him into their home.  The father, a former medic in Vietnam, examined the boy for concussion and determined, when there were no signs, that all was well.  A short time later, paramedics arrived, at the request of a neighbor who had called 911, and asked to examine the boy.  The parents refused.

The paramedics contacted the local sheriff, who informed them that the parents had the right to refuse service.  They then contacted social services, who contacted the magistrate, who then sent the sheriff and SWAT team to retrieve the boy.  They arrived at the home the following day, broke the door down and entered the room, weapons drawn, and demanded that they boy be handed over.

The boy was taken to the hospital and examined by the doctor.  After examining the boy, the doctor determined there was nothing wrong and released him to his family.  It was suggested by the doctor that he use ice on his head.  He had already been doing just that.

We live in a world in which no judge or social worker will remove Britney Spear's kids from her custody, until she makes threats and holds them hostage for three hours.  Yet, someone who is a Christian or homeschooler wants to make decisions about their children which does not line up with the "it takes a village" mentality, their rights are violated and their children threatened.

I do not expect that it will change any time soon, either.  Judges are getting bolder and bolder.  They don't mind stealing our rights and subjecting us to their decisions, regardless of how we, or the Constitution, feel.  It will continue to happen, as well, until they are held accountable.  They are typically unelected and feel no obligation to be accountable to the people they serve.

What do I suggest?  They Mayan's had doctors who performed brain surgery.  It was understood that if they patient died, the doctor was buried with them.  Now, I'm not suggesting burying the judges, but if they make a ruling that is ultimately detrimental to society, they should be open to damages from the injured party.  For example, if a judge releases someone who was has sexually abused children in the past and they are found guilty of doing it after they are released, the judge should be liable for damages to the family of the child abused after his release.  Judges might think twice before releasing dangerous criminals.

In any event, until judges are brought into accountability to the public, they will continue to exercise judicial fiat and steal our rights.  What we cannot afford to do is to simply sit by and do nothing.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iowa Review

Posted by JayPeriod on Friday, January 04, 2008 10:34:54 AM
So, now the Iowa caucuses are behind us.  Mike Huckabee had a clear advantage over the field, but what does it all really mean?  Is the White House the next stop?

I think we first have to look at the process.  Since a caucus is not an actual voting process, its results must be suspect.  When I vote, I must go, show my ID, step into the booth, pull the lever and leave.  The caucus process requires the voter to show up and stay for a few hours for their vote to be counted.  As such, many, many voters didn't bother to show up.  Just as some candidates didn't.

While the people of Iowa may have many characteristics of the average American, love of God and country, the process keeps the actual views of Iowans from being expressed.  Huckabee was able to energize the evangelical vote and to paint himself as a staunch conservative.  His efforts paid off.

So, does that mean that New Hampshire's primary next Tuesday will be a better judge of how the race will play out?  I don't think so.  New Hampshire is a northeastern state with northeastern principals.  This is an area where taxes are high, government programs are big, and traditional morality is often mocked.  While New Hampshire might be a true test of the Democratic party, it hardly represents the conservative values of Middle America.

It may well be February 5th before we get a true picture of how the Republican party will shake out.  In that day, we should get a clear front runner, though several candidates may claim victory.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Judicial Fiat

Posted by JayPeriod on Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:27:49 PM
Worries over the Patriot Act and Bush's wiretap program have nothing on the stripping of rights being taken on by courts.  Every week, usually without our knowledge, courts across this nation are trampling on and steeling our rights.  This all happens mostly by judges that have no accountability to the people.  Unlike our elected officials, who must face the electorate and justify their decisions, judges use their own personal beliefs and foreign laws to force their will on us, and we generally have no way to repeal their decisions.

A recent case has gotten no media attention, has to do with a homeschooling mother in Utah, Denise Mafi.  She has been homeschooling her children for many years.  She has abided by the state rules of registering her children with the local school board.  For the 2006-07 year, her paperwork was lost at the board office.  She was unaware of any problem, especially when she received approval after submitting her 2007-08 paperwork.

She was unaware, this is, until she received a notice from the court that there was a problem.  Enter Judge Scott Johansen.  Upon her appearance in his court, he informed her she must enroll her children in public school or face prison and have her children removed from her custody.  Even after she enrolled her two youngest children in public school and her two oldest in a curriculum approved by the local school board, Judge Johansen told her she would still have to appear in court to determine if she would spend time in jail and have her children taken from her.

During the court proceedings, Judge Johansen made several comments which should certainly tarnish his decision.  These comments were based solely on his opinion, not on law.  He told her she was in court, "because you homeschool."  He also stated that homeschooling fails 100 percent of the time and that he wasn't going to allow it.  Apparently, Judge Johansen, is the sole judge of what works in education and what parents rights should be concerning their children's education.

Now, the case has taken another twist of trampling of rights.  Judge Johansen also told Mafi that she was not allowed to leave the jurisdiction of the court.  In otherwords, even after she compromised her beliefs and forfeited her rights by enrolling them in school, Judge Johansen could decide if she could move or not.  Mafi has since abandoned her home, moved to another state and is in hiding.  She is also a fugitive from the court.  If found, she will be extradited to Utah to face Judge Johansen.  Judge Johansen has now become the sole arbiter in whether a parent can move to better their children's education.

This is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.  When one man can steal the rights of one family so blatantly, it is time for action.  The Utah legislature is now talking about the issue and the Utah Home Education Association is taking the case.  If the Utah legislature won't do something, it will fall to the federal government.  Of all the "rights" the Supreme Court has "discovered" in the Constitution, a parent's right to raise their children must be protected.  Truthfully, we the American people, should not be satisfied with anything less than this judge, Scott Johansen, being jailed for subverting the Constitution, something his oath of office proclaimed he would never do.

This case brings to mind problems homeschooling families have been having in Germany of late.  German judges are using Nazi-era laws to jail parents who choose to homeschool their children.  They simply claim that homeschooling subverts society and is not in the interest of German society.  Hitler passed these laws to prevent parents from opposing his rule.  German judges are using them to indoctrinate children to current worldviews.  It seems now, at least Judge Johansen, feels the same responsibility in Utah.

I respectfully request that readers contact both the Utah legislature and their US Senator and Representative.  Let them know this cannot happen in America.  It is time to stop judicial fiat while we have time, before judges make it illegal.

News on this story can be found here and here on WorldNetDaily.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tax Reform

Posted by JayPeriod on Thursday, December 13, 2007 3:13:42 PM
There is no doubt that Americans are ready for tax reform.  Every year, April 15 is viewed with more fear than a teenage girl in one of the Halloween movies.  We are over-taxed and under-represented, and that goes for the ones at the bottom of the income spectrum as well as those at the top.

Mike Huckabee's surge in the polls has much to do with his support for the FairTax.  Until recent, I knew only a little about this proposed reform, but after reading Neal Boortz's articles, I have learned much more about what it expects to do and what it proposes.  Still, there are many who are against it, fearing that the rich will not pay their "fair" share.  I guess they are using a different, Bill Clinton-esque, definition of fair.

To that end, though, I think there are a few changes I would make to the proposal.  First, I would eliminate the "prebate."  I understand the reason for this portion, to ensure that those making below the poverty level are not paying taxes, but I disagree with it.  I think that most of the time, the amount they pay will not amount to much.  I also fear everyone in America getting, and becoming dependent on, a check from the government.  Eliminating the prebate from the plan would allow the consumption tax to be less.  This would be of more benefit to all.

Second, I think the biggest problem with the plan is that it allows current runaway spending to continue unabated.  Spending must be controlled and reduced.  Our economy needs it to be reduced to continue to grow.  There is so much wasteful spending, we should not be content with current spending levels.

I believe that, along with the FairTax bill, a bill should be submitted that limits what Congress can spend and on what they can spend it on.  The bill should remove certain elements of the current budget.  Our government has the responsibility to our defense, not health care.  A bill limiting spending to those things necessary on a federal level would reduce the tax burden and free states to control their own destinies, such as education.  Earmark spending and programs that are antiquated, PBS and NEA, should be outlawed and trimmed.

If this companion bill were passed, the amount of the FairTax would be further reduced.  This would be more helpful than any prebate.  As I stated, our economy would greatly benefit from a federal budget of approximately 60-70% of what it is now.  Perhaps, this would allow us to get by on a FairTax of closer to 18% rather than the 23% suggested.  This would cause prices to decrease rather then remain level.

I can get behind any bill that eliminates the IRS.  Reducing the bureaucracy in the tax system, making life simpler for average Americans, will restore faith in our nation and show the world that our "experiment" works.  I think reducing taxes and spending will resonate will with most.  I only hope whoever wins the nomination, and ultimately the election, will give serious consideration to true tax reform, which must include spending reform.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They Just Don't Get It

Posted by JayPeriod on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:51:14 PM
Congress is preparing to adjourn in the next few days.  They have only a few loose ends to wrap up.  They have to take care of the AMT, troop funding and funding the government for the next year.  That's all.

As of now, Republicans and Democrats are not talking to one another on the issues.  Democratic leadership is determined to attach strings to the funding of the troops.  Never mind that the surge is working.  Never mind that our troops need this funding to continue to make the progress they have been making.  Congressional Democrats are not satisfied with how the Iraqi government is operating.  As I've said before, in that case, we should pull out of Washington!  This is more stalling and proves that the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Rangle, Kennedy, among others, just don't care about our troops.  They only care about what George Soros and MoveOn thinks.

Twenty-three million people will be affected if a patch is not passed for the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT.  These will not be the wealthy Americans, but average, Middle-class Americans.  I guess Democrats don't care, then, because it's not going to affect their base.  Democrats are determined that to pass this patch taxes have to be raised.  They just don't get it; Americans are tired of taxes going up, no matter who they are being raised on.  It has never occurred to them that they could cut spending to pay for this patch.

Speaking of cutting spending, they have not been able to pass 11 appropriation bills, so they want to put them into one giant omnibus spending bill.  This will enable them to put in more earmarks than if they had to do each appropriation bill separately.  So, they are putting more earmark spending in this omnibus bill than the previous Congress, which they blasted to get elected.  So much for bringing integrity back to Congress.  So, to put this in perspective, they are willing to shut down the government and raise the taxes on Middle-class Americans so they won't have to cut their precious earmarks.

I'm not sure if they are arrogant or ignorant.  Apparently they think we are ignorant.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234567Next »