reading the tea leaves

Poll: More trust Republicans than Democrats on Terrorism, Illegal Immigration and Moral Values

Posted by Rachel Alexander

December 16, 2007 at 8:01 pm

In a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, more people said they trust Republicans over Democrats on the issues of terrorism (by 10%), illegal immigration (by 7%), and moral values (by 4%). This sends a clear message to Republicans running for office in 2008 – they need to emphasize and run on those issues.

I enjoy this sentence since she doesn't say the republicans must find people that believe these issues to be the most important, only they need to proclaim these issues to be important to get elected.

Some members of Congress have figured that out, like Arizona’s Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl, who backed off on their support for immigration reform perceived as amnesty, and are instead now advocating for the traditional Republican position backing border enforcement.

I've lived through Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2. All were elected president as republicans and yet NOTHING has been done about our border. Bush 2 even had a republican led congress and yet NOTHING was done about border security. A traditional republican position I THINK NOT !!!!

The big elephant in the closet is terrorism; the Democrats’ timid approach toward terrorism takes a huge gamble that there will not be another successful terrorist attack on the U.S. before the next election. If there is an attack, the Republicans’ tough approach to terrorism will have been clearly proven to be correct, and they’ll sweep the elections.

If there is a terrorist attack before the election it will clearly point out the failures of this government to defend this country twice in an 8 year reign of Bush the younger. It is time for people to wake up defending this nation isn't a very high priority for anyone in DC.

Surprisingly, more people said they trust the Democrats over the Republicans on taxes (by 2% - within the margin of error). This is perplexing, I cannot understand why anyone would prefer raising taxes over cutting taxes (unless it’s a politician who wants to spend more money, or low-income earners who do not pay taxes but who are dependent upon the government for welfare).

Since neither party can control itself with the purse I find it perplexing that either party had anyone that trusted them on taxes. How about something radical like getting rid of federal government taxation as a whole and lose all the "special interest" taxation programs

The poll also found that more people trust the Democrats over the Republicans on issues such as Iraq and the economy, but those can be explained as a result of Bush fatigue; whenever one party has been in the White House for over one term, the voters begin to turn to the other party naturally. Republicans can still win in 2008, if they keep terrorism, illegal immigration and moral values front and center.

BUSH fatigue??????? How about educational stupidity since on these issues BOTH these two parties are exactly alike. YES the democrats will huff and puff about getting out of Iraq but when it is all said an done we'll be there for another 50 years or so. One only need to look at Japan, Korea, Germany, and the host of other places where we still have military installations.

One must wonder where the political machines of the republicans and democrats find these people that can watch what goes on in politics and yet still continue to misrepresent their side of the political coin.
Are these people purposely trying to get people to sway to there side via half truths and short facts. I guess that is why the educational establishment has remained constant no matter which political party has controlled the White House and Oval Office.

What is a billion

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/trivia/billions.asp

What is a Billion?

This is too true to be very funny!

The next time you hear a politician use the word "billion" in a casual manner, think about whether you want the "politicians" spending YOUR tax money.

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of its releases.


A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.

C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.

D. A billion days ago no one walked on the earth on two feet.

E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government is spending i t.

While this thought is still fresh in our brain, let's take a look at New Orleans It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.

Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D), is presently asking the Congress for $250 BILLION to rebuild New Orleans. Interesting number, what does it mean?

A. Well, if you are one of 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, child), you each get $516,528.

B. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans, your home gets $1,329,787.

C. Or, if you are a family of four, your family gets $2,066,012.

Washington, D.C. ... HELLO!!! ... Are all your calculators broken??

Tax his land,
Tax his wage,
Tax his bed in which he lays.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes is the rule.
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his p ants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirts,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he tries to think.

Tax his booze,
Tax his beers,
If he cries,
Tax his tears.

Tax his bills,
Tax his gas,
Tax his notes,
Tax his cash.

Tax him good and let him know
That after taxes, he has no dough.

If he hollers,
Tax him more,
Tax him until he's good and sore.

Tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in which he lays.
Put these words upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me to my doom!"

And when he's gone,
We won't relax,
We'll still be after the inheritance TAX!!
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel P ermit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax),
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax),
Liquor Tax,
Luxury Tax,
Marriage License Tax,
Medicare Tax,
Property Tax,
Real Estate Tax,
Service charge taxes,
Social Security Tax,
Road Usage Tax (Truckers),
Sales Taxes,
Recreational Vehicle Tax,
School Tax,
State Income Tax,
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA),
Telephone Federal Excise Tax,
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax,
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax,
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax,
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax,
Telephone State and Local Tax,
Telephone Usage Charge Tax,
Utility Tax,
Vehicle License Registration Tax,
Vehicle Sales Tax,
Watercraft Registration Tax,
Well Permit Tax,
Workers Compensation Tax.


STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What happened? Can you spell 'politicians!'

And I still have to "press 1" for English.

The Dinner Tab (Tax 101 for Liberals)

Yes friends it is that time again, where government either says you didn't pay enough to support our out of control spending or where those less fortunate get to benefit off of the redistribution schemes instituted by the government so people will continue to vote for political clout.

The Dinner Tab (Tax 101 for Liberals)
Tuesday, February 27, 2007 3:12 PM

I often chuckle at the "tax cuts for the rich!", meme. A conversation with someone on the Left usually goes something like this:

"I'm opposed to those tax cuts," they say, "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair."

And though you try to argue, "But the rich pay more in the first place, so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back", you can tell they are not really convinced. So I like to tell the parable that follows. Hopefully, it will break through the fog of emotion; and if it doesn't, it's still a pretty good story.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Let's suppose that every evening 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. This bill is divided the same way our tax burden is divided, the first four men pay nothing; the fifth guy pays $1; the sixth guy chips in $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest 10%) would pick up $59.

The men all ate dinner in the restaurant every evening and all seemed quite happy with this arrangement until the restaurant owner threw a wrench in the works. "Since you are my best customers," he said, "From now on, I'm going to reduce your bill by $20. Now dinner for all 10 of you will only cost $80."

The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.

The men call an accounting friend with this conundrum and he suggests that the most equitible plan would be to allocate the savings based on the proportions they were paying before the discount. He worked out the amounts each should pay based on that assumption with the following results: The first five now paid nothing; the sixth pays $2, the seventh $5, the eighth $9, the ninth $12, and the tenth man now would pay $52.

Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. He (the tenth man) got seven times more than me!"

"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men vented their outrage on the the tenth. He was so put off that he was no longer willing to have dinner with them anymore. So the next evening he didn't show up. The remaining nine sat down and ate without him. When the bill came, however, they discovered something very important. They were now $52 short!

And that, my friends (and you class warriors, too), is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the most tax will get the most benefit from a tax cut. Attacking them for being wealthy, and feeling put out by their success lifts no one. And if you are diligent enough in your contempt, they could just stop showing up at the table. There are lots of good restaurants in the Cayman Islands.

Take Us Back to '13

that 50% + of the voting public decided not to fill out tax forms. Clearly we need a tax revolt


April 9, 2007 Edition > Section: Opinion >

Take Us Back to '13
BY LARRY SCHWEIKART - Mr. Schweikart, professor of history at the
University of Dayton, is author of "A Patriot's History of the United
States" and "The Entrepreneurial Adventure: A History of Business in the
United States."
April 9, 2007
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/52085

Disclaimer: I hate taxes. I think I pay way too much in taxes. I
think my fellow Americans pay way too much in taxes, especially the
"rich." Perhaps some people aren't bothered that the top 5% of income
earners pay 53% of all income taxes, or that the top 10% pay 65%, but I
am.

Moreover, merely filing tax forms is a frustrating, difficult,
mistake-prone process. According to one recent study, only 13% of
Americans now prepare their own taxes, down significantly from 1993. The
cost of hiring someone to prepare a simple 1040 form can be as high as
$110, and studies have shown that preparation can consume up to 37.8
hours for the most basic return.

Why, then, do we have the system we have? How did it get to the
point that within a mere five years after being enacted, the lowest rate
had gone up by a factor of 25, and the lowest rates reached 75% of every
extra dollar earned? How did it get to the point that, prior to George
W. Bush's tax cuts, Americans worked until mid-May just to pay their
taxes?
Income taxes were sensibly prohibited in the Constitution. During the
Civil War, the Union secretary of the Treasury, Salmon Chase, briefly
implemented income taxes to help pay war bills, but they were
unsuccessful at raising funds. After the war, attempts to create an
income tax foundered when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled them
unconstitutional.

Without income taxes, throughout the 1800s, the primary source of paying
the government's bills came from import duties, and, secondarily, land
sales. By 1900, while federal lands were by no means vanishing, they
were providing steadily diminishing returns. The conservationist
movement, led by Teddy Roosevelt, argued for setting aside many of these
lands as national park and wilderness areas, further reducing income
that could be generated from sales.
Tariffs still paid exceptionally well at the turn of the century,
though, with virtually every imported product or raw material having a
duty.

The problem with tariffs was that Congress had to adjust the tariff
rates every few years. Even assuming that Congress was more efficient
and sensible at the turn of the century than today, can you imagine 400
or so legislators arguing over a tenth-of-a-cent increase in imported
hemp? Moreover, since before the Civil War, some
Americans—particularly those in the South—argued that tariffs merely
took money out of one group's pocket, the Southerners, and put it in the
pockets of another group, Northern businessmen.
So the first argument made to the public for adopting the income tax was
that it was fairer than tariffs and easier for Congress to administer.

Second, it originally was simple in design. The first income tax form,
which may be viewed at taxfoundation.org/blog/show/642. html, was one
page with six income brackets, beginning at $20,000. Anyone could fill
out the form.

Third, the original rates were stunningly low. From $20,000 to $50,000
the taxpayer paid 1%. Rates went up 1% in each of the brackets
thereafter, and the top bracket was 6% for those making over $500,000.
And there was a $3,000 personal deduction. To put these numbers in
perspective, a steak cost a quarter in 1920; a men's suit, $20; and a
Ford Model T under $600. In short, the vast majority of Americans would
never have paid any income taxes under that structure, and those who did
pay would barely feel it. There was no withholding, so potential
taxpayers had to save for tax day.

Those three factors — the complexity and political tension of the
tariff, the simplicity of the income tax, and the low rates — all made
the Income Tax Amendment an easy sell to the public. It might have
remained only a minor irritant if, over the years, rates had not
skyrocketed and legislators had not started using the tax code for
punishments and rewards, social engineering, and pet projects. Nor did
tariffs go away. Instead, Americans often got double-taxed.

Meanwhile, even after the tax cuts of the 1920s by the Treasury
secretary, Andrew Mellon, tax rates never fell back to their original
levels of 1913. "Tax creep" was common in both Democratic and Republican
administrations until, finally, rates would get so high that revenue
fell as people avoided taxes and reduced work. When a new, clear-eyed
politician would see that high rates were hurting government income, a
tax cut would follow, and the cycle would begin anew.

The income tax may have been "sold" to the public on the grounds of its
low rates and simplicity, but progressive advocates of the income tax
envisioned it exactly as it evolved — a tool of income transfer and
social engineering. It promised to, as one proponent claimed, "equalize
tax burdens borne by the various classes … [and] paid by the wealthier
classes." One Missouri congressman beamed that passage of the income tax
marked "the dawn of a brighter day, with more of sunshine, more of the
songs of the birds, more of that sweetest music, the laughter of
children well fed … wholesome Democracy shall be triumphant!"

As it now stands, the income tax is oppressive in its rates and
ridiculously complex. While a good argument could be made for
alternatives, the best solution to fixing the tax code is to return to
the lowrate simple form of 1913.
April 9, 2007 Edition

The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - February 1996

this was taught in our government school system. Imagine how much the skulls full of mush could learn and change the modern day confitaxation schemes


The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - February 1996

Vol. 46 No. 2

View as PDF
Features:
Taking Taxes: The Case for Invalidating the Welfare State
By Donald J. Kochan

Mr. Kochan is a student at Cornell Law School and an adjunct scholar with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy Research in Midland, Michigan.

As attempts to downsize the welfare state continue, reformers are relying primarily on practical arguments—that transfer programs waste taxpayers' funds and hurt the poor, for instance. They do, but there is a more fundamental issue: social programs have no constitutional warrant. Even if such outlays fell under an enumerated power, they would still run afoul of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

“Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation” runs this critical protection in the Bill of Rights.[1] Properly interpreted, this clause prohibits taxing citizens to fund programs for the benefit of others, for doing so violates the requirements that any taking of “private property” be for “public use” and that the property owner receive “just compensation.”

Negative Liberty

The nation's founding was based on the concept of negative liberty: law exists to protect against coercive intrusions and not as a means for compelling action. Tort law expressly holds that an individual cannot be forced to give up a portion of his liberty to benefit another, no matter how little the cost. The common law “Good Samaritan Rule,” for instance, states that no one is legally obligated to provide any level of help to another in need.

As men consent to be governed, they agree to transfer certain enforcement powers, formerly held privately, to public law as a means of promoting efficiency and order. Thus, the constitutional compact merely shifts the enforcement of certain private law obligations to the State; it does not create new duties, with no pre-existence in the private law, except where expressly stated. Explained constitutional commentator Joseph Story: “A man has a perfect right to life, to his personal liberty, and to his property; and he may by force assert and vindicate those rights against every aggressor. But he has but an imperfect right to . . . charity . . . even if he is truly deserving it.” These imperfect rights “may not be asserted by force of law, but are obligatory only on the conscience of parties.”

Takings and Taxings

It is true that Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress the power to lay taxes. The Sixteenth Amendment expanded this power by allowing the federal government to tax income. Obviously the government is given the power to tax.

In private law, however, C never has a claim to take A's property merely because C desires (or “needs”) it. There is no reason to believe that the Founders intended to grant C the power to employ the State to the same ends. Added to this is the fact that one of the most important goals of the Constitution was to guarantee property rights. This protection, defined broadly, was seen as the critical justification for government. Given this legal and philosophical backdrop, the restrictions of the Takings Clause should not be viewed lightly.

Granting government the power to tax does not release it from its obligations under the Fifth Amendment to spend such revenues only on those purposes of government which are for public use and provide compensation to all whose incomes are taken. Money is to be seized only to support the commonly understood function of government: the protection of individual rights from intrusion by the State or other members of society. This obligation forms the core of the Fifth Amendment.

Thus, the Takings Clause screens out illegitimate seizures by forcing all such actions to meet two criteria: (1) property is taken only for “public use”; and (2) “just compensation” is rendered to those whose property is taken. Transfer payments violate both of these limitations on the eminent domain power. Social programs transfer money from A (the taxpayer) to B (the government) for redistribution to C (the program beneficiary). In this case, government has taken private property from A for the private use of C. A derives no benefit, for C retains an undivided interest in A's property; therefore it is inconceivable that A is compensated at all, let alone justly.

The purpose of the State, and the Constitution's delineation of enumerated powers, clearly limits the federal government from acting as anything other than a public functionary. Accordingly, it is vital to define what constitutes a “public use” as a proper exercise of the government's power.

Eighteenth-century dictionaries help distinguish between public and private purposes. One source defines “public” as that which is “belonging to a state or nation; . . . regarding not private interest, but the good of the community.”[2] The usual understanding is that “public” involves those things in which all individuals have a common interest, not those in which certain people, in exclusion of others, have a specific interest.

The word “use” also indicates the narrowness of allowable takings. By including “use” instead of “purpose,” “interest,” “rationale,” “reason,” “benefit,” or similar term, the Framers chose a stricter test to judge the legitimacy of government action. All of these alternates would allow uses of any kind so long as the government could claim that the ultimate effect would prove worthwhile. Such constructs would leave the Takings Clause empty: Congress could contend that any action provided some subjective benefit or interest to society.

“Purpose” could prove more limiting in that it would require government to prove that it was exercising a legitimate role of government as found in the Constitution. “Purpose” alone, however, is somewhat ambiguous, and would allow transfer payments if such transfers arguably served some end of government in the long run. “Use,” however, incorporates the limitations of “purpose” while narrowing the field of legitimate actions even further. “Use” has retained the meaning of “employing with a purpose.”[3] This requires that the public entity actually exercise the use for which property is taken. The most appropriate correlation today would be the economic term “public goods.” A public good involves a government action for the indivisible benefit of all members of society.

Taken together, “public” and “use” can be further defined through three tests which distinguish between public and private uses. Genuine public uses must be inclusive, dividing equally the interest and surplus among all those in society; provide universal access; and be necessary, that is, address problems not susceptible to private solutions.

Inclusivity requires that no citizens be excluded from the benefits of the government's action. The court system, police power, and national defense all satisfy this requirement. Funding a program to protect one individual provides that protection to all. The benefits are not discriminately provided to only certain members of society. No one is excluded from satisfying a claim to the use of his property; rather, everyone retains access to the courts and police, for instance. It is necessary for government to fund national defense because individuals cannot protect themselves individually from foreign intruders. Redistributive programs, however, fail all of these tests.

Even if social welfare programs satisfied the “public use” portion of the Takings Clause, they would fail the “without just compensation” component. In cases where taxes constitute the taking in question, compensation can only be derived from the government function provided from spending such funds, since to require monetary compensation would leave the state's coffers empty and consequently defeat the purpose of taxation.

The 1755 edition of Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language defines “just” as “exact; proper; accurate; . . . equally retributed” and “compensation” as “something equivalent; amends.” Blackstone spoke of just compensation as “a full indemnification and equivalent for the injury thereby sustained.” This notion of equivalency is precisely that understood by the Framers when crafting the Takings Clause.

In most takings, the equivalency is paid in cash, but this is not the only means. The idea that taxes would be used to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare”[4] indicates that takings for these purposes would be compensated by fulfilling the state's duty to protect individual rights.

Thus, the “just compensation” component follows the “public use” requirement. If universal access is missing, then some surrender taxes without receiving any or adequate compensation. Even if one argues that the term “public use” is not restrictive in itself, in relation to taxation only those uses that are public will offer sufficient compensation. Funding entitlement programs for which the taxpayer is ineligible violates this requirement.

Some might argue that indirect benefits from redistributive programs constitute compensation, just as they argue that “use” involves any effect of a taking which proves beneficial. However, the Founders likely chose “compensation” instead of “benefit” in anticipation of such arguments. “Compensation” is not the same as “benefit”; nondiscriminatory access to the actual use is the only means by which just compensation for taxes is possible.

Additionally, genuine compensation must be directly linked to the taking. It requires that the property seized be replaced by something equally valuable. Positive externalities resulting from the taking, even if real and measurable, are mere consequences of the use. They are not compensation.

End of the Welfare State?

Social Security, unemployment benefits, corporate subsidies, farm programs, ordinary welfare, and countless other manifestations of the welfare state all represent uncompensated takings redistributed for private use. Thus, all violate the protections afforded property in the Fifth Amendment.

Unfortunately, the courts today hardly remember that the Takings Clause even exists. And, admittedly, the welfare state has become so much a part of American society that it cannot be easily removed. The fact many people have come to rely on the welfare state, however, does not justify continuing to ignore the Constitution. Observed University of Chicago Law Professor Richard Epstein in his book Takings, “A correct theory at the very least can lead to incremental changes in the proper direction. . . . When the stakes are high, any shift in course has important consequences.”

It is time for defenders of liberty to appeal to constitutional principle as well as practical consequence. The Constitution requires no less.



1. U.S. Constitution, Amendment V. The correct interpretation of this clause also limits the power of the states through similar clauses in each state constitution.

2. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (2d Ed., 1755).

3. Roger Clegg, Reclaiming the Text of the Takings Clause, 46 S.C.L. Rev. 531:, 543 (Summer 1995).

4. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.