A prominent presidential candidate said, in a recent speech, that the American tax system is “21st Century slavery…the IRS has become the overseer of the American people.” Many called this statement outrageous and absurd. Is this an outrageous statement or and accurate statement?

Find out by reading 21st Century Slavery and learn what the founders thought.

Think calling tax hikes, revenue increases is something new? Think again.

Think taxing our land is a good idea? Our founders didn’t think so. See just how relevant our history is today. 21st Century Slavery equips you with more ammunition to fight against the liberal LIE that the Constitution is a “Living Breathing Document” and proves that we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Get armed to cast off, as Patrick Henry said, THE BONDS AND CHAINS OF SLAVERY!

• Barak Obama’s answer to our economic woes is – RAISE TAXES!

• Barak Obama’s answer for our alleged health care problems is – RAISE TAXES!

• Barak Obama’s answer for our broken Education system is – RAISE TAXES!

The truth is it’s not about “raising revenue” there are proven ways to do that and the answer is not RAISE TAXES! The TRUTH is – it’s about CONTROL.

Yet a portion of Americans, our neighbors, just accept our tax system as something that’s normal and natural. We need a complete paradigm shift in this nation. We need to wake people up to the reality of our modern tax system. One of the greatest problems in the national psyche today is that we have no frame of reference to fight the current battles. Our history has been stolen!

If you want to have a rock solid argument to prove that the Constitution is not a Living Breathing document, then invite KrisAnne Hall to speak to your group.

Former State Attorney fired for teaching the Constitution to TEA Parties; KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the Constitution and its 700-year historical foundation.

Select Here To Donate to KrisAnne Hall
Restoring Constitutional Law,

KrisAnne Hall
Constitutional Attorney

The national deficit stands at an unprecedented $1.845 trillion. President Barack Obama’s proposed budget would increase spending by an additional $1 trillion over the next 10 years. And that doesn’t take into account Congress’ proposed $1 trillion takeover of the health care system.

With all this spending, millions of Americans are left wondering who’s going to pay for it all.

The answer: Taxpayers, big and small.

The President has repeatedly reiterated his campaign promise that he can rein in the deficit without levying any new taxes on the middle class. Instead, he proposes to saddle the wealthy with the bulk of the burden of increased spending by hiking taxes to where they were before the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. This would bring the top federal tax rate to almost 40 percent, not counting the proposed surtax on high-income earners to fund the health care plan.

Despite the President’s insistence that he remains “clearly committed” to his campaign promise, Heritage tax policy expert Curtis Dubay points out how the middle class could end up paying anyway:

We’ve heard taxes proposed on sugary drinks and alcoholic drinks. Of course, middle-class people purchase those items. Let’s not forget that the cap-and-trade program pushed heavily by President Obama falls on anyone who uses electricity, so that obviously hits the middle-class as well. And one of the first actions that President Obama took as President was to increase the cigarette tax by a dollar a pack. And of course, middle- and low-income people are hit heavily by that tax as well.

In another analysis, Dubay argues that the Left’s soak-the-rich approach will only dig the economy deeper into recession by discouraging investors and entrepreneurs from entering the market. This will “negatively affect long-term economic growth because businesses that otherwise would have been created and added jobs to the economy will never get off the starting blocks.”

Furthermore, these taxes alone would not generate enough to account for the massive spending increases. And the middle class could pay the price.

“You just can’t borrow a trillion dollars for an economic stimulus, enact a new trillion dollar health care entitlement, and increase discretionary spending by 12% through 2019 (including doubling federal education spending), and then expect to pay for it all by taxing the most productive Americans,” writes Heritage’s Conn Carroll in the Morning Bell.

There are lots of mythical benefits from tax increases, yet the Left seems determined to learn their lesson the hard way—during a recession, no less.

There is an alternative. Dubay outlines ways in which the President and Congress could cut spending and taxes, foster individual enterprise and ultimately spur significant economic growth. Otherwise, he says, we’re just “hurting the economy at a time when the U.S. can least afford further damage.”

Five questions to ask your Congressmen on health care

As members of Congress break for their August recess, many have planned to host town hall discussions on health care. “This country deserves a respectful, honest debate about health care,” Conn Carroll writes in The Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell. “And the hundreds of town halls members of Congress will be hosting across the country this August are just the place for these conversations to happen.”

» FreedomWorks has compiled a list of town hall meetings. Find a meeting near you.

To help concerned citizens prepare for the town hall discussions, The Heritage Foundation has constructed a list of five important questions that the proposal’s proponents need to answer.

1. Can you promise me that I will not lose my current plan and doctor?

1. Will members of Congress enroll in the public plan?

1. Can you guarantee that Obamacare will not lead to higher deficits in the long term?

1. Will there be rationing of health care for patients on the public plan?

1. Can you promise that my tax dollars will not fund abortions?

» Get talking points, in-depth analysis and more on Heritage’s rapid response page

The heated town hall meetings of the past week have already demonstrated the broad public opposition to big-government health care. As one University of Pennsylvania professor tells Politico, this movement could present a political problem for the Left. “If this comes down to vocal individuals, the Obama campaign ought to be able to always outnumber their opponent. And if they’re not, then that’s a problem.”

Host a 33 Minutes screening

You can host a screening of Heritage’s feature-length documentary on missile defense, 33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age.

The threat to America hasn’t changed, nor has the need to defend the American people. Yet the Obama Administration plans to significantly cut and roll back a missile defense plan that has been in place for years to protect us–without having a serious national discussion on this issue. The Heritage Foundation is working get this discussion back on the table and you can help by hosting a screening of our film. We’ll supply you with all the materials you need to host an effective, informative and enjoyable event.

   » Watch the 33 Minutes trailer and apply to host a screening

> Other Heritage work of note

• The Heritage Foundation has been a strong presence in the health care debates. In July alone, our experts conducted over 130 television and radio interviews on health care, while our FixHealthCarePolicy.com Web site has become a go-to resource for lawmakers and the media.

• Unlike so much of the rest of the world, America “inherited a framework for resolving our differences according to shared principles and practices of constitutional government,” writes Heritage’s Jennifer Marshall. Unfortunately, these principles are often misused and disregarded, endangering our nation’s ability to address these differences, explains Marshall, who oversees Heritage’s DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society. These “cultural minefields” manifest themselves today in debates over school choice and public health care, where progressive proposals threaten an individual’s freedom to support only those causes they believe in.

• During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama promised a better foreign policy in Latin America. However, Heritage foreign policy expert Peter Brookes condemns the administration’s “‘Have a Coke and Smile’ brand of foreign policy.” This policy has led to increasingly strained relations south of the border, while the likes of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez continue to build anti-American coalitions.

• “[Secretary of Defense Robert] Gates’ approach to the defense authorization bill recently pushed through Congress is riddled with ‘old think,’” writes Heritage homeland security expert James Carafano in an article for the Washington Examiner. The defense plan reflects the Cold War philosophy that America’s enemies are “predictable” and therefore easily written into the defense budget. But this doesn’t account for unexpected and potentially more sophisticated attacks. “Enemies who really want to kill you prepare for the kinds of battles that you don’t want to [or aren't prepared to] fight,” Carafano warns

> In other news

• The Senate has confirmed Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination, 68-31, making her the first Hispanic on the high court.

• The House of Representatives has endorsed, and the Senate is expected to pass, a $2 billion extension of the “cash for clunkers” spending program. Under the program, Americans who buy certain government-approved cars are given up to $4,500 to destroy their used cars.

• The courts are again getting involved in policies properly left to lawmakers, in this case public safety and spending. Citing the need to improve prisoner health, “a panel of federal judges ordered the California prison system on Tuesday to reduce its inmate population.”

• Russian nuclear submarines have recently been spotted off the American coast for the first time in more than a decade.

• The abortion battle may again be decisive politically as more information comes to light about the President’s public health care plan. Many socially-conservative liberal lawmakers would hesitate to support the legislation if the final version expands public support for abortions.

> Coming up at Heritage

To attend these or any other events at Heritage please RSVP at Heritage’s website. Or you can view these events live online. All times are Eastern.

• On Monday, August 10 at noon, Heritage will screen the new documentary Policy Peril: Why Global Warming Policies Are More Dangerous than Global Warming Itself.

Amanda Reinecker is a writer for MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation. Nathaniel Ward, the Editor of MyHeritage.org, contributed to this report.

By Pamela Gorman
Majority Whip, Arizona State Senate

Early in my career, a friend warned me about entering battle alongside a colleague, describing him as a “chocolate soldier.”  “Chocolate soldiers say all the right things and look formidable entering the battlefield,” he explained.  “Problem is that they melt in the heat.”  As we confront the nation’s largest budget deficit in Arizona, I understand what he meant.

Today, as we find ourselves in the worst economic downturn in state history, people are worried.  I’m worried too.  We’re faced with the reality that government has created a dependent class of people.

Conservatives who want to see government spending cut –- rather than taxes increased –- must do more than speak up, they must stand strong.

That growing class has become accustomed to receiving ever increasing amounts of taxpayer dollars, regardless of the taxpayers’ ability to pay.  The entitlement class is scared, motivated, and loud.  And, they have a lot of time on their hands while most of us are at work.

Like families across the state, government has to live within its means.  It should be simple for those of us who believe that government has grown too big and spends too much of other people’s money.  Still, it’s not easy to deliver the bad news to those who are dependent upon taxpayers.  It’s like telling Fat Albert he’s got to go on a diet.  No one wants to deliver the message, but deep down you know it might save Fat Albert’s life.  We are making difficult, but responsible choices – choices that honestly can some days break your heart.  But, that’s what we were elected to do.

Many of us have been very open about our conservative beliefs and we’ve made statements about them in public forums, on candidate questionnaires, in editorial board meetings and in our campaign brochures.  We campaigned on reducing the size of government and cutting taxes.  And we lamented the irresponsible expansion of government spending under Governor Janet Napolitano that has now come home to roost.  Many of us took it further.  We promised –- in writing –- to the people of Arizona that we would oppose any and all efforts to raise taxes.

Governor Jan Brewer, who succeeded Napolitano after she was appointed Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security earlier this year, made that same written anti-tax promise on June 10, 2006.  She promised the taxpayers and all the people of the state that she would “oppose any and all efforts to increase taxes.”  Yet, a few weeks after being exposed to “the heat” of our budget crisis, Governor Brewer was “melting” like so many chocolate soldiers before her. She threatened to veto any budget plan that didn’t include her $3 billion tax increase in her very first speech to the legislature.

A wise man once said that adversity doesn’t build character, it reveals it.  I believe that Governor Brewer is a person of character.  Unfortunately, she may be the victim of bad counsel.  Frankly, if I had advisers that would suggest I a) break my promise to the people, b) abandon my stellar record of supporting lower taxes, and 3) crush the already floundering economy with the largest tax increase in Arizona history, I’d find new advisers.

When government cuts taxes, jobs are created –- jobs that help the single mom go from unemployed to employed, jobs that help the working poor step up into the middle-class, and jobs that help the middle class start to save for retirement and their children’s education.  When taxes are increased, we see the opposite effect.  This effect is magnified during an economic downturn, so raising taxes now is simply dangerous and misguided.  And make no mistake, this tax increase is to be applied directly on Arizona working families and employers, who are the very producers that we need to pull us out of this economic malaise.

I am worried that the heat being applied by the entitlement class is melting the chocolate resolve of self-identified conservatives who are forgetting the interests of this struggling producer class.  The producer class voted for an army of conservative soldiers to keep taxes down, limit the size of government and protect their individual liberty.  They are counting on our conservative soldiers now, when the heat is on.  Conservatives who want to see government spending cut –- rather than taxes increased –- must do more than speak up, they must stand strong.  Now is no  time to discover we elected an army of chocolate soldiers!

Senator Pamela Gorman represents Arizona’s 6th district and is currently serving as Majority Whip.  Comments can be sent to pgorman@azleg.gov. ]]> http://non-socialist.com/2009/05/pamela-gorman-the-tax-battle-in-arizona-%e2%80%94-a-report-from-the-frontlines/feed/ 0 http://non-socialist.com/2009/03/state-is-wrongly-seizing-private-funds-new-hampshire-raids-insurance-loot-to-balance-budget/ http://non-socialist.com/2009/03/state-is-wrongly-seizing-private-funds-new-hampshire-raids-insurance-loot-to-balance-budget/#comments Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:50:59 +0000 thor http://non-socialist.com/2009/03/state-is-wrongly-seizing-private-funds-new-hampshire-raids-insurance-loot-to-balance-budget/ State is wrongly seizing private funds
By CHARLES M. ARLINGHAUS

New Hampshire’s budget is being balanced this year in part by turning private insurance funds into government money and appropriating the funds for government use. The raid illustrates how fiscal problems can tempt a government to limit property rights and rationalize behavior it would never consider otherwise.

The state’s current financial crisis is well known. During the governor’s budget address, he announced his intention to use $110 million from a little-known medical malpractice fund to balance the budget. His announcement immediately sent policy makers scrambling to find out exactly what the fund was.

No one knew there was $110 million available to the government sitting in an untapped fund. When legislators had passed a bill a few weeks earlier to clear out surpluses in other dedicated funds, they had found only about $16 million. The governor had waved a magic wand and — presto! — a huge chunk of money materialized.

It turned out there was good reason no one knew it was available. That’s because it’s neither state money nor a government program. The medical malpractice fund is a privately funded high-risk insurance pool administered by a private company through a provision in state law for joint underwriting agreements. The state doesn’t pay for it or administer it. It is merely set up through state rules that allow for such joint agreements.

The co-operative fund assesses premiums and holds the money in trust against future charges. When it has a balance, it invests those funds according to a formula set up by its rules. The premiums and investment have been more than enough to pay charges, so the pool has a surplus.

This is exactly how mutual or cooperative insurance works. In the case of a typical mutual insurance cooperative, excess funds not needed to pay premiums are returned as a dividend to those who paid premiums. This may be how your car insurance works. In my case, we pay premiums throughout the year and then receive a check refunding excess premiums.

In fact, the cooperative medical malpractice fund has exactly the same provision. The money is held in trust but must be remitted to members or premium payers should there be a surplus. The wording is available in the rules on the insurance department’s Web site. (It’s rule 1703.07.)

The rule specifically requires that if premiums exceed the amount required to pay losses and expenses, they shall be distributed first to members and then the fund must "distribute the excess to such health care providers covered by the association as is just and equitable."

There’s nothing weird about this. It is how any mutual insurance organization operates. Premiums are held in trust to pay claims. If you don’t have claims, the premiums are not justified and cannot be justified.

The explicit rules of the underwriting agreement don’t provide a third paragraph that says "yeah, but if the state’s having trouble balancing its budget then nobody gets his money back and the state can just take it."

The state has a long memo from the Attorney General’s Office that explains why in the attorney general’s opinion no entity has enough standing "such that it could successfully challenge a legislative act to transfer the funds to the General Fund." Essentially the state argues that because joint agreements are allowed by statute, statute can be used to seize their funds. I’m not sure anyone who set up the fund realized that.

The attorney general also cites cases in other states where the state court allowed the legislature to take the money. In those cases, the agreement did not have rules providing for the distribution of any excess funds.

The governor and the attorney general’s memo have also argued that a disbursement would be an unacceptable distortion of the market despite the rule requiring it. It is difficult to see how the very same disbursement my insurance company makes to me, and yours makes to you, is unacceptable just because the government desires the money. If it is, in fact, an unacceptable practice, then wouldn’t all mutual insurance companies have to be abolished by state law? And wouldn’t the state have made a huge mistake in approving the rules that govern this cooperative?

Ultimately, this is a seizure of private funds justified only by the cash crunch the state finds itself in. Argentina recently did something similar. Faced with a larger crisis than we face, the government nationalized private retirement funds, the equivalent of our 401(k) funds. The government seized billions in private funds to help its own cash flow. It was uniformly attacked as an unacceptable assault on private property. Let’s not follow that bad example.

Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.

The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has conducted an in-depth study comparing the tax policies of the two leading Presidential contenders, Senators Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Unless lawmakers act, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will expire, raising taxes on millions of Americans and threatening economic growth. This is of particular concern at a time of economic weakness, Heritage experts Bill Beach, Karen Campbell, Rea Hederman and Guinevere Nell argue.

The two plans share several key features: both keep portions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place; both would help prevent “bracket creep” under the Alternative Minimum Tax; both add to the federal deficit; and both would allow more economic growth than if the tax cuts fully expired.

But there are also key differences. For example,

• Extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. While the McCain plan would keep taxes at their current low rates, “Senator Obama’s does not extend the cuts for the top two rates.” In addition, the Obama plan includes a new Social Security surtax on those earning more than $250,000.

• New Tax Cuts. “Senator McCain has proposed a few other cuts, highlighted by a cut in the corporate tax rate and a change in the tax treatment of health care.”

• Health Care. Senator McCain’s tax plan for health care would end preferential treatment of employer-provided insurance “and replace it with a tax credit that would allow families to purchase health insurance.”

• Tax Credits. “Senator Obama has many new proposals, including several new tax credits. Senator Obama proposes a refundable health care tax credit to help low-income individuals purchase health care.”

The effects of the Obama and McCain tax plans

After conducting their careful economic analysis using tax models and outside economic data, Heritage’s experts made a few important conclusions about the plans’ differing effects:

· Jobs respond more to McCain’s plan than to Obama’s.

· Overall economic activity more vigorous under McCain’s plan.

· More after-tax spending potential under McCain than under Obama.

In sum, “Senator McCain’s plan is substantially better at spurring economic growth than Senator Obama’s. This is not surprising, since Senator McCain focuses on economic growth and job creation while Senator Obama focuses on the redistribution of income.”

Starting with the so-called Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1988, the IRS has possessed this authority temporarily, with occasional multiple-year lapses. A 1999 internal report said the IRS had 126 “trained undercover agents” working in field offices at the time. This is the first time that such undercover authority would be made permanent.

Sens. Max Baucus (D) and Chuck Grassley (R) have been pushing to make it permanent for a while, claiming (PDF) in April that: “Undercover operations are an integral part of IRS efforts to detect and prove noncompliance. The temporary status of this provision creates uncertainty, as the IRS plans its undercover efforts from year to year.”

There’s another section of the bailout bill worth noting. It lets the IRS give information from individual tax returns to any federal law enforcement agency investigating suspected “terrorist” activity, which can, in turn, share it with local and state police. Intelligence agencies such as the CIA and the National Security Agency can also receive that information.

The information that can be shared includes “a taxpayer’s identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer’s return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return.”

That provision had already existed in federal law and automatically expired on January 1, 2008.

What’s a little odd is that there’s been little to no discussion of the IRS sections of the bailout bill, even though they raise privacy concerns. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said this week: “I will continue to work with congressional leaders to find a way forward to pass a comprehensive plan to stabilize our financial system and protect the American people by limiting the prospects of further deterioration in our economy.” He never mentioned the necessity of additional IRS undercover operations.

Arizona Daily Star

September 28, 2008

Many new homes in Tucson could come with a 1 percent transfer fee assessed on their sale under a proposal now being pushed by City Council members.

The idea faces strong opposition from real estate and development interests, who are being rocked by one of the worst housing markets in decades due to the mortgage industry collapse. They say the fee would take money from either the home buyer or seller, making housing less affordable.

The new fee, recommended for approval by a council subcommittee on Sept. 15, would apply to any house or condominium unit where a builder has entered into a development agreement with the city.

Money from the fee — equal to $2,000 on a $200,000 home — would go to the city’s housing trust fund, used to pay for such things as home repairs and down-payment assistance for low-income residents.

The fee for the first sale from the developer to the original buyer would be one-half percent, but it would increase to a full 1 percent for any subsequent sale in perpetuity. It would be enforced through a deed restriction attached to the home.

Development agreements are contracts between the city and a developer to do things they otherwise wouldn’t do, beyond a standard rezoning.

The agreements often are used to collaborate on parking, for pre-annexation agreements, or when the city sells public land, City Attorney Mike Rankin said. Developers and the city also make agreements to share the cost of building roads or other infrastructure.

The push for the 1 percent transfer fee by Councilwomen Regina Romero and Karin Uhlich already threatened to derail one development, a proposal to convert apartments to condominiums Downtown.

Romero and Uhlich voted on Sept. 15 in the Children, Families and Seniors Subcommittee to recommend that the full council consider the fee, which could happen as soon as late October. Councilman Rodney Glassman, the third member of the panel, was absent.

Although the idea still hadn’t been presented to the full council, on Sept. 16 Romero proposed attaching a transfer fee to a development agreement with Ross Rulney for his Flats at Julian Drew project, converting apartments into 53 condominiums in a 91-year-old Downtown building.

Romero said she wanted to talk about a “voluntary” 1 percent transfer fee, but Rulney balked, saying he didn’t want to saddle his potential residents with the fee. With Mayor Bob Walkup absent and the City Council split on what to do, the decision was put off for a week.

Romero subsequently agreed to drop the issue for Rulney’s project, which was approved unanimously by the council last week.

Since then, Uhlich and Romero have dialed back their push for the transfer fee, saying it is one item on a “menu” of options that should be considered to help fund affordable housing in Tucson.

Romero said the idea was proposed by the board of the affordable-housing trust fund after developer Jerry Dixon, of the Gadsden Co., agreed to the 1 percent transfer fee in a recent development agreement for a mixed-use development on the West Side.

“We think it’s a good idea for the council as a whole to hear about it,” Romero said.

Uhlich said she will withhold judgment on the transfer fee until it is considered by the whole council, but she said it merits consideration, especially if the city is giving concessions or incentives in the development agreement.

“It has enough validity to be considered,” Uhlich said. “I support giving it serious consideration as another tool for developers to address affordable housing with their projects.”

The transfer fee will face opposition from the Tucson Association of Realtors, said Colin Zimmerman, its director of public affairs.

“Now is not the time to stick another tax on a market that’s already shaky,” Zimmerman said.

That opinion was backed by Downtown resident Mike Sepich, a counselor who is interested in buying one of the Julian Drew block condos priced in the low to mid-$100,000s. “It’s pretty ironic to have a fee like that on the only affordable housing that’s proposed Downtown,” he said.

Zimmerman said the Realtors already support Proposition 100 on November’s ballot, which would ban a fee or tax on the sale of property by the state, counties, cities and towns.

He acknowledged that the proposition would not forbid Tucson’s new rules because the fee would be part of a deed restriction that city officials contend to be voluntary, although Zimmerman added that it’s not voluntary if you can’t get your project approved without it.

Rankin agreed that the state proposition would not prohibit the city’s transfer fee.

Corky Poster, a housing trust fund board member, said the housing fund needs a dedicated funding source to supplement the money it now gets from condo conversions and other smaller sources.

Since being created in 2006, the city’s housing trust fund has taken in $650,000 and has committed $385,000 for homeowner repairs, down-payment assistance and employer-assisted housing, said Community Services Director Emily Nottingham.

The idea behind the fee was to recapture some of the public money that helps get a project off the ground, Poster said.

“It recognizes the city contribution,” he said. “Developers think it’s a good idea because it doesn’t interfere with their first sale.”

However, Richard Studwell, a local developer who opposes the fee, said Tucson doesn’t have a track record of spending tax money wisely, given its much-criticized Rio Nuevo Downtown redevelopment effort.

“The fund … will have high administrative expenses, and it won’t accomplish anything,” Studwell said. “These are well-meaning people who can’t get it done.”

● Contact reporter Rob O’Dell at 573-4346 or rodell@azstarnet.com.

More commentary:

http://azbiz.com/articles/2008/10/03/opinion/columnists/steve_emerine/doc48e663957af38634175803.txt

Think about this scenario as a way to clean up the mess we’re currentyly in- Let’s hear your thoughts Pat!

The Birk Economic Recovery Plan DN
This idea sounds just crazy enough to possibly work, so naturally it won’t be given serious consideration. How great is our bureaucracy!!

I’m against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of Wall Street pigs.

Instead, I’m in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.

To make the math simple, let’s assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free.

So let’s assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.

That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.

A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your fami ly?

Pay off your mortgage – housing crisis solved.

Repay college loans – what a great boost to new grads

Put away money for college – it’ll be there

Save in a bank – create money to loan to entrepreneurs.

Buy a new car – create jobs

Invest in the market – capital drives growth

Pay for your parent’s medical insurance – health care improves

Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean – or else

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we’re going to re-distribute wealth let’s really do it…instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( ‘vote buy’ ) economic incentive that is being proposed
by one of our candidates for President.

If we’re going to do an $85 billion bailout, let’s bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG – liquida te it.

Sell off its parts.

Let American General go back to being American General.

Sell off the real estate.

Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here’s my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn’t.

Sure it’s a crazy idea that can ‘never work.’

But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!

How do you spell Economic Boom?

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion

We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC

And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Ahhh…I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

Kindest personal regards,

Birk

T. J. Birkenmeier, A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic

PS: Feel free to pass this along to your pals as it’s either good for a laugh or a tear or a ver y sobering thought on how to best use $85 Billion!!

Dear Arizona Taxpayer, 

Good news:  Our impending grassroots victory on lifting the offshore drilling ban has nothing to do with the passage of the Pelosi bill in the US House of Representatives on Tuesday. Just the opposite: our victory is due to the fact that the Pelosi bill is going nowhere, and the fact that the drilling ban is set to expire automatically on October 1^st.

Bad news:  On Tuesday (Sept 16), by a vote of 236-189, a majority in the US House of Representatives, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, passed a bad bill (HR 6899) that made a false claim of allowing significant increases in offshore oil drilling. The bill would also have increased energy taxes. 

Excerpt from

Americans for Prosperity

Tom Jenney

AZ Director

Americans for Prosperity

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=6410&state=az