The fair tax is a proposal that needs strong consideration right now.
 My favorite part of this proposal is not that I think it will lower my taxes,
 although it will. It's not because it will lower the taxes of  the bracket I would
like to be in, but it will do that too.  What I like most about it is that it will live up to its name, it will be fair.
In fact it will allow every man, woman and child with enough allowance to buy a candy bar to become a taxpayer.

The current tax plan leaves 40% of Americans without a tax bill on April 15.  Some call that
compassionate, I cal it a gross disservice to the Americans who are paying the freight on this government.
If I had my way, those who do not pay federal xould not vote in federal elections. If you want to vote, you should have, as the modern saying does
"skin in the game".  It has become too easy for those who pay no taxes to support programs that will burden'
the rest of us.  They vote for bigger and better handouts because it is free money to them.  The same way that they use emergency rooms as
their personal HMO's.  The fair tax brings them in to the universe of taxpaying citizens.

If you are not acquainted with the idea of the fair tax, it's really not surprising.   Although the concept has been gaining momentum for several years,
most people know little if anything about it.  It's not a topic that makes it to your network news and the major
newspapers have given it little notice.  The Fair tax proposal would dismantle the IRS.  It would eliminate corporate and income taxes.
The only tax would be a tax on consumption.  A national sales tax if you will.  A tax that everyone who consumes
goods and services within the United States would pay.  Currently we pay income taxes, and we pay the corporate taxes of the companies we support
through the products we buy.  Taxes are a cost of business and all costs are passed on to the consumer through the pricing of the product.  The
fair tax puts all of those taxes into one single tax paid at the cash register.  

Currently estimates for the fair tax rate are at 23%.  But the fact is that much of that rate is already being paid in the prices we pay now.
 As the taxes are taken from the cost and added at the point of sale, the price of the good itself will now reflect it's
actual price and t not the several layers of taxation you have paid along the way.  The current plan also calls for a monthly "prebate" check
to be sent to each household to cover the amount of the tax that would be spent on basic necessities for someone at the poverty level.  This way
if you consume nothing more than the basic necessities, the fair tax costs you nothing more than the current system, and possibly even less.
 the beauty of the fair tax though is that it will finally tax the hardest class to tax in America, the idol rich.  As wealth one holds but has not gained
in a regular income stream is currently nontaxable (trust fund babies, inheritances, etc...) there are many people with vast resources who escape
taxation by merely being non-productive.  The fair tax eliminates that exemption.  What good is being rich if you can't enjoy a few luxuries in life?
When you enjoy them, you join the ranks of the American taxpayer.  Welcome to the crowd, we've missed you.

The fair tax also gives another important advantage to the taxpayers.  If you are unhappy with the action of the government at any given time, you can choose
to deny them revenue by changing your spending habits.  If you choose to fix your old car instead of buy another,
you pay considerable less in taxes.  If you buy any product, that is less "high-end" then what you would have
ordinarily bought, you lower the tax revenue.  When you fix a meal at home instead of eating out... well you get the idea.
The beauty of this is that it will make congress more responsive to the taxpayers.  We would have actual control over the money
they have to work with.

The current congress is loathe to accept such a revolutionary idea in the collection of revenues.  I can't deny that it would
be likely to destroy the political ideology  we know  today.  If you don't understand my claim think about this:   As I said
at the beginining of this blog, currently 40% of all Americans pay no income tax.  If you are not paying taxes, why
would you care how high they go?  And it they were paying taxes, don't you think they might be more interested in how they are
dispensed?

    As we approach the convention season and the general election, those of us on the right have much more to be optimistic about than we did even a short week ago.  John McCain's decision to support offshore drilling on the outer continental shelf and to reconsider his stance on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the one issue, besides the war, that really demonstrates a difference between the two candidates.
    Few people seem to remember several years ago when Al Gore expressed his wish for high gas prices, fewer still note that Obama seems content with fuel prices in the neighborhood they are in when he suggested the problem with the prices is he would like a more gradual rise.
    The energy crisis is not merely a crisis of energy but it is a crisis of food as well.  As ethanol production gets first priority of the feed corn crop, animal feed has skyrocketed, driving up the prices of the products of animals who feed on corn.  Not just pork, beef and chicken, but eggs, milk and cheese prices are forced into the stratosphere.  Corn for human consumption has been grown less to use the land for the more lucrative corn used for ethanol.  This has not only increased the cost of corn here domestically, but made it nearly impossible to export the grain as we have in the past, not only to foreign markets, but in assistance to starving peoples.
    Obama seems to misunderstand even the most basic, elementary school civics lessons about economics, specifically the law of supply and demand.  Put simply, the less availability there is of a product in demand, the higher the price will be.  Newt Gingrich is absolutely correct "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less.
    When I started driving nearly 35 years ago, gas was around 30 cents per gallon.  When the first embargo hit under president Nixon it hovered somewhere around 50 cents.  It was only after Carter destroyed our relationship with Iran, that we saw the price of gas head north of $1.00 a gallon and indeed approached $1.75.  A large part of this was due to Jimmuh's ill conceived windfall profits tax, which the oil companies dutifully passed on in their pump prices as a business expense to be recouped.  It wasn't until Reagan deregulated the Oil industry that a more rational price of gasoline was obtained.  Now Obama wants to add another windfall profits tax to the oil industry.  What was that saying about someone who does the same thing expecting different results?
    Obama is quick to accuse John McCain of running for GWB's third term.  That's much more preferable to Obama running for Jimmy Carter's second.  Obama has already exhibited the same naive arrogance in his evaluation of foreign affairs, the failed Carter energy policy would be worse than the lack of energy policy that we have now.
hen

    Let me look at the list right now.  I 'cling' to my religion.  I don't have a gun but want the right to own one if I choose.  I am against illegal immigration, although I think legal immigration is great. I don't necessarily have any antipathy towards people who aren't like me, in fact I believe that I have friends who are different in many ways.  I don't see it, but I guess that makes me bitter.
    Well, it may not be politically correct to do this, but the time has come when we have to really take a strong look at this Obama juggernaut that is engaging the imagination of the whole nation at this time.
    First, I think we have to get over the idea that noticing Obama is at least part African-American is not in itself a racist deed.  God made us with the gift of sight and discernment of color, so to notice the obvious should not be equated with a mortal sin.  In my opinion, the argument of whether he was authentically black, was one of the most preposterous issues of public discourse ever uttered by the likes of Al Sharpton.  Consider that Obama's African-American credentials, the son of an African father and an American mother, seem to be the best technical version of an African-American.  The fact that he was not raised in poverty and segregation does not change his lineage of DNA, although it may lead to some of his obvious misconceptions about the rest of the people in the nation he hopes to be the CEO of.
    A number of people have been criticized for making the statement that Barak Obama is getting the opportunity he has been afforded because he is black.  Receiving the modern day version of being ridden out of town on rail aside, it would seem that there is some amount of truth to the observation.  If we were to be honest with ourselves, we would realize that Obama has been absolved from the natural consequences of his political foibles in a way that others have been unable to avoid.  Sergernt Shriver never recovered from his blundered photo op in a Boston bar.  It was intended that he would 'have a beer with the boys', but when someone asked to buy him a drink he ordered "Cavasia with a splash", forever losing his connection with the common man..  Edmund Muskie lost his patience with the Machester Union-Leader newspaper and literally ended his career in tears on the papers' steps.  Michaels Dukakis never looked the same after wearing the tankers helmet while standing in the hatch of an Army tank.  Jimmy Carter never recovered from blaming the inept manner of the way he handled the office in his four years as president and blaming it on the 'malaise' of the American People.  The temptation among many liberals has been to set themselves apart from the mainstream, the bourgeois working class who serve only to provide the comforts that the elite class need in order to pontificate from on high.   
    If Obama were not black, do you think he would maintain his campaign through all of the "little" problems created by himself and those around him.  His wife who until now has never been proud to be an American, his pastor of two decades who preaches hatred of whites, his own view of his 'racist' grandmother who was uncomfortable with being approached by an unknown "black man" who expected money from her at a bus stop.  Wouldn't there be some concern that he had lied to cover up the liberal views he held in the Illinois state senate.  And what about his current formation of an advising group on religious issues that he promises will not change his mind of the ultimate moral issue of our age, partial birth abortion.  As the first 'serious' African-American candidate for the presidency, he has survived many crises that would have crippled if not ended the candidacy of previous candidates in the 232 year history of the republic.
    Now ,though, we have another matter to consider, the supposedly 'private' thought expressed by the candidate openly among those gathered in San Francisco to attend a fund raiser for the Obama campaign.  Barak's comments had the condescending tone of of a classic elitist dismissing the value of those who do not offer their full support and loyalty.  The preference for another candidate  requires that they are "bitter" nad clinging to our religion, our constitutional rights, and our desire for secure borders as the consequence of being frustrated that we are not well endowed as the elitists who largely fund his campaign.
    The elections of 2000 and 2004 were elected by the smallest of margins, and all the signs show that the same is likely to happen in 2008.  This means that roughly half of the citizens of this country will oppose the person who wins the election.  I would be lying if I said that the election of a condescending, urbanite, liberal did not scare me.  As president of all of the United States, even the red ones, can we really expect that he won't govern in a way that affirms his own deep seated prejudices.