The "Fair Tax" coming soon?

For each of the last six years a bill has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman John Linder (R-Georgia) which would eliminate the Federal income tax and replace it with a sales-like tax on all commercial transactions in the US. The bill (HR 25) which currently has 55 co-sponsors has been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

A book touting the bill has been co-authored by Congressman Linder and Neal Boortz, a libertarian talk radio host based in Atlanta. In the interest of full disclosure: your humble blogster has not read the book but believes he has a decent understanding of the legislative intent of the author.

The bill as introduced would abolish the current income tax, capital gains and estate taxes, eliminate the IRS and tax the sale of all goods and services at the rate of 23%. The proponents of the idea allege that the Fair tax is revenue neutral and would fund "current government expenditures at their present level". Provisions are included in the bill to re-emburse households for "basic living expenses".

The good news thus far? The present Byzantine tax code disappears as well as the gestapo-like Internal Revenue service. Also down the tubes is the ability of politicians to utilize the tax code for social engineering and to buy votes from various and sundry special interest groups. Labor and savings are not taxed and only consumption falls under the purview of the avaricious government. What's not to like?

Here are just a few of the possible down sides. Enactment of the legislation as written implies radical changes to, or outright repeal of the 16th Amendment. This requires the usual super majorities in Congress as well as ratification by the legislatures of three quarters of the states. No mean task in view of the politicians' addiction to the wielding of the taxing power at both the federal and state levels. The creation of fiat (paper and electronic) money by the politically manipulated Federal Reserve Bank as well as ongoing budgetary deficits will continue to exert inflationary pressures resulting in the temptation of Congress to raise the initial 23% rate higher.

The greatest danger your humble blogster sees in the movement of this legislation through the enactment process is the power of both houses of the Federal legislature to attach amendments. Heretofore the proposal has garnered little support from members of Congress from either party for obvious reasons. That situation is likely to change very soon for the following reason.

If the provision for repeal of the 16th Amendment is stripped from the bill the distinct possibility exists that the final version could be the enactment of the so called "Fair Tax" in addition to retention of the income tax. This euro-like monstrosity would be the "wet dream" of our current crop of collectivist politicians. We would for all intents and purposes be saddled with the European system of a progressive income tax in addition to an extremely regressive value added tax.

As Ms Duckwell says: "Be afraid. Be very afraid."

cross posted at: Eternity Road

Liberty versus Democracy

I for one believe that a serious problem exists in a discussion of today's issues especially as they relate to liberty. All too many of those opining on the subject of governments (or national security) appear to equate liberty with "democracy" when no such equation is valid. For example, the United Kingdom is classified as a "democracy" simply due to its form of government being a parliamentary system having universal suffrage and more or less "fair" elections. Its form of government qualifies it to be characterized as a "democracy" but to what extent is an individual's liberty valued when he can be prosecuted for publicly expressing opinions which conflict with those of the ruling elite or are deemed "insulting" by this or that protected group or is denied the natural right of self defense? Here in the US the population has become inured to hearing the political system referred to as a "democracy" simply due to the widespread use of the suffrage to select government officials.

Even though the founding document of the nation provides for a ponderous and convoluted process for its amendment the unelected federal judiciary have circumvented the process to such an extent that in its present form our political system bears virtually no resemblance to the intent of its authors. In point of fact the bulk of legislation as well as the regulatory ukases enacted since 1913 have no justification in the original Constitution or its 27 ratified amendments except through the tortured interpretation by life tenured judges.

During the recent ongoing and apparently permanent national political campaign all of the remaining contenders for the presidency have endorsed not only the need to enact sweeping and disastrous economic regulations to avert the non catastrophe of so called "global warming" but also the establishment of another supra national organization of the world's "democracies" due to frustration with the corruption and inertia of the United Nations.

"Thomas Carothers, vice president for studies at Carnegie, said "the world has no appetite for a U.S.-led league and many countries do not want the U.S. going around the U.N."

In fact, Carothers said, the United States cooperates often with non-democracies in its foreign policy. China's help in trying to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program is just one example, he said.

President Bush's Iraq war policy was bitterly opposed by two leading democracies, France and Germany, among others. But Bush went ahead despite their strong objections.

"It is wishful thinking" that a league of democracies would any more readily approve U.S. military intervention in support of another U.S. president, Carothers said."

Carothers has a valid point. Furthermore, how does a nation qualify objectively as a "democracy" and who exactly dictates the criteria? I somehow suspect that the politicians touting such a concept would characterize those nations supporting their favored foreign and domestic policies as "democracies".

It has been said that... "nations do not have friends; they have interests."

Water Torture Experts

The following are the words of Senator Edward Kennedy on the subject of "water-boarding", a SIMULATION of drowning performed on terrorists to extract information related to terrorist attacks on civilian targets:
"Water-boarding is torture. Torture is unacceptable. Period."

Mr Kennedy, a certifiable expert on the subject of water induced real death, opposes the use of the FEAR of drowning for national security purposes. Additionally we have noted that several journalists have voluntarily submitted to the procedure and some protesters have conducted water-boarding on volunteers on the steps of the nation's capitol. This leads us to wonder how many of these volunteers would agree to be passengers in a car driven by the Senator(D) from Chappaquiddick Massachusetts after "business" hours.

It should also be noted that no volunteers have come forward to submit to having their finger nails pulled out or their heads sawed off on camera. It appears that these "experts" on torture aren't as stupid as they believe the rest of us to be.

OK for Me but not for Thee!

The partisan outrage over President Bush's commutation of the sentence imposed on Lewis "Scooter" Libby rings a bit hollow in view of the multiple hundreds of such grants of clemency meted out by former President Clinton. Most of the beneficiaries of Clinton's mercy just by coincidence happened to be his former business associates, his family, campaign contributors and a gaggle of Puerto Rican terrorists who were convicted of serious felonies and at least one homicide. The latter pardons appear to have been issued in order to garner Puerto Rican votes for Mrs. Clinton in her Senate race.

Conversely, Mr. Libby was convicted of giving misleading testimony to a grand jury and federal investigators during an investigation of a "crime" the elements of which were never either alleged or proved. Additionally, the investigator KNEW Mr. Libby to be innocent of the non "crime" being investigated.

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ is unable to recount the vast number of instances during his investigative career for the county of Los Angeles wherein he was lied to. So far as is known none of the "liars" were ever prosecuted for doing so. It would appear that investigators for the Imperial Federal Government have an advantage over those who investigate ordinary and violent street crime. Could partisan politics possibly have anything to do with this?

When the punishment for the (non)"crimes" of Mr. Libby are compared to the punishment for the actual theft and destruction of secret documents from the National Archives by Mr. Berger who was Clinton's National Security Advisor, the political dimension of the entire CIA "leak" kerfuffel becomes glaringly obvious.

A Small Victory

Fresh from yesterday's obscene shoeless groveling (his wife was mercifully out of town or she would probably have shown up in burqua or head scarf. That is, if she were permitted in the building.) at the Washington mosque President Bush pronounced his "disappointment" on the failure of the Senate to pass his comprehensive amnesty bill. The first clue that the bill was a disaster was that it was the illegitimate brain child of the Senate's most anti liberty Senators, McCain and Kennedy. That the Democrat leadership in the Senate crafted it in secret and attempted to ram it through to passage before even the Senators were accorded time to read it was the second clue. Compounding the fiasco, was President Bush attempting to twist the arms of opposing Senators to support the travesty. Apparently he does not realize that he is a lame duck who, by attempting to appease his enemies has thrown away any political capital he retained after surrendering to the left on issues such as the campaign finance law, Kennedy's huge expansion of federal oversight of the public school system and the implementation of the government prescription drug scheme. All of this is on top of mismanagement of the conflict in Iraq. Mr Bush, in his pronouncement of "disappointment" goes on to insult our intelligence in his formal statement:

"I thank the members of the Senate and members of my administration who worked so hard on the border security and immigration reform bill. I'm sorry the Senate was unable to reach agreement on the bill this morning. Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people and Congress's failure to act on it is a disappointment. The American people understand the status quo is unacceptable when it comes to our immigration laws. A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find a common ground - it didn't work.

Mr. President, the Senate didn't "fail to act". It sent the monstrosity to where it belongs, to the rubbish heap! What is it about the American people observing a failure to enforce the law as a ploy to achieve the political objectives of special interest groups that Mr. Bush does not understand? Even an idiot understands that years of failure to enforce the immigration laws already on the books is the real source of the people's rage. It's the ENFORCEMENT stupid, and enacting more laws while refusing to enforce existing ones is so transparent that even the most obtuse cannot be fooled.

Mr. Bush has lost what credibility he may previously have possessed. It could only be worse if he abandoned the nation to the tender mercies of "The Religion of Peace". Oh. I forgot. He has started down that path already.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!!

Get Out of Jail Free

The U.S. Senate continues to debate the "Comprehensive amnesty Immigration" bill and from all appearances it will pass even in the teeth of opposition by a majority of the citizens who are aware of its provisions. Should it pass both houses of Congress and arrive on President Bush's desk, he will doubtless sign it. In signing this travesty into law he will be in effect PARDONING upwards of 12 million criminals. This will put to shame any claim that Bill Clinton handed out pardons like candy to criminals such as Mark Rich et al. One thing can be said of Clinton; at least he received a quid pro quo for his pardons in the form of cash or other gratification (if you know what I mean).

I can understand the logic behind the Democrats' support of the amnesty bill; after all, every one of these illegal immigrants is a potential Democrat voter. What is unclear as yet is the reasoning behind Bush's support for it while at the same time neglecting to pardon Lewis Libby who has in effect been sentenced for a crime he was not convicted of. Is Bush intimidated by the resulting caterwauling on the part of his enemies, thus losing additional political capital? In the words of John Stossel: "gimme a break". The entire Plame/Wilson affair was a political witch hunt. What does Bush have left to lose except what remains of his support by conservatives?

And Then??

When President Bush goes into the Texas sunset, and especially if he is replaced by an enlightened, world-embracing Democrat, [the Europeans', not to mention the anti war "libertarian" crowd's] one excuse, their sole explanation for all human suffering in the world will disappear too. And they may just find that the world is not as simple as they thought it was.

It’s been a great ride for the past six years, hasn’t it? George Bush and Dick Cheney and all those pantomime villains that succour him — the gay-bashing foot soldiers of the religious Right, the forktailed neoconservatives with their devotion to Israel, the dark titans of American corporate boardrooms spewing their carbon emissions above the pristine European skies. Having those guys around for so long provided a comfortable substitute for thinking hard about global challenges, a kind of intellectual escapism.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Political Power

Noting the earlier and earlier onset of the presidential campaign season each election cycle many are expressing surprise and puzzlement . With the accretion of so much power in the hands of government it is inevitable that those wishing to wield power over their fellow human beings will double their efforts to obtain it. It has even become apparent that those wishing to seize power will even resort to the expediency of subverting the national interest as well as national security. The libertarian Dr. Ron Paul is especially prescient in this matter:

Political Power and the Rule of Law

February 5, 2007

With the elections over and the 110th Congress settling in, the media have been reporting ad nauseam about who has assumed new political power in Washington. We're subjected to breathless reports about emerging power brokers in Congress; how so-and-so is now the powerful chair of an important committee; how certain candidates are amassing power for the 2008 elections, and so on. Nobody questions this use of the word "power," or considers its connotations. It's simply assumed, in Washington and the mainstream media, that political power is proper and inevitable.

The problem is that politicians are not supposed to have power over us-- we're supposed to be free. We seem to have forgotten that freedom means the absence of government coercion. So when politicians and the media celebrate political power, they really are celebrating the power of certain individuals to use coercive state force.

Remember that one's relationship with the state is never voluntary. Every government edict, policy, regulation, court decision, and law ultimately is backed up by force, in the form of police, guns, and jails. That is why political power must be fiercely constrained by the American people.

The desire for power over other human beings is not something to celebrate, but something to condemn! The 20th century's worst tyrants were political figures, men who fanatically sought power over others through the apparatus of the state. They wielded that power absolutely, without regard for the rule of law.

Our constitutional system, by contrast, was designed to restrain political power and place limits on the size and scope of government. It is this system, the rule of law, which we should celebrate--not political victories.

Political power is not like the power possessed by those who otherwise obtain fame and fortune. After all, even the wealthiest individual cannot force anyone to buy a particular good or service; even the most famous celebrities cannot force anyone to pay attention to them. It is only when elites become politically connected that they begin to impose their views on all of us.

In a free society, government is restrained--and therefore political power is less important. I believe the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else. In other words, the state as referee rather than an active participant in our society.

Those who hold political power, however, would lose their status in a society with truly limited government. It simply would not matter much who occupied various political posts, since their ability to tax, spend, and regulate would be severely curtailed. This is why champions of political power promote an activist government that involves itself in every area of our lives from cradle to grave. They gain popular support by promising voters that government will take care of everyone, while the media shower them with praise for their bold vision.
Political power is inherently dangerous in a free society: it threatens the rule of law, and thus threatens our fundamental freedoms. Those who understand this should object whenever political power is glorified.

Hat tip Free Republic

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Pot to Kettle: "Hi Blackie"

ACORN, (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) a national organization of low- and moderate-income persons, has been around since the early 1970s. The organization claims about 175,000 member families in 80 cities and advocates left-wing populist approaches to a variety of issues including public housing, jobs, wages, taxes, and voter registration.

ACORN has been calling for "living wages," which would raise wages for low-skilled workers and boost union membership.

While advocating living wages, though, ACORN has opposed paying even minimum wages to its own workers.

This was made apparent back in 1995, when ACORN sued the state of California to be exempted from paying its own workers the minimum wage. According to the December 21, 1995 ruling of the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District:

"ACORN contends that California's minimum wage laws ... are unconstitutional as applied to ACORN because they restrict ACORN's ability to engage in political advocacy. According to ACORN, this adverse impact will be manifested in two ways: first, ACORN will be forced to hire fewer workers; second, its workers, if paid the minimum wage, will be less empathetic with ACORN's low and moderate income constituency and will therefore be less effective advocates.

"Leaving aside the latter argument's absurdity (minimum wage workers are ipso facto low-income workers) as well as irony (an advocate for the poor seeking to justify starvation wages), we find ACORN to be laboring under a fundamental misconception of the constitutional law."

A 2003 study of ACORN by the Employment Policies Institute noted, "ACORN pays a wage of $5.67 per hour, less than half the level demanded by many proposed 'living wage' ordinances that ACORN supports."

Despite ACORN's demands that all workers be allowed to organize, ACORN has tried to prevent its own workers from joining unions. In March 2003, after firing workers who had tried to organize, ACORN lost its final appeal of a National Labor Relations Board ruling, which found ACORN had violated the rights of its employees to unionize.
more
Hat tip: John Ray

ACORN is the group that has submitted thousands of fraudulent voter registrations in Missouri and Illinois even though Democrats (Conyers, Gore et al) whine about "Republican voter fraud".

Debating: Sarcasm and Irony

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ, who engages occasionally in debates is attempting to resist the temptation to utilize sarcasm and irony overmuch. This is sometimes difficult and the examples put forward by such superb practitioners as Ann Coulter and others are tempting to emulate. An excellent example of both Sarcasm and irony is the following pearl courtesy of Sigmund Carl and Alfred:

Barbara Boxer’s ‘Freudian Slip’ is telling. First, she accused Condaleeza Rice of being a flawed decision maker. Then Ms Boxer insinuated that because she has no children, Condaleeza Rice cannot be as empathetic or sympathetic to those Americans who might lose a loved one.

Of course, that would mean Ms Boxer couldn't possibly understand the evil or significance of racism, because she isn’t black and thus her positions on race cannot be taken seriously.

Ms Boxer can [however] opine with some credibility on the matter of corruption. Among other things, she funneled $115,000 to Douglas Boxer & Associates, from a PAC for Change, her leadership political action committee.

Douglas Boxer calls the Senator, ‘Mommy.‘

It seldom gets better than that.
ht/ John Ray
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

The New Theocracy

For the last several years (during the Bush Administration) we have been treated to a newly coined word in the political lexicon, to wit: Neoconservative (neocon). The word has been used to describe those in both the political arena and society as a whole who have previously adhered to a leftist (liberal?) oriented political philosophy but who have undergone an epiphany of sorts and now support a more conservative political philosophy. These would include ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ who emerged from the "academic" system as a dedicated Marxist but made the political journey through conservativism to libertarianism. Another wag defines "neocon" as a liberal who has been mugged by reality. Examples of this designation would include such bureaucrats as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle and academics such as David Horowitz and Victor Davis Hanson. With the recent capture of the legislative branch of the U.S. government and the distinct possibility of the capture as well of the executive branch in 2008 by the Democratic Party the likelihood of a new political animal assuming power must be addressed. The "Neocoms". They are already deeply entrenched in academia and thus the mainstream media due to the influence of the major journalism schools. It is described by David Horowitz as a religious movement.

The Neo-communist left opposes America’s commitment to freedom and capitalism domestically as well as supporting (sometimes “critically”) America’s declared external enemies not because of what America does, but because of what they think America is. The Neo-communist left is impervious to facts because it is a political messianism, in essence a religious movement. Its delusions of social redemption are fed on a rich diet of anti-American myths. These myths were once generated in institutions funded by the Communist Party and other marginal radical sects. But that has all changed with the long march of the left during the last thirty years through America’s institutions of higher learning. The Neo-communist left is now entrenched on the faculties of America’s elite universities, where it is a “hegemonic” force. It has converted America’s elite universities into a political base for its radical and anti-American agendas. In the present war with radical Islam,[which the Neocoms either ignore or tacitly support] this poses a problem Americans can continue to ignore only at their own peril, and which sooner or later they must address.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

What Did He Say?

"An ABC News reporter said the incident occurred Tuesday outside of the Old Senate Chamber as members of the new Democratic leadership, of which Kerry is not a part, left the chamber en route to the Ohio Clock Corridor to discuss leadership elections, the incoming majority's agenda and Iraq.

The ABC reporter said Kerry left the room behind Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Caucus Secretary Patty Murray, D-Wash.; and Caucus Vice-Chair Schumer, D-N.Y. However, when Schumer noticed Kerry, D-N.Y., walking behind him, he turned and said something to the Massachusetts
senator that caused him to stop.

Kerry waited for the Democratic leaders to walk ahead and then ducked between two statues. The ABC reporter speculated that Schumer may have told Kerry to stay clear of the leadership shot.

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ would speculate Shumer said something along the lines of: "Go fetch 4 martinis."

What it Means

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ will finally weigh in with his take on the results of the recent exercise in plebean muscle-flexing. Of all the opinions expressed on the reasons for the Republicans having their asses handed to them on 07 November, George Will , an avowed conservative, most closely expresses the views of the libertarian ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ:

Republicans sank beneath the weight of Iraq, the lesson of which is patent: Wars of choice should be won swiftly rather than lost protractedly. Of course the election-turning issue was...incontinent spending by a Republican-controlled Congress trying to purchase permanent power.

The Iraq War, like the Alaska bridge [to nowhere], pungently proclaims how Republicans earned their rebuke. They are guilty of apostasy from conservative principles at home (frugality, limited government) and embrace of anti-conservative principles abroad (nation-building grandiosity pursued incompetently).

The most left-wing speaker in U.S. history will return to being minority leader in 2009 unless she eschews an agenda that cannot be enacted without requiring the many Democrats elected from Republican-leaning districts to jeopardize their seats.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Ignore That Man Behind the Curtain

On Dec 5 2002 Trent Lott stated at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday celebration:

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

Whereupon John Kerry stated:
"It saddens me greatly to suggest this, but in the interests of the Senate, his party, and the nation, I believe Trent Lott should step aside as majority leader," Kerry said. "I simply do not believe the country can today afford to have someone who has made these statements again and again be the leader of the United States Senate."

The non stop media feeding frenzy drove Lott from his leadership position in the U.S. Senate.

On October 30 2006 John Kerry stated:

"You know, education--if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

The mainstream media neglected to report this statement (as most of their reporters agree with it) until their darling, John McCain remarked on it and they were thus forced to address it.

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ is waiting for Howard Deane to attribute the Kerry remark to Rove induced hypnosis.

We are now exposed to the results of journalism students at the major "universities" responding to the query: "why have you chosen to major in journalism?" by the response "to save the world" instead of : "report the news".

Update: 11/02/06 08:52hrs EST

Francis Porretto:

[John] Kerry, whose brain is definitely not his finest organ, elected to counterattack, as if for anyone to call attention to the insulting implications of his remark was somehow beyond the pale -- "questioning his patriotism" redux. By doing so, he's demonstrated all the following:

* That his arrogance, expressed in his unwillingness ever to admit to a mistake, remains boundless;
* That his ability to foresee the consequences of his words and deeds approaches zero;
* That though his primary goal is power -- the presidency -- his secondary goal, and not far behind at all, is the exaltation of his own image and public profile;
* That his image/publicity obsession completely eclipses any sense of duty to his party or regard for its fortunes.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ