After watching the ABC GOP debate last Sunday (8-5-07) and re-watching it again a few times on Youtube, I felt compelled to address some comments made about the FairTax.

For those who didn't see the debate, the question posed to the candidates was; Do you support the FairTax?

Huckabee, as he has done in past debates, did an outstanding job explaining the benefits of the FairTax.

Romney either doesn't quite get it, has bad advisor's telling him about the FairTax, or prefers the punitive tax system we have today.

Romney's mentioned the Presidents commission on taxation not favoring the FairTax. If he read the report they didn't think the FairTax as written would pass a vote so they altered the concept and made the tax an exclusive rather than an inclusive tax. After making changes to the plan the commission then looked at the plan and ended up not recommending it.

Romney said that the tax would only apply new home sales. While he is correct on that fact, he misses the meaning and value of only taxing new home sales. Under the current tax code we only pay federal taxes once, that being when a newly built home is sold for the first time. Those taxes are; the employee income taxes and corporate taxes of the builder and any company that made products used to construct the home.

Romney also said we must consider how only taxing new home sales would effect the construction industry. Well, we only pay federal taxes on new home sales now, and since the FairTax is designed to replace the inclusive taxes that are already paid with a revenue neutral inclusive tax (in other words it would not raise or lower the total sale price from what it is now), then the effect on construction is that the construction company building new homes no longer has to have an accountant spend hours making sure they comply with payroll taxes and corporate taxes, thus their overhead is reduced. Add to that people would be bringing home what they actually earned then there may be more buyers in the market for those new homes.

Even if people favored buying older existing homes instead of new homes (thinking they are somehow escaping the payment of taxes) it would result in more people buying, maintaining, fixing up and remodeling older homes. So maybe there would be less clearing of wood land or farm land outside cities to make way for new home development projects while existing homes in towns and cities are left to become a blight on the communities in which they exist. If it makes since to recycle paper, plastic, and metal why not apply that logic to our homes too?

Now on to Giuliani.

After stating a few things he would do, like eliminate the death tax, he says that if we were starting off from the beginning the no taxes would be best, but after that said either the flat tax or fair tax would be the way to go.

So now I must ask, why is it the way to go if starting from the beginning but not the change we need to make now given the current system is so messed up? Are we not at a point after attempting to fix the current system so many times in the last 100 plus years that the bes t thing is to just start over?

He says it would be to complex to get from the system we have now to the system laid out in the FairTax. He must not have read, or understood, the plan because it lays it out in fairly plain English. As of January 1^st the year after the FairTax is passed no company will with hold taxes from employees and with cease paying corporate taxes. At the same time the retailers and service providing companies will begin collecting taxes on the products or services they sell.

He then questions who would administer the sales tax with no IRS. Again he makes a comment which shows his lack of understanding. Under the FairTax plan the States use their already existing sales tax collection systems to collect the FairTax, then they pass those funds, minus a collection fee to cover their added costs, on to the federal governments Treasury.

Then he asks who will administer the people who are exempt from the sales tax, and what items might be exempt from the sales tax. Again a huge example of how he doesn't understand the plan. The whole idea behind the FairTax is that there are no exemptions! It is exemptions and credits which are part of the problem now so the ideas to to get rid of those favors and treat every one equally and fairly.

Then McCain's turn.

Well other than calling for the elimination of the AMT (alternative minimum tax) he is pretty much for the current system. No surprise there, that has been his stance all along. One thing he did mention was calling in Greenspan and asking for his recommendations for tax reform then vote on them yes or no. This scares me a bit. When did one man become the tax God? Is he the only person in this country who can have a good idea about taxes? Greenspan spent 13 years as the Fed chairman (1987 to 2000) In that 13 years we attempted to reform taxes many times, yet we are no better off today that we were when he was appointed Fed chairman. Time for some new ideas rather than turn to those who have contributed to the problem, or failed to fix it, for help.

The only point McCain made that was on target was the 140 billion dollar cost to the nation each year just to comply with the code. Imagine if our federal government had the money it spends each year to enforce the tax code free to spend elsewhere. Well, they would just miss appropriate it on earmarks.

Lastly Tancredo.

And for the first time I heard him speak on the FairTax and he, like Huckabee has nailed it. His comments towards Giuliani to read the book, and then saying he should know more than he does if he read it as he claims were spot on.

The his point about how the current system is used to manipulate behavior is also perfect. I'm glad to see another candidate speaking so passionately about the FairTax.

My thoughts about the candidates after this latest debate.

I knew going in that Romney and McCain were not FairTax supporters. Giuliani, who I had not heard speak on the subject before this has lost some of my support. I like his stance on other issues, such as the War on Islamic Terror, but if the choice is him and another like Huckabee or Tancredo, I'll go with one of them before I support Giuliani.

Prior to this debate I was a big supporter or Huckabee, now I list Tancredo at the top of my list as well.

If you want to see the debate on Youtube go there and search for ABC GOP debate 08/05/07. It is broken up into 9 parts. The FairTax question is asked in part 7 and continues in part 8. (there is a bit of overlap, the first 1:30 seconds of part 8 is the last 1:30 of part 7)

In an e-mail today the NRCC National Republican Congressional Committee asked people to submit blog posts about why they are proud to be an American. The NRCC takes the submissions then reviews them and decides which ones to post, so I doubt mine will pass muster but I wanted to share it so I'm posting it here on TH.....I hope you like it.

----------------------------------------------

Why I'm Proud to Be An American

Today I am proud to be an American for many reasons, but the most significant and recent example of why I'm proud is the defeat of the immigration reform bill on June 28th.
 
The bill was the worst piece of proposed legislation to hit the senate floor in quite some time. What made it such a bad bill was the way it was put together outside the normal process and those that put it together tried to rush it through the Senate without a chance for it to be examined masses or have it thoroughly discussed debated and if necessary amended.
 
Democrat support for this bill was to be expected, it is exactly the "vote buying" type of legislation I have come to expect from Liberals. The scary part about the bill was how much Republican support it had. By participating in the creation of the immigration reform bill the President was willing to sacrifice the economic and physical security of the country in exchange for allowing a large number of criminals to be given a chance to obtain a reward for their crimes. This is illogical in a nation that is existing in a time after the events of 9/11/01 and founded on the rule of law.
 
The bill was defeated by the people speaking up and making sure their Senators knew what the public opinion of the bill was. Some Republican Senators followed logic, common since, and conservative ideals in their opposition of the bill from day one. Some Republican Senators fish flopped back and fourth on the issue voting against it in May the for in in the first June vote, and then against it again on June 28th.
 
Then there was the core group of so called Republican Senators which supported the bill from day one. Apparently Senators Craig (R-ID), Graham (R-SC), Gregg (R-NH), Hagel (R-NE), Kyl (R-AZ), Lott (R-MS), Lugar (R-IN), Martinez (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ), Snowe (R-ME), and Specter (R-PA) have lost touch with their conservative ideals. None of these men are my Senator, thank God! But thanks to this issue and their actions for the immigration reform bill there is no chance I will ever vote for any of them for any office, such as McCain who is running for the Republican nomination for president.
 
Thanks to Democrats and others such as Trent Lott pushing for the return fairness doctrine despite liberal control of almost every broadcast main stream media source our next major fight will be against those that wish to limit speech and expression over the broadcast airwaves by the power of the government. By the way those of us that opposed the immigration reform bill were opposed based on our own beliefs and ideals, not what "Talk Radio" told us to think. What "Talk Radio" did was give us, the people, a place to express our frustration that we couldn't otherwise have on most network or cable news stations which are dominated by Liberals.
 
But I digress.
 
This is supposed to be about why I'm proud to be an American, and today that is because for once in a long time I have seen the people of this country get actively involved in expressing their opinion on a major issue of the time. I just hope that kind of activism continues, grows and is not suppressed by those that care more about obtaining personal political favor or power than they do about the future of our nation.
 
Happy 231st birthday America!
 
Christopher Parisho
Wichita, KS

Farmers Branch TX takes a stand and passes a local law to require the managers of rental property to verify renters are citizens or legal immigrants before leasing to them. This is an example of a local community taking action to make being an illegal in that community less desirable, yet the lawyers and courts of this country get in the way.

Apartments file suit because they start to loose money even before the law goes into effect. And as to be expected organizations such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claim that this law could result in “poor” families being evicted and families which are a mix of legals and illegals (they call them undocumented) being split up. They always use this pity for the poor argument and never seem to acknowledge that the people who this would effect are not in this country legally!

This law needs to be upheld. This country was founded on the principal that local municipalities had legal authority to put in place laws which the local community complied with, and if the the community feels the laws are unjust they elect new officials and have those laws changed.

In this case the apartments which loose money should advertise and attract new renters that are citizens or legal immigrants. I'm sure there are many renters who would prefer to rent from a place that does not cater to illegals. The apartments have been profiting off illegals, but now they have to comply with this law as they do other laws that govern rental property.

As for the arguments of MALDEF and the ACLU, they are part of the problem. They excuse illegal activity and even try to pull at our heart strings to get us to accept it. They even change the words used to describe the illegals as undocumented, to soften the facts and sweeten the ideas they convey in an attempt to coerce us into accepting their reasoning.

I encourage communities like Farmers Branch to continue the local efforts to discourage illegals residing and working in those communities. If laws like this are struck down or overturned, make new ones. Make it clear to the illegals they are not welcome. At the same time make it clear to legal immigrants that they are welcome and we will accept them into our communities with open arms, ready to accept them as new Americans.

For more on this issue read the AP story posted here; http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=state&id=5366203

In the last couple of weeks congress.org sent out an e-mail for registered users asking them to tell congress via ther e-mail system how they feel about the proposed immigration bill currently in the Senate.

Today they sent out an e-mail showing the breakdown in percentage of those e-mails sent since the initial e-mail a little over a week ago.

---

Below is the text from that e-mail.

CONGRESS.ORG WEEKLY UPDATE
May 29, 2007

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE AMENDED ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION DEAL? 
The Senate continues debate and amendments that will grant citizenship to current illegal immigrants and fortify the border against new ones. Most amendments to drastically limit the bill were defeated. Tell Congress and Pres. Bush what you think about the latest version of the immigration deal. You can read the updated provisions of the deal by selecting either option below before you offer your opinion. The vote will be held in early June. Give your letter "Extra Impact" by having it hand delivered for a small fee before the vote. There have been 52,064 messages thus far.
10% say I Support the Senate Immigration Deal
90% say I Oppose the Senate Immigration Deal

----

I'd say the results are clear, the vast majority of those speaking out so far are against the bill, yet the president continues to try and convince us that this is good for the country, and our Senators continue to discuss and debate amendments to a bill the people they represent oppose.

Anyone else besides me feel that we have lost our representation in Washington?

Anymore it is special interest, pandering and vote buying that drives the actions of our representatives in Washington.

It is time for “We the People” to take a stand and remove from office those who do not do the job they were elected for.

Is Don Imus being sacrificed by the liberals?

As we all know by know Don Imus made comments on the air last week which were racially insensitive, mostly because a Caucasian man said what would normally only be said by African-Americans, but might there be another agenda behind the calls for his termination.

The liberals want to bring back the “fairness doctrine” to control and suppress, if not out right censor, conservative talk radio. When ever the liberals complain that they do not have a talk radio voice conservatives would point out the numerous liberal talk radio programs such as Al Franken (until this past February) and Don Imus.

Is it unreasonable to believe that with Al Franken off the air the liberals are willing to sacrifice Don Imus in the name of racial insensitivity in order to do away with the arguments conservatives have when they oppose the “fairness doctrine”.

Consider it for a second. With the two biggest and most well known liberal talk radio voices off the air the liberals “fairness” argument could become stronger. The liberals will not let the little details of why they have less of a voice on talk radio interfere with their agenda. They will just take advantage of the impression they can make which supports their position.

Far too often these days the citizens of this country seem more and more willing to accept using the power of the government enforce an entitlement that feel they deserve. I witnessed a perfect example of this watching the last two episodes of the TV show Trading Spouses on Fox.

For those that do not watch the show; over the course of two episodes they take two families and simultaneously trade one of the spouses, usually the Mother, for a couple weeks. For half the time the spouses are living with the other families they live the way the other family lives, then the other half of the time they get to set rules in the home they are visiting based on how they would normally live. They usually find families that are polar opposites of each other. In the end the families are both given $50,000, but the visiting spouse gets to decide how the money is spent.

How did the last two episodes of this show demonstrate a perfect example of the entitlement attitude in this country today?

In the past two episodes (aired 2/16 & 2/23 2007) they dealt with the Andrews and Nelson families. The Andrews family consisted of 5 people; Mom, Dad and three kids. Of the three kids, two were over eighteen (22 & 21) and living at home, a more common practice these days. But that is not the issue that stood out. Over the course of the show we learned that the two “adult children” were in a good amount of debt, sadly this is also a more common situation these days as young people are not educated about how to manage their money and live within their means, plus credit is given out to them like candy on Halloween. But even this was not the issue that stood out.

What stood out was at the end of the second episode when the the letter about how the money would be distributed and spent was read by the mother of the Andrews family. One of the two “adult children” (the 21 year old) was given a sum of money to be spent on her school tuition and books. This didn't settle well with her.  Why? Did she not want to go to school? No. Her reason, which she said more than once was; “Why should I pay for something the government will pay for?”

And there you have it. The entitlement attitude. What she fails to realize is that by expecting the government to pay for it she is putting the burden of her education on the backs of the tax payers of this country. She is fine with the government taking the money from us to give to her in the form of paying for her education. An education which thus far has apparently not taught her the basics of money management or she would not be in debt still living at home at 21 years old.

It is this attitude which is adding to the downward spiral of this country. It began back when the Social Security system was put into place to ensure people had the means to live after they retire from working. Instead of educating us on the importance of saving for our retired years, or developing ways to encourage us to save our own money, it was decided that the best way to achieve the goal was to take it from us and give it back later in life. That system is now on the verge of failing to be able to repay the money taken from every near retirement age person.

And that entitlement attitude is what is behind the desire by so many to have a government health care system in this country. For those that think a government health care system would be good, take a close look at similar systems already in place.

• The Veterans Administration is a laughing stock amongst those that rely on it, and many who need help do not get it at all or do not get it in time for the problem to become worse due to bureaucratic read tape and massive mismanagement.
• The Medi-caid & Medi-care systems are just as bad with the bureaucratic read tape and massive mismanagement, but you can ad to that massive amounts of fraud that suck funds out of the system that should be going to help people.

Now imagine those two systems combined and overseeing the health care of everyone in this country.

If we as a nation do not wake up, get rid of this entitlement attitude and take responsibility for ourselves we will destroy ourselves from the inside out. This country was founded on freedom and minimal government control over our day to day lives. We need to return to that ethic and minimize or eliminate how the government controls, coddles, and supports us. Instead we need control and support the government on the issues it is intended to manage.