Give a click and listen to these educational radio ads ...
Monday, April 30, 2007
Excellent Explanations
I caught this from the Ludwig Von Mises Institutes' web site. The article is logically outstanding demonstrating the the national Republicans and the Bush Administration -- contrary to popular PR and media spin -- actually has not cut taxes and in fact has raised taxes. (Read, that's one major reason why they lost big in 2006)
What! How can that be!?!
Here are some excerpts that should tempt you to read the full article:
(Link to full article http://www.mises.org/story/2559 )First, in order to consider how Bush's policies have affected tax burdens, I need to define the term "taxes." Taxes are a revenue source for the state and the state is the entity that has a monopoly, or at least claims the right to a monopoly, over the use of coercion within its political borders. Therefore, Hans Hoppe's explanation of taxation as "a coercive, non-contractual transfer of definite physical assets" ( Economics and Ethics of Private Property, p. 28) provides us with a sound definition of taxation. Taxes are the takings of private property in order to fund the state. They are a form of aggression against private property.
... and ...
In addition to what we normally think of as taxes, the state also has the option of borrowing money by selling government securities in order to finance its spending. This is a significant form of finance as the federal debt, including intragovernmental debt, increased $574 billion in fiscal year 2006. Budget deficits are generally not considered to be a form of taxation and it's oftentimes useful to distinguish between revenues generated by taxing the sale of a good or service and revenues generated by selling securities. However, government debt is a coercive transfer of property from private hands to government coffers.
... therefore ...
Those who lend the government money are purchasing a promise to take someone's property in the future in order to repay the loan. If the securities that are issued are to be repaid, then the state is simply shifting tax burdens away from current taxpayers on to future taxpayers.
I know you easily see the logic and intrinsically know this to be true. But it sure is good to have it said and written down in such a manner that arguing against these facts if futile.
Keep Rattling....
Monday, April 23, 2007
Your Gov't at Work -- Statism
How does business get done at your local State Capitol?
Certainly, nothing like this could happen in the hallowed halls of Congress!?!
The story below is about a trial of a state Tennessee senator, one of many caught up in an FBI corruption sting operation called Tennesee Waltz.
It's some sad reading:
By Trevor AaronsonCalling FBI agent Mark Jackson to the witness stand this morning, Asst. U.S. Atty. Tim DiScenza used the lawman as a summary witness to present a timeline that summed up the government's case against former state Sen. John Ford:
- April 19, 2004 — FBI undercover agent L.C. McNeil introduces himself to state Sen. John Ford at a dinner in Nashville arranged by state Rep. Kathryn Bowers.
- July 17, 2004 — In Miami, Ford asks McNeil for $3,000 to $5,000 per month to draft and pass state legislation that would benefit E-Cycle. Ford expresses interest in E-Cycle's initial public offering.
- July 28, 2004 — "I'm ready when you get back to get that done," Ford tells McNeil in a phone conversation, referring to the E-Cycle legislation.
- Aug. 18, 2004 — Ford tells McNeil he wants to be paid $10,000 upfront and $5,000 each month. Ford then explains which committee the bill will go to and reaffirms that he will sponsor the legislation.
- Aug. 19, 2004 — McNeil pays first cash payment made to Ford: $10,000. Ford takes an E-Cycle brochure and company paperwork, drafted by the FBI, describing the legislation E-Cycle wants.
- Aug. 23, 2004 — Ford calls McNeil and tells him he met with the General Assembly's legal department to talk about the E-Cycle legislation.
- Aug. 26, 2004 — In a telephone conversation, Ford tells McNeil the rough draft of the legislation will be available next week so E-Cycle can review it.
- Sept. 7, 2004 — Ford asks McNeil for his fax number to send the draft legislation.
- Sept. 17, 2004 — McNeil pays Ford $5,000. Ford reads the draft legislation to McNeil and agrees with the undercover agent that the bill should be amended so public schools will not receive surplus computers.
- Sept. 28, 2004 — Ford and McNeil discuss the proposed legislation in a phone call. Ford says he'll fax a new draft of the bill to McNeil.
- Oct. 6, 2004 — A summary of the legislation is faxed to E-Cycle's office.
- Oct. 15, 2004 — McNeil pays Ford $5,000. Ford discusses making the legislation more exclusive for E-Cycle.
- Nov. 9, 2004 — Ford says the E-Cycle bill will be filed in January with "a bunch of bills" so it won't draw attention, he tells McNeil in a phone conversation.
- Nov. 11, 2004 — In a phone conversation, Ford asks McNeil to send him more money.
- Nov. 17, 2004 — Ford tell McNeil in a phone conversation he will not pre-file the bill since it would allow the news media and others to look at the proposed legislation.
- Nov. 19, 2004 — Ford gives McNeil the final draft of the legislation. McNeil pays Ford $5,000 at E-Cycle's Memphis office.
- Dec. 16, 2004 — Ford reassures McNeil the legislation will pass.
- Dec. 17, 2004 — McNeil pays Ford $5,000 at a Miami hotel.
- Jan. 6, 2005 — Ford tells McNeil in a phone conversation he will file "our bill this week, this next week."
- Jan. 12, 2005 — Ford pre-files Senate Bill 28. In a phone conversation, he tells McNeil the bill was filed.
- Jan. 13, 2005 — Ford tells McNeil in a phone conversation he will put a clause in the bill that will give E-Cycle more exclusivity. "We filed it, and we just pulled the other bill," Ford says of the revised legislation.
- Jan. 18, 2005 — The state Department of General Services recommends against passage of E-Cycle's bill.
- Jan. 19, 2005 — Ford pre-files Senate Bill 94 with the definition of computer equipment identical to the list of equipment in E-Cycle's brochure.
- Jan. 31, 2005 — McNeil pays Ford $5,000 in E-Cycle's Nashville office.
- Feb. 1, 2005 — McNeil pays Ford $5,000 in his Senate office in Nashville.
- Feb. 3, 2005 — Ford expresses to Willis concerns McNeil might be working with law enforcement and E-Cycle might be an FBI shell company. A fiscal note is filed in the General Assembly, indicating the E-Cycle bill would increase state expenditure.
- Sometime after Feb. 3, 2005 — Ford aggressively questions General Services Commissioner Gwendolyn Sims Davis about the fiscal note and tells her she does not know "what the hell" she is doing.
- Feb. 14, 2005 — Ford tells McNeil he'll get a new fiscal note.
- Feb. 17, 2005 — Ford tells McNeil he talked to Senate staff about changing the fiscal note.
- March 9, 2005 — Ford tells James White, executive director of the Fiscal Review Committee of the Tennessee General Assembly, to change the fiscal note.
- March 10, 2005 — Ford threatens McNeil, who pays Ford $5,000 in E-Cycle's Memphis office.
- March 15, 2005 — Ford presents Senate Bill 94 to the Senate State and Local Government Committee, then chaired by state Sen. Steve Cohen. It passes 9-0. Ford learns McNeil is coming to Nashville. In a phone conversation, Ford asks FBI informant Tim Willis why McNeil is traveling to the capital. "Hell, we passed the bill. What's his concerns?" Ford asks Willis.
- March 16, 2005 — At McNeil's request, Ford agrees to delay the bill.
- March 17, 2005 — McNeil pays Ford $5,000 at the Sheraton Hotel in Nashville.
- March 23, 2005 — Rosemary Bates, Ford's research analyst, e-mails Senate Chief Clerk Russell Humphrey asking him to keep E-Cycle's bill off the legislative calendar.
- April 8, 2005 — Ford threatens to kill FBI undercover agents McNeil and Joe Carson. Ford agrees to delay legislation. McNeil pays Ford $5,000 outside The Peabody.
- May 26, 2005 — FBI agents arrest Ford in Nashville.
You should really send this to all your friends. It clearly illustrates how business uses government favors to protect them (read, profits) from competition. This is an example of "Statist Businessmen."
Big Rattler
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Now that you've paid your taxes ...
Happy Tax Day
You've paid your taxes, now what's in it for you? What do you get from the government (besides staying on the good side of the Internal Revenue Service)?
Via Heritage's Brian Riedl http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20070415-100128-4378r.htm , here's how your tax bill breaks down:
The federal government collects $21,992 in taxes per household and spends $24,106, leaving a per-household deficit of $2,114. (You might think of that last figure as taxes you haven't paid yet but someday will-or at least somebody will, maybe your kids.)
Per household, the government spends:
* $8,301 for Social Security and Medicare,
* $4,951 for defense,
* $3,550 for antipoverty programs,
* $2,071 for interest on the federal debt,
* $907 for federal employee retirement benefits,
* $664 for health research and regulation, including the Food and Drug Administration,
* $627 for veterans' benefits,
* $584 for education,
* $418 for highways and mass transit,
* $392 for administration of justice,
* $305 for natural resources and environmental protection,
* $304 for foreign aid, contributions to international organizations like the United Nations, and for maintaining U.S. embassies abroad,
* $299 for unemployment benefits,
* $282 for community and regional development, which includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
* and $451 for all other federal programs, including farm subsidies, social services, space exploration, air transportation and energy.
Posted on 04/17/07 10:56 AM http://www.insideronline.org/blogarchive.cfm?month=4&year=2007#000B610D-CE46-40A5-A584E39468C29BE0 by Alex Adrianson | Blog Archive http://www.insideronline.org/#viewArchives#viewArchives
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Nancy Van (Pelosi) norsdel -- Pres. Boise Metro Chamber of Statists
The Boise Metro Chamber of Statists Businessmen (read, Business-people-non-gender-specific-politically-correct-application-of-descriptive-nouns-where-is-Helen-Chenoweth-Hage-when-you-need-her) has again proven that their cabal has no interest anymore in liberty, freedom and the free-market. Instead, their statist leader is teat-high in the government slop-trough.
That "slop" was once a hard-earned, pristine dollar that had huge potential to accelerate through the free-market place, is now just another ration of prisoner chow spooned out by government commissars to members of the Boise Metro Chamber of Statists in the form of government projects and regulatory protection rackets.
Nancy Vannorsdel, who leads the Boise Chamber, wrote a guest editorial in the Idaho Statesman on April 1, 2007 where she shamelessly pronounced: "The days are long gone when pro-business meant laissez-faire."
First, she must know about (and rejected) the economic principle of "laissez-faire" which means minimalist government and maximum liberty especially in private trade.
Second, she announces that pro-business no longer means free-trade rather it now means government restricted trade via regulations that benefit the "incumbent businesses" by creating regulatory "barriers to entry into trade."
Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayak said, "Sometimes I think the biggest challenge is to convince businessmen themselves in the merit of what they do."
The very principle of free-trade, laissez-faire, minimum government interference in the marketplace is the only salvation for a country whose been sold this Vannoresdel/Pelosi/Clinton slop for years; a country whose unfunded liabilities (in ascending order) of government pensions, social security, and Medicaid/Medicare now equal or exceed the entire net worth of the total United States of America economy.
Teat-sloppers like Vannoresdel haven't got a clue, they are just in it for the quick buck. No wonder the Democrats took over congress from a hapless GOP, the likes of whom Vannoresdel gets her skewed ideas from.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Idaho Conservative Scorecard -- Just Released
This Idaho Conservative Scorecard is very informative plus easy to read and understand.
I highly recommend clicking the links to the Idaho House and the Idaho Senate.
Idaho House Conservative Scorecard
Idaho Senate Conservative Scorecard
Quick analysis using the compiled scorecard information and institutional memory:
1. The Idaho House is more conservative than the Idaho Senate. (It really should have the average score included. I did the calculations and the House Average is 62% while the Senate drops to 57%). Still the House cannot be considered "conservative" in spite of what the liberal drive-by-media or old liberal X-Gov. Phil Batt has to say.
2. It helps confirm who the conservative are (read, non-RINOs) plus a few surprises.
3. No reason to list the flaming liberal legislators with 0% or nearby except to say that the following liberal Republican should change party affiliations to the Green or Democratic. They bring shame and dishonor to the GOP Platform: Sens. Charlie Coiner and Joe Stegner (and he's in leadership ... where do we go to surrender?); Reps. Jerry Shively and Max Black.
4. Idaho Conservatives have as their #1 task -- starting right now -- is to get a rule passed in the Idaho GOP Central Committee authorizing party registration for primary elections. The Idaho Senate leadership failed to protect our First Amendment Rights to Free Assembly as demonstrated by the rank-and-file GOP'ers officially voting overwhelmingly for party registration at their 2006 convention in Idaho Falls.
The United States Supreme Court ruled that a political party determines how they select their candidates for the general election, not the so-called public servants a.k.a. state legislators and the Sec. of State. The state's only compelling interest is that elections be honest, orderly and with a fair count of the votes. The party's constitutional rights as ruled by the United States Supreme Court is to tell the state how it wants to select it's candidates.
The failure of the Idaho Senate is a direct slap-in-the-face to all Republicans. Their arrogance is that they want to control the party, and the hell with the constitution, and the hell with the rank-and-file Republicans.
5. Obviously, the other task for Idaho Conservatives is to un-elect many of the arrogant, the hell with the constitution Idaho senators.
6. Given the above success, Idaho may again be a state that respects individual liberty, freedom. Too much government greed in the ranks today. It feels creepy in Idaho with Big Brother not caring even about the First Amendment's right to free assembly.
I highly recommend clicking the links to the Idaho House and the Idaho Senate.
Idaho House Conservative Scorecard
Idaho Senate Conservative Scorecard
Quick analysis using the compiled scorecard information and institutional memory:
1. The Idaho House is more conservative than the Idaho Senate. (It really should have the average score included. I did the calculations and the House Average is 62% while the Senate drops to 57%). Still the House cannot be considered "conservative" in spite of what the liberal drive-by-media or old liberal X-Gov. Phil Batt has to say.
2. It helps confirm who the conservative are (read, non-RINOs) plus a few surprises.
Those statesman with 100% are:
House -- Harwood, Nonini (surprise!), Shepherd, Vander Woude (good freshman work), Marriot, and of course the liberty torch-bearer Lenore Barrett.
Senate -- Monty Pearce and Russ Fulcher
3. No reason to list the flaming liberal legislators with 0% or nearby except to say that the following liberal Republican should change party affiliations to the Green or Democratic. They bring shame and dishonor to the GOP Platform: Sens. Charlie Coiner and Joe Stegner (and he's in leadership ... where do we go to surrender?); Reps. Jerry Shively and Max Black.
4. Idaho Conservatives have as their #1 task -- starting right now -- is to get a rule passed in the Idaho GOP Central Committee authorizing party registration for primary elections. The Idaho Senate leadership failed to protect our First Amendment Rights to Free Assembly as demonstrated by the rank-and-file GOP'ers officially voting overwhelmingly for party registration at their 2006 convention in Idaho Falls.
The United States Supreme Court ruled that a political party determines how they select their candidates for the general election, not the so-called public servants a.k.a. state legislators and the Sec. of State. The state's only compelling interest is that elections be honest, orderly and with a fair count of the votes. The party's constitutional rights as ruled by the United States Supreme Court is to tell the state how it wants to select it's candidates.
The failure of the Idaho Senate is a direct slap-in-the-face to all Republicans. Their arrogance is that they want to control the party, and the hell with the constitution, and the hell with the rank-and-file Republicans.
5. Obviously, the other task for Idaho Conservatives is to un-elect many of the arrogant, the hell with the constitution Idaho senators.
6. Given the above success, Idaho may again be a state that respects individual liberty, freedom. Too much government greed in the ranks today. It feels creepy in Idaho with Big Brother not caring even about the First Amendment's right to free assembly.
Dubbed "The Stubborn Nail"
Here is photo of government at work. In this case China. A residence stands alone in the middle of a project. (Meanwhile, Idaho voters reject private property rights protections in Prop. 2).
This photo and its location (China) make the full story a bit perplexing especially as it relates to China's "evolving" property rights as if there are any in said country. May some property rights are indeed on the horizon, given this successful defiance, which would be a huge liberty boost within China. The reporter does little to clear the confusion, but the visual is what led me to forward this on to you.
I've included the photo and caption, with excerpts from the story (below) and the link, in case your interest is peaked.
(CAPTION) Chinese workmen demolished a house, seen here March 2007, that attained almost iconic status because of its owners' refusal to move for a huge property project. However, Wu Ping and her husband's three-year battle may have paid off with a court in Chongqing announcing they would be given a new home nearby valued at about three million yuan (390,000 dollars).(AFP/File/Mark Ralston)
This photo and its location (China) make the full story a bit perplexing especially as it relates to China's "evolving" property rights as if there are any in said country. May some property rights are indeed on the horizon, given this successful defiance, which would be a huge liberty boost within China. The reporter does little to clear the confusion, but the visual is what led me to forward this on to you.
I've included the photo and caption, with excerpts from the story (below) and the link, in case your interest is peaked.
(CAPTION) Chinese workmen demolished a house, seen here March 2007, that attained almost iconic status because of its owners' refusal to move for a huge property project. However, Wu Ping and her husband's three-year battle may have paid off with a court in Chongqing announcing they would be given a new home nearby valued at about three million yuan (390,000 dollars).(AFP/File/Mark Ralston)
News Story Excerpts:
CHONGQING, China (AFP) - Workmen in China demolished a house that attained almost iconic status because of its owners' refusal to move for a huge property project, but their three-year battle may have paid off. [...]
Their plight -- thrown into the spotlight partly thanks to dramatic photos of the house sitting in the middle of a massive pit excavated around it -- became a symbol of the little man's defiance of China's moneyed interests.However the couple appeared to have been rewarded handsomely for holding out, with a court in Chongqing announcing Tuesday they would be given a new home nearby valued at about three million yuan (390,000 dollars).
In addition, they were awarded 900,000 yuan in damages because the developer had cut off water and electricity, and blocked traffic to their home during the three-year stand-off. [...]
Wu had incessantly accused the local government of collusion with the developer, while refusing to bow to the strong-arm tactics aimed at getting rid of her home.
Earlier this year, she filed a lawsuit maintaining that she could not be forced to give up her home.
The Stubborn Nail's case hit such a nerve in China because similar disputes are plaguing the country.
While Wu was able to stand up to the powerful and wage a high-profile publicity campaign rarely seen in China, people in countless other cases have lost their property without adequate compensation.
According to the latest figures from the Ministry of Public Security, there were 87,000 protests in 2005, many of them to do with land grabs. Such protests are often crushed by security forces. [...]
The national parliament passed a landmark law last month that solidified private property rights, partly to combat such disputes.
While Wu waged her publicity campaign, her husband had staged a vigil in the home over the past week, at times waving a national flag.
During his vigil, Yang Wu also hung a banner out of the house that read: "The legal private property of citizens cannot be violated," echoing wording in the country's new property law.
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070403/wl_afp/chinapropertydispute_070403120212
Friday, March 30, 2007
Hunter Walks the Walk
Duncan Hunter Purchases Brand New Ford F-150
Puts his money where his mouth and principles are
Detroit, MI – Republican Presidential Candidate Duncan Hunter gave a tangible demonstration of his support for U.S. manufacturers in a campaign stop in Detroit today. On a mid-morning visit to Suburban Ford in Sterling Heights, MI., Hunter made good on his "Buy American" platform. He bought American by driving off with a brand new Ford F-150 pick-up truck. "Some may call this a cheap political stunt," quipped Hunter, "but my wife will call this an expensive gesture."
Hunter said he traveled to Michigan to make it clear that he will follow through on his commitment to American businesses. As President, Hunter said he will restore the strength of this country's manufacturing base.
Hunter has contended, in his campaign swings, that good high-paying manufacturing jobs are being lost to China and other countries. "Our manufacturers are forced to compete against foreign competitors that benefit unfairly from currency manipulation, and from bad trade deals."
Hunter added, "One of the duties of the American President is to make good trade deals. We have a bad [trade] deal and, as President, I will rectify it."
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Excellent Links
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
My Kinda Prez Candidate
GOP '08 hopeful keeps visit low-key
By KAREN LOVETT
Telegraph Staff
NASHUA – When Republican presidential candidate John McCain toured the state on a recent stormy weekend, he hired a plow to lead his bus full of staffers, supporters and a "60 Minutes" news crew.
When fellow hopeful Mitt Romney swept through New Hampshire in February, he was traveling with a small entourage of cars full of assistants.
But when yet another GOP presidential contender, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif ., rolled into the parking lot of the Broad Street Country Store in Nashua on Sunday, it was in a rented Ford SUV.
Store owner Vahrij Manoukian rushed to the passenger side to greet Hunter.
"I said, 'Congressman, how are you?' " Manoukian recalled. "He said, 'I'm not the congressman. I'm the aide.' "
Hunter, it turns out, did his own driving during his visit to the Granite State , which included stops in Goffstown and Keene.
To a crowd of about 50 gathered at the store, the 14-term House member paid little attention to McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Romney, who are widely recognized as theHunter pointed to two recent straw polls – informal votes used to gauge people's opinions – in which he had strong showings South Carolina and Arizona.
And Hunter stands by his main concerns, which are defense, securing the country's borders and bolstering manufacturing jobs, which he says have been pushed overseas.
China is "cheating on trade" by devaluing its currency, Hunter said. The Chinese government gives subsidies to exporters, which ultimately lowers prices and pushes American goods off the shelves.
If elected, he pledged to review trade agreements and take action with countries that aren't complying.
Hunter touted his border-control record, citing a wall built in the 1990s between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, that he said knocked down drug-smuggling by 90 percent and slashed San Diego's crime rate. He has written legislation to extend that wall by 854 miles, stretching through Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
An audience member asked his opinion on Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, two Texas Border Patrol agents who, while on duty, shot a Mexican drug-runner non-fatally.
They were each sentenced to more than 10 years in prison, and the issue has generated controversy because some feel the two men should be pardoned. Hunter agreed and said he would do the same if elected.
"I definitely liked his views on illegal immigration and on pardoning the agents," said Candi Mann of Hudson, adding that she didn't share his concerns about international trade because she's unfamiliar with the policies.
"He's a very detail-oriented guy, which makes an effective congressman," said Mark LeDoux of Hollis. "My suggestion in his campaign is to spare some of the details . . . and stick with the big picture."
Dan Hogan of Nashua said was impressed with Hunter's pro-life stance and said he'd keep an eye on the candidate, no matter what the standings say.
"The media has been saying for some time that the Republican people are not terribly enamored with the top three," Hogan said. "I'd say (Hunter) stands as good a chance as anybody."
By KAREN LOVETT
Telegraph Staff
NASHUA – When Republican presidential candidate John McCain toured the state on a recent stormy weekend, he hired a plow to lead his bus full of staffers, supporters and a "60 Minutes" news crew.
When fellow hopeful Mitt Romney swept through New Hampshire in February, he was traveling with a small entourage of cars full of assistants.
But when yet another GOP presidential contender, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif ., rolled into the parking lot of the Broad Street Country Store in Nashua on Sunday, it was in a rented Ford SUV.
Store owner Vahrij Manoukian rushed to the passenger side to greet Hunter.
"I said, 'Congressman, how are you?' " Manoukian recalled. "He said, 'I'm not the congressman. I'm the aide.' "
Hunter, it turns out, did his own driving during his visit to the Granite State , which included stops in Goffstown and Keene.
To a crowd of about 50 gathered at the store, the 14-term House member paid little attention to McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Romney, who are widely recognized as theHunter pointed to two recent straw polls – informal votes used to gauge people's opinions – in which he had strong showings South Carolina and Arizona.
And Hunter stands by his main concerns, which are defense, securing the country's borders and bolstering manufacturing jobs, which he says have been pushed overseas.
China is "cheating on trade" by devaluing its currency, Hunter said. The Chinese government gives subsidies to exporters, which ultimately lowers prices and pushes American goods off the shelves.
If elected, he pledged to review trade agreements and take action with countries that aren't complying.
Hunter touted his border-control record, citing a wall built in the 1990s between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico, that he said knocked down drug-smuggling by 90 percent and slashed San Diego's crime rate. He has written legislation to extend that wall by 854 miles, stretching through Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
An audience member asked his opinion on Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, two Texas Border Patrol agents who, while on duty, shot a Mexican drug-runner non-fatally.
They were each sentenced to more than 10 years in prison, and the issue has generated controversy because some feel the two men should be pardoned. Hunter agreed and said he would do the same if elected.
"I definitely liked his views on illegal immigration and on pardoning the agents," said Candi Mann of Hudson, adding that she didn't share his concerns about international trade because she's unfamiliar with the policies.
"He's a very detail-oriented guy, which makes an effective congressman," said Mark LeDoux of Hollis. "My suggestion in his campaign is to spare some of the details . . . and stick with the big picture."
Dan Hogan of Nashua said was impressed with Hunter's pro-life stance and said he'd keep an eye on the candidate, no matter what the standings say.
"The media has been saying for some time that the Republican people are not terribly enamored with the top three," Hogan said. "I'd say (Hunter) stands as good a chance as anybody."
1st Amendment -- Right to Free Assembly
March 26, 2007
The Senate State Affairs Committee has agreed on a party-line vote to introduce legislation changing Idaho's primary election system. Under the proposed plan, Idahoans would have to register with a political party, but they could choose 'independent' and still vote in primary elections. However, their choice of which party's ballot they vote at each election would be public record. This "modified closed" primary system was promoted by The Common Interest, a citizen group, as a way to avoid losing a lawsuit from the GOP if that party attempts to unilaterally close its primary.
Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, said, "One of the hardest things we've had to do here is taking off our party hats. … It can be very easily misconstrued that this is the Republicans trying to push something down someone's throats."
Democrats on the panel were suspicious, however, and county clerks testified that the state should "go slow" on changing the primary system – that there's not time to move to a new system before the 2008 election. "It's going to be a major change in the election process," said Sharon Widner, president of the Idaho Association of County Recorders and Clerks.
State Affairs Chairman Sen. Curt McKenzie, R-Nampa, said the bill will return to the committee for a full hearing before proceeding further – though time is running out for this year's legislative session.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Idaho's Top 50 Conservative List for 2006
Top 50 Idaho Conservatives for 2006
This list represents Idaho’s “conservatives’ conservatives.” The previous list generated in 2003 was the work of many individuals and went through numerous steps. It was, however, obvious from the first round of nominations in 2003 who was going to make the Top 50 Idaho Conservative list.
The running comment in 2003 was, “Can you actually find 50 true conservatives in Idaho?” Well, we did with more to boot. We had over 100 nominations.
For 2006, nominees must have actively participated in promoting the conservative agenda in Idaho since 2003.
The Idaho Top 50 Conservative List reflects the notable saying that “Ideas have Consequences.” There are people who have worked diligently promoting the conservative ideas of less government, lower taxes, and the proper role of government by protecting our individual freedoms and our property rights. On the consequences side, a number of prominent elected officials made the list who have a clear record of defending the conservative principles while attempting to implement these ideas through various legislative actions.
Idaho’s Top 50 Idaho Conservative List for 2006
1
Bill Sali
State Representative
Kuna
2
Gerry Sweet
State Senator
Meridian
3
Rod Beck
Frm. Senate Majority Leader
Boise
4
Lenore Barrett
State Representative
Challis
5
Tom Loertscher
State Representative
Bone
6
Phil Hart
State Representative
Athol
7
Cliff Bayer
State Representative
Boise
8
Lawerence Denney
House Majority Leader
Midvale
9
Henry Kuczyk
Frm. State Rep.
Eagle
10
Laird Maxwell
Political Activist
Boise
11
Pete Neilsen
State Representative
Mtn. Home
12
Ralph Smeed
Political Philosopher
Caldwell
13
Stan Hawkins
Frm. State Senator
Ucon
14
Jim Auld
Frm. State Senator
Boise
15
Robert Schaefer
State Representative
Nampa
16
Monty Pearce
State Senator
New Plymouth
17
Mike Moyle
Asst. House Majority Leader
Star
18
Dick Harwood
State Representative
St. Maries
19
Shirley McKague
State Representative
Meridian
20
Russ Fulcher
State Senator
Meridian
21
Jack Wenders
Econ. Prof. U of I (emeritus)
Moscow
22
Tina Jacobson
Political Activist
Rathdrum
23
Irene Gans
Political Activist
Nampa
24
Bryan Fischer
Political Activist
Boise
25
Steven Thayne
Political Activist
Emmett
26
Helen Chenoweth
Frm. US Congressman
Tonapah, NV
27
Scott Bedke
State Representative
Oakley
28
David Ripley
Political Activist
Boise
29
Trish Oak & Halli Stone
Radio Personalities
Idaho Falls
30
Brandi Swindell
Political Activist
Boise
31
Bob & Barbara Forrey
Frm. State Rep. and Activists
Boise
32
Don Burtenshaw
State Senator
Terreton
33
Joe Rohner II
Political Activist
Boise
34
Ron Vieselmeyer
Frm. State Rep.
Coeur d'Alene
35
Maurice Clements
Activist and Frm. State Rep.
Nampa
36
Butch Otter
US Congressman
Star
37
Mike McVoy
Frm. State Representative
Emmett
38
Elysee Barrett
Political Activist and author
Boise
39
Don Schanz
Political Activist
Idaho Falls
40
Charotte Twight
BSU Prof. and author
Boise
41
Cindy Reis
Political Activist
Boise
42
Becky Ponkow
Internet News Service
Pocatello
43
George Detweiller
Political Activist
Twin Falls
44
Dan Symms
Agra-Businessman
Sunny Slope
45
Larry Craig
US Senator
Midvale
46
Norm Semanko
Political Activist
Eagle
47
Dan Dunham
Political Activist
Boise
48
Larry Lyons
I.F. City Council
Idaho Falls
49
Jack Noble
Frm. State Senator
Kuna
50
Ronalee Linsenmann
Political Activist
Nampa
This list represents Idaho’s “conservatives’ conservatives.” The previous list generated in 2003 was the work of many individuals and went through numerous steps. It was, however, obvious from the first round of nominations in 2003 who was going to make the Top 50 Idaho Conservative list.
The running comment in 2003 was, “Can you actually find 50 true conservatives in Idaho?” Well, we did with more to boot. We had over 100 nominations.
For 2006, nominees must have actively participated in promoting the conservative agenda in Idaho since 2003.
The Idaho Top 50 Conservative List reflects the notable saying that “Ideas have Consequences.” There are people who have worked diligently promoting the conservative ideas of less government, lower taxes, and the proper role of government by protecting our individual freedoms and our property rights. On the consequences side, a number of prominent elected officials made the list who have a clear record of defending the conservative principles while attempting to implement these ideas through various legislative actions.
Idaho’s Top 50 Idaho Conservative List for 2006
1
Bill Sali
State Representative
Kuna
2
Gerry Sweet
State Senator
Meridian
3
Rod Beck
Frm. Senate Majority Leader
Boise
4
Lenore Barrett
State Representative
Challis
5
Tom Loertscher
State Representative
Bone
6
Phil Hart
State Representative
Athol
7
Cliff Bayer
State Representative
Boise
8
Lawerence Denney
House Majority Leader
Midvale
9
Henry Kuczyk
Frm. State Rep.
Eagle
10
Laird Maxwell
Political Activist
Boise
11
Pete Neilsen
State Representative
Mtn. Home
12
Ralph Smeed
Political Philosopher
Caldwell
13
Stan Hawkins
Frm. State Senator
Ucon
14
Jim Auld
Frm. State Senator
Boise
15
Robert Schaefer
State Representative
Nampa
16
Monty Pearce
State Senator
New Plymouth
17
Mike Moyle
Asst. House Majority Leader
Star
18
Dick Harwood
State Representative
St. Maries
19
Shirley McKague
State Representative
Meridian
20
Russ Fulcher
State Senator
Meridian
21
Jack Wenders
Econ. Prof. U of I (emeritus)
Moscow
22
Tina Jacobson
Political Activist
Rathdrum
23
Irene Gans
Political Activist
Nampa
24
Bryan Fischer
Political Activist
Boise
25
Steven Thayne
Political Activist
Emmett
26
Helen Chenoweth
Frm. US Congressman
Tonapah, NV
27
Scott Bedke
State Representative
Oakley
28
David Ripley
Political Activist
Boise
29
Trish Oak & Halli Stone
Radio Personalities
Idaho Falls
30
Brandi Swindell
Political Activist
Boise
31
Bob & Barbara Forrey
Frm. State Rep. and Activists
Boise
32
Don Burtenshaw
State Senator
Terreton
33
Joe Rohner II
Political Activist
Boise
34
Ron Vieselmeyer
Frm. State Rep.
Coeur d'Alene
35
Maurice Clements
Activist and Frm. State Rep.
Nampa
36
Butch Otter
US Congressman
Star
37
Mike McVoy
Frm. State Representative
Emmett
38
Elysee Barrett
Political Activist and author
Boise
39
Don Schanz
Political Activist
Idaho Falls
40
Charotte Twight
BSU Prof. and author
Boise
41
Cindy Reis
Political Activist
Boise
42
Becky Ponkow
Internet News Service
Pocatello
43
George Detweiller
Political Activist
Twin Falls
44
Dan Symms
Agra-Businessman
Sunny Slope
45
Larry Craig
US Senator
Midvale
46
Norm Semanko
Political Activist
Eagle
47
Dan Dunham
Political Activist
Boise
48
Larry Lyons
I.F. City Council
Idaho Falls
49
Jack Noble
Frm. State Senator
Kuna
50
Ronalee Linsenmann
Political Activist
Nampa
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Dear Mr. President
SPUD NOTES: I recieved this letter and thought you might like to read, too. Send it on to some of your friends. It is the best pro-Fair Tax letter I've read in a long time. It is time we redouble our efforts to abolish the IRS.
Dear Mr. President,
We are writing you today regarding the IRS, the most un-American institution of our government.
We have accessed the IRS website to find a way to speak with a human being regarding a tax number for the estate of a family member as it is required for estate processing. Using the only number that can be found on the website and checked against the records of several legal firms in the area as the number to get those answers, all the telephone has done for two days is ring busy and after a period of time, disconnect. This is two days of labor listening to a telephone ring. This is not the only time I have had trouble with the IRS and the first contact was much worse.
We were in a catastrophic auto accident a few months after I made a mistake and had to take money from an IRA. My wife was near death (she has recovered to a small degree since) and I was badly broken and we both spent the next four months in the hospital. All of that time the IRS was on us and even began taking personal property without a hearing. Laying in serious condition in the hospital, I spent every available moment attempting to mortgage assets to pay the tax bill, as they continued harassment. If I put money in my checking account to pay bills, it was confiscated upon deposit. Even with verification that we were attempting to obtain mortgages and with clear evidence that we were likely (and subsequently were) approved, the harassment continued.
Following release from the hospital, my wife, now paralyzed and in a neck and body brace and I, barely able to walk, went to the IRS servive center in Saginaw, Michigan, to ask that the IRS back off a little as we worked, diligently, to get them paid. They refused.
I am sure you have heard similar and certainly worse cases than this, but it shows me that the third word in the name, service, is not what this agency is about unless you attach a perverse meaning to the word.
We are just regular Americans. We are not criminals and we are right with all creditors and have always been so. A quick check by the IRS of our credit would have shown that but instead, we were treated like criminals. This is a rogue agency out of control.
Further, the interpretations of tax law are in the hands of the IRS and it is the only court in the country that assumes guilt rather than innocence. I find no virtue in this supposition.
Let's take an example. If I were an accountant and earned only $30,000 for my services as such, yet other accountants earn $60,000 for their services, the IRS can insist that I, too, earned $60,000 and force me to pay taxes on that amount unless that I can prove that I did not receive that amount. How can one prove that one did not receive that amount?
Our tax laws are archaic, burdensome and are completely against the American ideal in which you are entitled to the money you earn, all of it, no matter how much it is. The graduated income tax is socialistic in nature and stifles productivity, right down to the person working overtime and determining it is not worth the effort as the government will take the rewards for doing so.
You commissioned a panel led by former elected officials to study the tax gathering process in the U.S. with the expectation that they would return to you a fair process in which productivity is rewarded, thus enhancing business and with which the citizenry would be dealt with in a fair manner. They instead returned to you only changes that would keep the current unfair and burdensome tax code in place.
This tax code is no longer in place to gather money from the citizenry but rather a method of social engineering and reelection. This is absolutely wrong. We don't need social engineering. We need social responsibility. We don't need people to be reelected through contributions by organizations seeking different treatment. We need our lawmakers to be reelected through performance. We need a new tax code.
There is one plan out there that eliminates the pariah, the IRS. It reduces the points of income from millions to a much smaller number. It is a radical departure from the current tax structure, not allowed by the framers of our constitution, to a tax system that was allowed. That tax structure is the Fair Tax.
I am asking you to take the lead here. I am asking you to have the fortitude to propose something radically different. I am asking you to back this revenue neutral plan to free the American citizen and business to do what we do best - produce without penalty. At the same time you will fix Social Security without reducing benefits.
You cannot be reelected. Your two terms are on the wane. You have an opportunity to step up and give the American people a much better chance to compete, to earn and to save. America is already the place to be on this globe. We are running into hard times in competetion with other restrictive governments and their manipulations allow their companies to compete, though not really in a fair manner. By releasing the tax disadvantages that hamper American growth, we will boldly go forth and we will permanently take our place as the greatest economy in the world, without challenge.
Once again, Mr. President, please step up, take the lead, and usher in a tax system that is fair, revenue neutral and growth oriented. Please promote the Fair Tax from the bully pulpit which you currently control.
By the way, a really important side benefit would be the elimination of the SS style IRS. The American people will love you for it. The American people will stand behind you and America will grow once again in a way such that you can hardly imagine.
God bless you, Mr. President, our troops and our nation.
Sincerely yours,
Michael L. Spawr and Nancy L.K. Spawr
"We do not need more intellectual power, we need more moral power. We do not need more knowledge, we need more character. We do not need more government, we need more culture. We do not need more law, we need more religion. We do not need more of the things that are seen, we need more of the things that are unseen. If the foundation be firm, the foundation will stand." —Calvin Coolidge
The answer to your taxation questions:WWW.FAIRTAX.ORG
Dear Mr. President,
We are writing you today regarding the IRS, the most un-American institution of our government.
We have accessed the IRS website to find a way to speak with a human being regarding a tax number for the estate of a family member as it is required for estate processing. Using the only number that can be found on the website and checked against the records of several legal firms in the area as the number to get those answers, all the telephone has done for two days is ring busy and after a period of time, disconnect. This is two days of labor listening to a telephone ring. This is not the only time I have had trouble with the IRS and the first contact was much worse.
We were in a catastrophic auto accident a few months after I made a mistake and had to take money from an IRA. My wife was near death (she has recovered to a small degree since) and I was badly broken and we both spent the next four months in the hospital. All of that time the IRS was on us and even began taking personal property without a hearing. Laying in serious condition in the hospital, I spent every available moment attempting to mortgage assets to pay the tax bill, as they continued harassment. If I put money in my checking account to pay bills, it was confiscated upon deposit. Even with verification that we were attempting to obtain mortgages and with clear evidence that we were likely (and subsequently were) approved, the harassment continued.
Following release from the hospital, my wife, now paralyzed and in a neck and body brace and I, barely able to walk, went to the IRS servive center in Saginaw, Michigan, to ask that the IRS back off a little as we worked, diligently, to get them paid. They refused.
I am sure you have heard similar and certainly worse cases than this, but it shows me that the third word in the name, service, is not what this agency is about unless you attach a perverse meaning to the word.
We are just regular Americans. We are not criminals and we are right with all creditors and have always been so. A quick check by the IRS of our credit would have shown that but instead, we were treated like criminals. This is a rogue agency out of control.
Further, the interpretations of tax law are in the hands of the IRS and it is the only court in the country that assumes guilt rather than innocence. I find no virtue in this supposition.
Let's take an example. If I were an accountant and earned only $30,000 for my services as such, yet other accountants earn $60,000 for their services, the IRS can insist that I, too, earned $60,000 and force me to pay taxes on that amount unless that I can prove that I did not receive that amount. How can one prove that one did not receive that amount?
Our tax laws are archaic, burdensome and are completely against the American ideal in which you are entitled to the money you earn, all of it, no matter how much it is. The graduated income tax is socialistic in nature and stifles productivity, right down to the person working overtime and determining it is not worth the effort as the government will take the rewards for doing so.
You commissioned a panel led by former elected officials to study the tax gathering process in the U.S. with the expectation that they would return to you a fair process in which productivity is rewarded, thus enhancing business and with which the citizenry would be dealt with in a fair manner. They instead returned to you only changes that would keep the current unfair and burdensome tax code in place.
This tax code is no longer in place to gather money from the citizenry but rather a method of social engineering and reelection. This is absolutely wrong. We don't need social engineering. We need social responsibility. We don't need people to be reelected through contributions by organizations seeking different treatment. We need our lawmakers to be reelected through performance. We need a new tax code.
There is one plan out there that eliminates the pariah, the IRS. It reduces the points of income from millions to a much smaller number. It is a radical departure from the current tax structure, not allowed by the framers of our constitution, to a tax system that was allowed. That tax structure is the Fair Tax.
I am asking you to take the lead here. I am asking you to have the fortitude to propose something radically different. I am asking you to back this revenue neutral plan to free the American citizen and business to do what we do best - produce without penalty. At the same time you will fix Social Security without reducing benefits.
You cannot be reelected. Your two terms are on the wane. You have an opportunity to step up and give the American people a much better chance to compete, to earn and to save. America is already the place to be on this globe. We are running into hard times in competetion with other restrictive governments and their manipulations allow their companies to compete, though not really in a fair manner. By releasing the tax disadvantages that hamper American growth, we will boldly go forth and we will permanently take our place as the greatest economy in the world, without challenge.
Once again, Mr. President, please step up, take the lead, and usher in a tax system that is fair, revenue neutral and growth oriented. Please promote the Fair Tax from the bully pulpit which you currently control.
By the way, a really important side benefit would be the elimination of the SS style IRS. The American people will love you for it. The American people will stand behind you and America will grow once again in a way such that you can hardly imagine.
God bless you, Mr. President, our troops and our nation.
Sincerely yours,
Michael L. Spawr and Nancy L.K. Spawr
"We do not need more intellectual power, we need more moral power. We do not need more knowledge, we need more character. We do not need more government, we need more culture. We do not need more law, we need more religion. We do not need more of the things that are seen, we need more of the things that are unseen. If the foundation be firm, the foundation will stand." —Calvin Coolidge
The answer to your taxation questions:WWW.FAIRTAX.ORG
Monday, October 24, 2005
Power Tends To...
SPUD NOTES: This is an article from Paul Jacobs who heads Common Sense.
Doug Bandow agrees with Lord Acton. Me too. The political commentator believes that the congressional Republicans are bent on proving the truth of Acton's famous axiom, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."Bandow writes, "The GOP began to sell out its principles shortly after seizing control of Congress in 1994, but the abuses continue to grow.
Today, as a few courageous House fiscal conservatives press for offsets against the virtually unlimited spending proposed in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Speaker and his coterie have acted like a woman scorned. Preaching unity, they have trashed any Republican suggesting that free-spending bail-outs are not the conservative way."
Bandow also says the Republicans are worse than the Democrats, having learned to lord it over the rest of us even more riotously during their own tenure in control. Now they're even making announcements about which investors should or should not invest in a DC baseball franchise.Are Republicans really so much more power-mad than the Democrats? Their record, when it comes to porkbarrel politics and dictating the fate of baseball franchises, ain't good, that's for sure.
But maybe it's just that every generation of career politicians finds ever-more ludicrous ways to run riot.Bandow is implicitly making a case for term limits. While ideology may matter on certain questions, it apparently does not matter on the question of which entrenched group of career politicians will spend us into oblivion. Both will, either will, given the chance. Birds of a feather flail and splurge together.
This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
Doug Bandow agrees with Lord Acton. Me too. The political commentator believes that the congressional Republicans are bent on proving the truth of Acton's famous axiom, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."Bandow writes, "The GOP began to sell out its principles shortly after seizing control of Congress in 1994, but the abuses continue to grow.
Today, as a few courageous House fiscal conservatives press for offsets against the virtually unlimited spending proposed in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Speaker and his coterie have acted like a woman scorned. Preaching unity, they have trashed any Republican suggesting that free-spending bail-outs are not the conservative way."
Bandow also says the Republicans are worse than the Democrats, having learned to lord it over the rest of us even more riotously during their own tenure in control. Now they're even making announcements about which investors should or should not invest in a DC baseball franchise.Are Republicans really so much more power-mad than the Democrats? Their record, when it comes to porkbarrel politics and dictating the fate of baseball franchises, ain't good, that's for sure.
But maybe it's just that every generation of career politicians finds ever-more ludicrous ways to run riot.Bandow is implicitly making a case for term limits. While ideology may matter on certain questions, it apparently does not matter on the question of which entrenched group of career politicians will spend us into oblivion. Both will, either will, given the chance. Birds of a feather flail and splurge together.
This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Cut Idaho’s Gas Tax with Special Session
State tax group supports three month gas tax suspension proposed by Rep. Sali
(Boise) -- Today, Idaho State Representative and 1st Congressional District candidate Bill Sali (R-Kuna) called on Governor Dirk Kempthone to quickly convene a Special Session of the Idaho Legislature for the purpose of suspending the state’s 25¢ gas tax for a period of three months.
Idahoans for Tax Reform chairman Laird Maxwell wholeheartedly endorsed Sali’s call.
“It is time we gave Idaho taxpayers a breather from skyrocketing gas prices,” said Maxwell. “The state’s running a fat revenue surplus and instead of legislators ballooning the already bloated budget; give the folks back home a break.”
“With winter bearing down on us, cutting the gas tax would be a great relief, especially for families that are hit hard by ever increasing energy prices,” said Maxwell.
“Taxpayers were forced to cough up an additional 1¢ sales tax increase when the government was struggling to expand during the recession years, now it is time for elected leaders to return the favor,” added Maxwell.
He predicted that some politicians will “hurrumph” up plenty of excuses as to why we shouldn’t give the taxpayers a break. “But, I believe there will be enough momentum to cut the gas tax from their voters, that many of the big spenders will clam up and not openly object for fear of the backlash.”
Here are some headlines from around the country regarding gas tax cuts:
Democrats Push Bush for Gas Tax Relief
(TALLAHASSEE) -- Senate Democrats on Tuesday urged Gov. Jeb Bush to use his emergency powers to temporarily cut the state's gas tax to give motorists some relief at the pumps. (9-7-05)
Lawmakers Look for Ways to Cut Gas Prices
(AP) -- After prices shot up and panicky motorists topped off their tanks, causing brief shortages, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue last week ordered a month long moratorium on state gas taxes. (9-7-05)
Governors Should Ease Pain at Pump, Act Now on Gas Tax Relief, Nation’s Largest Taxpayer Group Urges
(ALEXANDRIA, VA) -- “Government can’t, and more importantly shouldn’t, try to control fuel prices, but it can and should reduce fuel taxes,” said National Taxpayers Union President John Berthoud. “By taking action now, especially at the state level, elected officials can not only help consumers cope with still-volatile gasoline costs, they can help the economy by easing the squeeze on businesses that need stable fuel expenses to thrive.” (9-20-05)
(Boise) -- Today, Idaho State Representative and 1st Congressional District candidate Bill Sali (R-Kuna) called on Governor Dirk Kempthone to quickly convene a Special Session of the Idaho Legislature for the purpose of suspending the state’s 25¢ gas tax for a period of three months.
Idahoans for Tax Reform chairman Laird Maxwell wholeheartedly endorsed Sali’s call.
“It is time we gave Idaho taxpayers a breather from skyrocketing gas prices,” said Maxwell. “The state’s running a fat revenue surplus and instead of legislators ballooning the already bloated budget; give the folks back home a break.”
“With winter bearing down on us, cutting the gas tax would be a great relief, especially for families that are hit hard by ever increasing energy prices,” said Maxwell.
“Taxpayers were forced to cough up an additional 1¢ sales tax increase when the government was struggling to expand during the recession years, now it is time for elected leaders to return the favor,” added Maxwell.
He predicted that some politicians will “hurrumph” up plenty of excuses as to why we shouldn’t give the taxpayers a break. “But, I believe there will be enough momentum to cut the gas tax from their voters, that many of the big spenders will clam up and not openly object for fear of the backlash.”
Here are some headlines from around the country regarding gas tax cuts:
Democrats Push Bush for Gas Tax Relief
(TALLAHASSEE) -- Senate Democrats on Tuesday urged Gov. Jeb Bush to use his emergency powers to temporarily cut the state's gas tax to give motorists some relief at the pumps. (9-7-05)
Lawmakers Look for Ways to Cut Gas Prices
(AP) -- After prices shot up and panicky motorists topped off their tanks, causing brief shortages, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue last week ordered a month long moratorium on state gas taxes. (9-7-05)
Governors Should Ease Pain at Pump, Act Now on Gas Tax Relief, Nation’s Largest Taxpayer Group Urges
(ALEXANDRIA, VA) -- “Government can’t, and more importantly shouldn’t, try to control fuel prices, but it can and should reduce fuel taxes,” said National Taxpayers Union President John Berthoud. “By taking action now, especially at the state level, elected officials can not only help consumers cope with still-volatile gasoline costs, they can help the economy by easing the squeeze on businesses that need stable fuel expenses to thrive.” (9-20-05)
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
White Trash Hurricane Survival Kit
- Toilet Paper ...................... check
- Bud Light .......................... check
- Keystone Ice...................... check
- Budweiser .......................... check
- Red Dog .............................. check
- Misc. other bottles of alcohol ................... check
- Piece of plywood and air mattress to float your chick and booze on ................... check
Next time let's all be more prepared.
Friday, October 07, 2005
The Final Numbers are In!
SPUD NOTES: Ann Coulter had this little ditty on her web site dated 10/04/05. She made such an excellent observation, so I thought I'd share it with you ---
Final New Orleans death count: 964
French summer heatwave death count: 14,802
Final New Orleans death count: 964
French summer heatwave death count: 14,802
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
You Might be a RINO* If ...
*Republican In Name Only
One of the funniest comedians I know, Jeff Foxworthy, has developed his comedy routine by providing a test for people who are not sure if they are a Redneck. For example he would say, “If you ever took a can of beer to a job interview, you might be a Redneck.” I started to think about the Republicans in my state and others who are not sure if they are RINO's. I was pondering that question and I started to think of ways you can tell if you might be a RINO. Here are some of my random thoughts in no particular order, however they are not meant to be funny.
· If you get the endorsement of the teachers union, you might be a RINO.
· If you go to political functions and brag about how much money you brought back to your district, you might be a RINO.
· If you’ve been reelected to the same legislative seat more that 3 times, you might be a RINO.
· If you have 2 or more close relatives working for the government, you might be a RINO.
· If you are holding more than one elected office, you might be a RINO.
· If you ever voted to raise your own salary, pension, or benefits, you might be a RINO.
· If you haven’t openly defended Wal-Mart who is under attack by the unions, you might be a RINO.
· If you voted to increase the “minimum wage,” you might be a RINO.
· If you ever voted to preserve open space you didn’t personally own, you might be a RINO.
· If you are endorsed by the Sierra Club, you might be a RINO.
· If you ever uttered something like “Conservatives can’t win in this state,” you might be a RINO.
· If you ever uttered something like “75% of the budget is contractual and nothing can be done about it,” you might be a RINO.
· If you ever said anything like “you have to compromise or nothing would ever get done,” you might be a RINO.
· If you ever abstained from a legislative vote to avoid controversy, you might be a RINO.
· If you use the word “fetus” to differentiate from an “unborn baby,” you might be a RINO.
· If you think property tax relief can't be achieved in the state capitol, you might be a RINO.
· If you describe yourself a “fiscal" conservative, you might be a RINO.
· If you have a solution to the high property taxes and it doesn’t include taking down the Education establishment, you might be a RINO delusional.
· If you never sponsored a bill that eliminates a government program, you might be a RINO.
· If you are endorsed by Planned Parenthood, you might be a RINO.
· If you think a progressive tax is fair, you might be a RINO.
· If you means-test any government benefit, you might be a RINO.
· If you think you can solve crime by passing laws, you might be a RINO.
· If you think gun control make us safer, you might be a RINO.
· If you voted to renew the Patriot Act, you might be a RINO.
· If you think you can reduce the crime rate without returning God back into the public domain, you might be a RINO.
· If you are endorsed by any union, you might be a RINO.
· If you think government can rehabilitate substance abuse better than faith based organizations can, you might be a RINO.
· If you think school choice will destroy public education, you might be a RINO an idiot.
· If you ever voted to form and fund a commission or study, you might be a RINO.
· If you voted to ban cell phone use while driving, you might be a RINO.
· If you think government should subsidize college tuition, you might be a RINO.
· If you support parental notification and banning partial-birth abortion, but can’t declare yourself as Pro-Life, you might be a RINO.
· If you’re politically correct first and practical second, you might be a RINO.
· If you need to take a poll to know how to vote, you might be a RINO.
· If you voted for stricter emission restrictions on vehicles, you might be a RINO.
· If you sponsor legislation for the purpose of telling the public you care, you might be a RINO.
· If you voted for CAFTA, you might be a RINO.
· If you don’t regularly attend religious services, other than during a campaign you might be a RINO.
· If you voted to subsidize private enterprise, you might be a RINO.
· If you are personally against abortion but don’t want to impose your values on anyone else, you might be a RINO.
· If you ever voted for a budget with added debt that has not be approved by referendum, you might be a RINO.
· If you support building a new stadium with public money and say it will not cost the taxpayer anything, you might be a RINO liar.
· If you support gay marriage or domestic partnerships, you might be a RINO.
· If you refuse to help business and residents from having their property taken from them to give to a prefered developer, you might be a RINO heartless thief.
· If you oppose allowing state and local law enforcement to round up “illegal aliens,” you might be a RINO.
· If receive the endorsement of a major newspaper, you might be a RINO.
· If you ever traded your vote to get a vote; “I’ll support your pork, if you support my pork,” you might be a RINO.
· If you ever voted for legislation or appropriations on basis of the Supreme Court’s say so, you might be a neutered RINO.
· If you believe the secret to political success is a “Big Tent,” you might be a RINO.
Once I started these thoughts, they just kept flowing. I’m sure you can think of many more, so if you have additional RINO indicators, I would like to hear them. You can reach me at jonelli@optonline.net.
--- Joseph Tomanelli is President and co-founder of the New Jersey Republican Assembly, “The Republican Wing of the Republican Party;” he has earned a BS degree in Business from Ramapo College and an MS degree in Management and Operational Auditing from NJIT. He is also a CPA, former President of the Mahwah Republican Club, an elected County Committeeman, and a self-described RINO Hunter.
by Joseph Tomanelli
One of the funniest comedians I know, Jeff Foxworthy, has developed his comedy routine by providing a test for people who are not sure if they are a Redneck. For example he would say, “If you ever took a can of beer to a job interview, you might be a Redneck.” I started to think about the Republicans in my state and others who are not sure if they are RINO's. I was pondering that question and I started to think of ways you can tell if you might be a RINO. Here are some of my random thoughts in no particular order, however they are not meant to be funny.
· If you get the endorsement of the teachers union, you might be a RINO.
· If you go to political functions and brag about how much money you brought back to your district, you might be a RINO.
· If you’ve been reelected to the same legislative seat more that 3 times, you might be a RINO.
· If you have 2 or more close relatives working for the government, you might be a RINO.
· If you are holding more than one elected office, you might be a RINO.
· If you ever voted to raise your own salary, pension, or benefits, you might be a RINO.
· If you haven’t openly defended Wal-Mart who is under attack by the unions, you might be a RINO.
· If you voted to increase the “minimum wage,” you might be a RINO.
· If you ever voted to preserve open space you didn’t personally own, you might be a RINO.
· If you are endorsed by the Sierra Club, you might be a RINO.
· If you ever uttered something like “Conservatives can’t win in this state,” you might be a RINO.
· If you ever uttered something like “75% of the budget is contractual and nothing can be done about it,” you might be a RINO.
· If you ever said anything like “you have to compromise or nothing would ever get done,” you might be a RINO.
· If you ever abstained from a legislative vote to avoid controversy, you might be a RINO.
· If you use the word “fetus” to differentiate from an “unborn baby,” you might be a RINO.
· If you think property tax relief can't be achieved in the state capitol, you might be a RINO.
· If you describe yourself a “fiscal" conservative, you might be a RINO.
· If you have a solution to the high property taxes and it doesn’t include taking down the Education establishment, you might be a RINO delusional.
· If you never sponsored a bill that eliminates a government program, you might be a RINO.
· If you are endorsed by Planned Parenthood, you might be a RINO.
· If you think a progressive tax is fair, you might be a RINO.
· If you means-test any government benefit, you might be a RINO.
· If you think you can solve crime by passing laws, you might be a RINO.
· If you think gun control make us safer, you might be a RINO.
· If you voted to renew the Patriot Act, you might be a RINO.
· If you think you can reduce the crime rate without returning God back into the public domain, you might be a RINO.
· If you are endorsed by any union, you might be a RINO.
· If you think government can rehabilitate substance abuse better than faith based organizations can, you might be a RINO.
· If you think school choice will destroy public education, you might be a RINO an idiot.
· If you ever voted to form and fund a commission or study, you might be a RINO.
· If you voted to ban cell phone use while driving, you might be a RINO.
· If you think government should subsidize college tuition, you might be a RINO.
· If you support parental notification and banning partial-birth abortion, but can’t declare yourself as Pro-Life, you might be a RINO.
· If you’re politically correct first and practical second, you might be a RINO.
· If you need to take a poll to know how to vote, you might be a RINO.
· If you voted for stricter emission restrictions on vehicles, you might be a RINO.
· If you sponsor legislation for the purpose of telling the public you care, you might be a RINO.
· If you voted for CAFTA, you might be a RINO.
· If you don’t regularly attend religious services, other than during a campaign you might be a RINO.
· If you voted to subsidize private enterprise, you might be a RINO.
· If you are personally against abortion but don’t want to impose your values on anyone else, you might be a RINO.
· If you ever voted for a budget with added debt that has not be approved by referendum, you might be a RINO.
· If you support building a new stadium with public money and say it will not cost the taxpayer anything, you might be a RINO liar.
· If you support gay marriage or domestic partnerships, you might be a RINO.
· If you refuse to help business and residents from having their property taken from them to give to a prefered developer, you might be a RINO heartless thief.
· If you oppose allowing state and local law enforcement to round up “illegal aliens,” you might be a RINO.
· If receive the endorsement of a major newspaper, you might be a RINO.
· If you ever traded your vote to get a vote; “I’ll support your pork, if you support my pork,” you might be a RINO.
· If you ever voted for legislation or appropriations on basis of the Supreme Court’s say so, you might be a neutered RINO.
· If you believe the secret to political success is a “Big Tent,” you might be a RINO.
Once I started these thoughts, they just kept flowing. I’m sure you can think of many more, so if you have additional RINO indicators, I would like to hear them. You can reach me at jonelli@optonline.net.
--- Joseph Tomanelli is President and co-founder of the New Jersey Republican Assembly, “The Republican Wing of the Republican Party;” he has earned a BS degree in Business from Ramapo College and an MS degree in Management and Operational Auditing from NJIT. He is also a CPA, former President of the Mahwah Republican Club, an elected County Committeeman, and a self-described RINO Hunter.
by Joseph Tomanelli
Monday, September 19, 2005
No Tax Dollars Left Behind
States Scheme to Tax Internet
by John BerthoudPosted Sep 16, 2005
Across America, state politicians of both parties—joined by some strange bedfellows—are seeking to institute the Streamlined Sales Tax Project (SSTP), which would result in Americans paying billions of dollars more in taxes.
The SSTP is an interstate collaborative agreement that would unify state sales tax systems for the purpose of Internet transactions. Currently, if a consumer makes a purchase from a vendor with no physical presence in his state, he pays no sales tax.The SSTP is another money grab by politicians, dressed up in the garb of “fairness.”
The arguments for the SSTP are bogus, and as more citizens learn about it—and confront their elected leaders—let’s hope it will be defeated.
Proponents claim that unless we enact the SSTP, “critical government services” will be cut. The National Governors’ Association (NGA) has long agitated for the SSTP and has claimed if it’s not adopted, “America would have 200,000 fewer teachers and police officers educating our children and keeping our communities safe.”
But what the NGA and other pro-tax groups don’t tell you is that states are already flush with money. From 1994 to 2004, total state receipts rose by 63%. This is before the large revenue spurt that most states have experienced in 2005. State governments may need many things, but they don’t need another source of money.
The pro-taxers also claim that without SSTP, businesses selling products on the Internet are “escaping their obligation” to fund government. This is false.Businesses, on and off the Internet, are already overtaxed through a great variety of levies. These include: corporate income taxes, personal income taxes, sales taxes, use taxes, property taxes and literally hundreds of different types of fees.
When you buy a book on Amazon.com, it is not coming to you tax-free. There are dozens of taxes embedded in its price. But that’s not good enough for the pro-taxers. Hence, SSTP.
Fake ‘Fairness’ Coalition
Finally, the pro-SSTP crowd rolls out the “fairness” argument. They argue it is unfair that the sales-tax burden imposed on “brick and mortar” stores is not also imposed on “click and order” establishments.
But the playing field is currently quite level for traditional businesses as well as those born on the Internet: Any vendor can do business on the Internet, if it wishes, and there is no requirement for anyone to collect sales taxes on out-of-state vendors.So if the arguments for SSTP are all wet, how is it moving forward? An odd-ball coalition is behind it.
Public employee unions, who always want governments to have more cash, are for it because more government money means either more pay for their current members or more public employees who can become members.
Some retailers who haven’t been particularly successful in Internet commerce are also for it. They hope SSTP will slow the growth of their competitors who have been more successful online.
Instead of improving their own web presence, these retailers are trying to use the tax system to beat down their competition.Together, unions and self-interested businesses have formed a politically powerful coalition that has spent enormous sums lobbying on this issue. Those dollars have paid off. The SSTP is already coming partially into effect. This fall, 13 states will be requesting online sellers to start abiding by the rules of SSTP (see below).
There will soon be a major push in Congress to enact enabling legislation allowing states to require sellers to collect taxes under SSTP.
Instead of creating new tax burdens, Congress and the states should be focusing on ways to lower old ones.
by John BerthoudPosted Sep 16, 2005
Across America, state politicians of both parties—joined by some strange bedfellows—are seeking to institute the Streamlined Sales Tax Project (SSTP), which would result in Americans paying billions of dollars more in taxes.
The SSTP is an interstate collaborative agreement that would unify state sales tax systems for the purpose of Internet transactions. Currently, if a consumer makes a purchase from a vendor with no physical presence in his state, he pays no sales tax.The SSTP is another money grab by politicians, dressed up in the garb of “fairness.”
The arguments for the SSTP are bogus, and as more citizens learn about it—and confront their elected leaders—let’s hope it will be defeated.
Proponents claim that unless we enact the SSTP, “critical government services” will be cut. The National Governors’ Association (NGA) has long agitated for the SSTP and has claimed if it’s not adopted, “America would have 200,000 fewer teachers and police officers educating our children and keeping our communities safe.”
But what the NGA and other pro-tax groups don’t tell you is that states are already flush with money. From 1994 to 2004, total state receipts rose by 63%. This is before the large revenue spurt that most states have experienced in 2005. State governments may need many things, but they don’t need another source of money.
The pro-taxers also claim that without SSTP, businesses selling products on the Internet are “escaping their obligation” to fund government. This is false.Businesses, on and off the Internet, are already overtaxed through a great variety of levies. These include: corporate income taxes, personal income taxes, sales taxes, use taxes, property taxes and literally hundreds of different types of fees.
When you buy a book on Amazon.com, it is not coming to you tax-free. There are dozens of taxes embedded in its price. But that’s not good enough for the pro-taxers. Hence, SSTP.
Fake ‘Fairness’ Coalition
Finally, the pro-SSTP crowd rolls out the “fairness” argument. They argue it is unfair that the sales-tax burden imposed on “brick and mortar” stores is not also imposed on “click and order” establishments.
But the playing field is currently quite level for traditional businesses as well as those born on the Internet: Any vendor can do business on the Internet, if it wishes, and there is no requirement for anyone to collect sales taxes on out-of-state vendors.So if the arguments for SSTP are all wet, how is it moving forward? An odd-ball coalition is behind it.
Public employee unions, who always want governments to have more cash, are for it because more government money means either more pay for their current members or more public employees who can become members.
Some retailers who haven’t been particularly successful in Internet commerce are also for it. They hope SSTP will slow the growth of their competitors who have been more successful online.
Instead of improving their own web presence, these retailers are trying to use the tax system to beat down their competition.Together, unions and self-interested businesses have formed a politically powerful coalition that has spent enormous sums lobbying on this issue. Those dollars have paid off. The SSTP is already coming partially into effect. This fall, 13 states will be requesting online sellers to start abiding by the rules of SSTP (see below).
There will soon be a major push in Congress to enact enabling legislation allowing states to require sellers to collect taxes under SSTP.
Instead of creating new tax burdens, Congress and the states should be focusing on ways to lower old ones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)