Two very good books (which might make great last minute Christmas gifts) are Do As I Say (Not As I Do), Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer and 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken is #37) by Bernard Goldberg. Both are very quick reads and are 'Required Reading' because the authors point out the hypocritical and disingenuous views, comments, and politics of the people they choose to profile. While Mr. Schweizer's book is a profile of only liberals, it is a very telling account of how these people apparently do not hold others to the same standards that they wish to have applied to themselves. Mr. Goldberg's book is full of liberals in his 100 examples, but he points out people of any political persuasion and takes them to task for what he feels they have done (and perhaps are still doing) that is detrimental to the United States. Hopefully both books at least make you think. Regardless of your political leanings, give them a chance. They may open your eyes to things you never knew or failed to consider...intellectual honesty being the key. And remember, the authors undoubtedly picked their subjects based on their own personal feelings, so realize that the people profiled may be a bit more reviled by the authors than they are by you.
So, what does all of this have to do with Jennifer Aniston? Well, Jennifer has become someone that I just shake my head at every time she tries to be...umm, smart. Since she has been getting an extraordinary amount of press of late, her quotes have popped up in various places where I might catch them. (Trust me, I don't go looking for quotes from Jen.) It appears to me that she somehow thinks that George Bush is to blame for everything. Now, mind you, it is not just Jennifer Aniston that I have a problem with; she just happens to exemplify the problem at present. Basically, however, I have trouble with most celebrities who rant and rave about this or that when they really don't seem to know much, if anything, about what they are talking about. Just hand them a script and away they go. Hey, let's face it, they get paid huge amounts of money to pretend they are someone they are not. It is their job! I can understand why many people might get sucked in by what they say. And I truthfully understand how the ill-informed could actually believe that they are "experts" on whatever it is they may be talking about. But, by and large they are not...and that really bothers me.
Still, I am more bothered by the celebs that perhaps do know something about their given cause and they truthfully believe that they know even more. So they take to the airwaves (because they can) and they go on and on and on about pretty much nothing. I tune them out, unless I am in need of a laugh. Then I might listen. But, again I worry about those that take the rantings of celebrities as gospel. The danger that celebs can create (because there are people out there who might believe them because they don't do their own research) is staggering to me.
All of that said, we get right back to what, to me, is the premise of the two books mentioned. That is the fact that there are those in this world who can and will keep pressing an issue simply for what they derive by doing so. Whether it is political power (the Democrats in Congress come to mind) or money or the advancement of an agenda or a cause. Not that there are never times when this is necessary and not that there aren't conservatives who can be just as bad, if not worse, in this regard. But the broader picture is that we live in a very complex world. It is a world where violence is the solution to most things for many people. Should we be complacent and appease people to avoid violence? No. We should be willing to fight back. Peace is fine, but it is rarely achieved without at least the threat of war. While I am conservative and obviously a hawk, I understand the longing for peace. I just realize that it does not come without a painful and dangerous pricetag. The liberals and the liberal media in the United States want to have their proverbial cake and eat it too. Now, that is not really a shock, but their way to get what they want has been through character assassination, partisan ranting, and egregious stretching of the truth, if not outright lying and covering up. That seems to be the very thing that they constantly accuse Republicans and conservatives of doing (does the phrase 'culture of corruption' ring any bells?).
My hope this Christmas season and for the coming New Year is that we can truly have a debate about the issues, our differences, and what is right and good for our society. I want those that have the platform to be intellectually honest about what they say. But most of all, I would like to see genuine debate with differing, constructive views presented in our political arena, be it in Congress and government, in the media, or by those celebrities who have the platform. And I want EVERYONE to remember that, like it or not, we are at war with an enemy that wants to destroy us and one that will NOT surrender. Yes, give war a chance, and hope that by doing so peace prevails.
And please, save any nasty comments for another post you don't like or agree with. It is the most joyous season of all. Let us embrace it together.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
the right wing zealot
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Saturday, December 17, 2005
A fair tax system, redux (Required Reading; Volume iii)
Two very compelling books which would make fantastic Christmas gifts address the issue of taxation in the United States. The FairTax Book (Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS) was written by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder (R-Ga). Mr. Boortz even champions the concept on his nationally syndicated radio program. Flat Tax Revolution (Using a Postcard to Abolish the IRS) was written by Steve Forbes of Forbes magazine fame. Both are excellent and very readable accounts of the plans that they espouse. And both expose the ridiculous and sometimes criminal abuse that is built into our current tax code.
The FairTax is a national sales tax (for purposes of the book set at 23%) which would be collected on the final retail sale of an item. It is not a value added tax. This proposal allows for monthly "prebates" to all individuals to recoup sales taxes that would be paid on "essentials" [my word] needed to live. The thought behind the sales tax is that instituting it would cause changes in market factors that would correct what amounts to an embedded 22% tax in the cost of all goods brought to market. Therefore, the cost of goods would really not increase, but you would keep all of your paycheck. It would allow you to pay taxes when you want, based on your consumption, with the assumption that wealthier individuals would then, by default, pay more in taxes. The plan as set forth is revenue neutral, therefore it would not cause the government to collect less tax revenue.
I must admit that I was skeptical of this plan prior to reading the book. However, I was not skeptical based on the amount of the tax. I feel that the addition of a consumption tax would force competition in pricing. I am a bit skeptical of how fast the market would adjust to the removal of embedded taxes in the cost of any (or all) items, but I am a believer in the the market and pricing being what the market will bear. The sad part, unfortunately, is reflected in the "outrage" that plays out politically in this country when things like the price of gasoline goes up. There are immediate calls for investigations and accusations of 'gouging'. Then the government wants oversight and control and we stray precariously close to governmental price controls which never solve anything. The things that I am most skeptical of, however, are whether the States would soon follow suit and whether the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (which allows the government to tax income) could ever be repealed. That would be critical to instituting the FairTax.
The Flat Tax would be a simple 17% tax on income. Mr. Forbes does a very good job explaining his theory in the book. He has long been a champion of tax reform. He even has a chapter that discusses his plan versus the FairTax. The specifics of the Flat Tax (such as deductions and the like) are spelled out in the book, so I will not mention them here. But, I will mention the two most compelling reasons for adopting this plan. First, the 16th Amendment would not face repeal and therefore the politics involved in doing so would not become an issue. To me, that is a major advantage to avoiding the demagoguery that any change in the tax code will surely face. Next, the Flat Tax would allow the individual to choose how to pay taxes. One could either use the terms of the flat tax or could continue paying under the old system with its complications and high cost of compliance. My guess is that Forbes believes the groundswell for the Flat Tax would eventually render the old system impotent.
The bigger picture is what needs to be seen. The United States operates under what is a burdensome and frankly archaic tax system. The cost of tax compliance is a gigantic burden on our economy and our society. Both plans point this out. It is also important to note that both plans have been studied by economists and have been shown to generate huge additional revenues once in place. I do not intend to argue that fact here. Intellectual honesty (remember that?) should allow anyone to see that raising taxes does not necessarily raise tax revenue. Higher tax rates definitely cannot sustain increased revenues over time. Many countries, especially those of the old Soviet bloc, are embracing flat taxes and seeing their economies (as well as tax revenues to their governments) boom. And changes in the tax code will not cause a decrease in charitable giving in this country. Americans are the most generous people in the world and philanthropy has actually been shown to increase when marginal tax rates have been cut. The statistics prove it in an intellectually honest way.
So where do we go from here? That is that magical question. Will we ever be able to abolish the IRS and have a simple tax code that is truly fair to all Americans? While I think the plans set forth in these books both could potentially lead us to that possibility, I think that the power brokers in government and on K Street will fight to the death to stop it from happening. The power to tax is the power to control. And the assertion that any tax cuts are "tax cuts for the rich" is such a foolish statement that I am surprised that anyone can be taken in by it anymore. If you are one of those people who believe the rhetoric of the Democrats regarding taxation in the USA, please investigate how much money most of our elected officials and other truly wealthy individuals make each year and then see how little they pay in taxes. [That is a subject that is upcoming; however the politicians and talking heads that try to beat back any and all tax reductions are hypocrites, believe me.]
The opportunity to change the tax code and truly make America better will have to come from you, the average citizen, the working man, the little guy. We have been convinced that the money we make belongs to the government. Withholding of income tax has made paying it painless to most. We have even been convinced the the government is giving us an "income tax refund" every year (if we get one) and that somehow it is a gift from the government to us. Wake up, that is our money. We earned it and the government took it. To me, the first step might be to do away with withholding and force everyone to actually write a check to pay taxes. When the cold reality of what you pay sets in, the rest of this will be easy. Pick a proposal and start a grassroots effort to get it enacted. Better yet, don't wait for a change in withholding, do it now because, trust me, we are all paying too much in taxes.
None of this even addresses the fact that the government spends way too much. The entitlement mentality in our country is worse than the power to tax. Power is bought and sold at the expense of every American. Both political parties are guilty of that, a fact that me and my conservative philosophy are sickened by. Reduced spending is an entirely different subject, however, and one that may or may not follow a change in the tax code. Either of the proposals set forth in these books would make taxation more fair for every American and would likely generate more money for our politicians to waste. Sure we need to stop frivolous spending (like the 'bridge to nowhere', a Republican's proposal), but we also need to stop the rhetoric about taxation as it is now in our country.
Read the books. Whether you like the proposals or not, I think the major theme that we need to change (so that we can stay viable as a nation in what is now a global economy) should come through loud and clear. Our quasi-socialist approach is not going to keep America strong. If you are intellectually honest, I think you will agree.
The FairTax is a national sales tax (for purposes of the book set at 23%) which would be collected on the final retail sale of an item. It is not a value added tax. This proposal allows for monthly "prebates" to all individuals to recoup sales taxes that would be paid on "essentials" [my word] needed to live. The thought behind the sales tax is that instituting it would cause changes in market factors that would correct what amounts to an embedded 22% tax in the cost of all goods brought to market. Therefore, the cost of goods would really not increase, but you would keep all of your paycheck. It would allow you to pay taxes when you want, based on your consumption, with the assumption that wealthier individuals would then, by default, pay more in taxes. The plan as set forth is revenue neutral, therefore it would not cause the government to collect less tax revenue.
I must admit that I was skeptical of this plan prior to reading the book. However, I was not skeptical based on the amount of the tax. I feel that the addition of a consumption tax would force competition in pricing. I am a bit skeptical of how fast the market would adjust to the removal of embedded taxes in the cost of any (or all) items, but I am a believer in the the market and pricing being what the market will bear. The sad part, unfortunately, is reflected in the "outrage" that plays out politically in this country when things like the price of gasoline goes up. There are immediate calls for investigations and accusations of 'gouging'. Then the government wants oversight and control and we stray precariously close to governmental price controls which never solve anything. The things that I am most skeptical of, however, are whether the States would soon follow suit and whether the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (which allows the government to tax income) could ever be repealed. That would be critical to instituting the FairTax.
The Flat Tax would be a simple 17% tax on income. Mr. Forbes does a very good job explaining his theory in the book. He has long been a champion of tax reform. He even has a chapter that discusses his plan versus the FairTax. The specifics of the Flat Tax (such as deductions and the like) are spelled out in the book, so I will not mention them here. But, I will mention the two most compelling reasons for adopting this plan. First, the 16th Amendment would not face repeal and therefore the politics involved in doing so would not become an issue. To me, that is a major advantage to avoiding the demagoguery that any change in the tax code will surely face. Next, the Flat Tax would allow the individual to choose how to pay taxes. One could either use the terms of the flat tax or could continue paying under the old system with its complications and high cost of compliance. My guess is that Forbes believes the groundswell for the Flat Tax would eventually render the old system impotent.
The bigger picture is what needs to be seen. The United States operates under what is a burdensome and frankly archaic tax system. The cost of tax compliance is a gigantic burden on our economy and our society. Both plans point this out. It is also important to note that both plans have been studied by economists and have been shown to generate huge additional revenues once in place. I do not intend to argue that fact here. Intellectual honesty (remember that?) should allow anyone to see that raising taxes does not necessarily raise tax revenue. Higher tax rates definitely cannot sustain increased revenues over time. Many countries, especially those of the old Soviet bloc, are embracing flat taxes and seeing their economies (as well as tax revenues to their governments) boom. And changes in the tax code will not cause a decrease in charitable giving in this country. Americans are the most generous people in the world and philanthropy has actually been shown to increase when marginal tax rates have been cut. The statistics prove it in an intellectually honest way.
So where do we go from here? That is that magical question. Will we ever be able to abolish the IRS and have a simple tax code that is truly fair to all Americans? While I think the plans set forth in these books both could potentially lead us to that possibility, I think that the power brokers in government and on K Street will fight to the death to stop it from happening. The power to tax is the power to control. And the assertion that any tax cuts are "tax cuts for the rich" is such a foolish statement that I am surprised that anyone can be taken in by it anymore. If you are one of those people who believe the rhetoric of the Democrats regarding taxation in the USA, please investigate how much money most of our elected officials and other truly wealthy individuals make each year and then see how little they pay in taxes. [That is a subject that is upcoming; however the politicians and talking heads that try to beat back any and all tax reductions are hypocrites, believe me.]
The opportunity to change the tax code and truly make America better will have to come from you, the average citizen, the working man, the little guy. We have been convinced that the money we make belongs to the government. Withholding of income tax has made paying it painless to most. We have even been convinced the the government is giving us an "income tax refund" every year (if we get one) and that somehow it is a gift from the government to us. Wake up, that is our money. We earned it and the government took it. To me, the first step might be to do away with withholding and force everyone to actually write a check to pay taxes. When the cold reality of what you pay sets in, the rest of this will be easy. Pick a proposal and start a grassroots effort to get it enacted. Better yet, don't wait for a change in withholding, do it now because, trust me, we are all paying too much in taxes.
None of this even addresses the fact that the government spends way too much. The entitlement mentality in our country is worse than the power to tax. Power is bought and sold at the expense of every American. Both political parties are guilty of that, a fact that me and my conservative philosophy are sickened by. Reduced spending is an entirely different subject, however, and one that may or may not follow a change in the tax code. Either of the proposals set forth in these books would make taxation more fair for every American and would likely generate more money for our politicians to waste. Sure we need to stop frivolous spending (like the 'bridge to nowhere', a Republican's proposal), but we also need to stop the rhetoric about taxation as it is now in our country.
Read the books. Whether you like the proposals or not, I think the major theme that we need to change (so that we can stay viable as a nation in what is now a global economy) should come through loud and clear. Our quasi-socialist approach is not going to keep America strong. If you are intellectually honest, I think you will agree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
