If you've listened to the news for more than a few days, you've surely heard about the concept of the FairTax.  It's an idea for taxes paid to the government that was generated by an independent, bi-partisan commission years ago and has become ever more talked about across the country, particularly within the state of Georgia by "Talkmaster" Neal Boortz and Representative John Linder.  The essential component of this system is that it eliminates all income taxes, capital gains taxes, social security taxes, etc. and replaces them with one simple consumption-based national sales tax.  Having read more into the idea, I believe it is the best solution to many of the issues that have sent "Tea Partiers" running into the streets over the last year.  Here are the reasons why:

1)  Under the FairTax, everyone pays their fair share of taxes.  Democrats and the people who support them continue to rail about the rich who don't "pay their fair share" or the poor who "pay too much in taxes".  Putting aside the fact that the top 1% of income earners in America pay more than half the taxes (this is a subject you can look up at another time), nearly half the people in this country don't pay any income taxes.  They're also the ones who clamor for more government spending without realizing where the money for it comes from.  The beauty of the fair tax is that it is a consumption-based tax, meaning you pay taxes on what you buy, not on what you earn.  This means that everyone would contribute to the government pot, not just the people who give away nearly half their income to the government.
Many will still say, "what about those below the poverty line who can't afford taxes?"  This is where the system includes a clever idea to give EVERY person in the country and automatic upfront tax credit of several thousand dollars to offset their costs.  Whether they're a cashier or a CEO, everyone gets a break upfront and can use that money towards the taxes they pay on the products they buy.  Yes, it might be hard for the poor to remember to use that credit for that purpose, but it's nothing a little budgeting and self-control wouldn't take care of.  It would also save them from having to wait on a monthly offset from the government like so many do now.  They may still complain about the rich not paying enough if they're at the same rate as everyone else, but the rich would still pay abundantly more than anyone else based on the simple premise that they buy more than anyone else.  They just wouldn't feel as though they were being robbed and having their money spent in ways they do not want it to be spent.
Also, illegal aliens and tax dodgers would finally contribute to the tax base.  Right now, millions of illegal aliens enjoy better services from the government than most of us without sharing our tax burden.  Under the FairTax, they would finally pay their taxes and revenues to the government would increase.  It might also help to keep the flow into the country under control when many realize they won't be able to suck us dry.  Additionally, think about those who find ways to work around our tax system illegally through cash under the table, robbery, etc.  Under a consumption tax, even the criminals wouldn't be able to cheat their way out of their taxes.

2)  Elimination of the hidden cost of taxes in consumer products.  One big gripe against this system is that "it would raise the cost of groceries, gas, utilities, and everything to a point where people can't afford the neccesities and the poor get hurt again!".  What the whiners  don't mention is that people would be earning their ENTIRE paycheck upfront, so they would have more money to put towards the things they need and want.
Plus, most people don't realize how much extra they pay in taxes already on top of their paycheck deductions.  Companies that produce the gas, the food, the clothes, and everything else must pay taxes and fees to the government to do business and pay their employees.  Most of that cost is then passed on the consumer in the form of inflated prices.  If you don't have to deduct taxes from your paycheck, neither does your boss or the companies you purchase from.  When that happens, the cost of a gallon of milk decreases.  And when the base cost decreases, so does the amount of tax paid on that product.  So even though you would pay 23% taxes on the gallon of milk (the proposed rate of the FairTax), you would still end up paying a lower final price because the hidden costs that you previously didn't think about would be gone.

3)  Less headaches for taxpayers and less need for government beaurocrats.  It's estimated that the average taxpayer (the people who actually pay their taxes, not those who claim to), spends several days out of his year just preparing and filing his tax return.  Such time wasted trying to soothe the ache of the current tax code (which is thousands of pages by the way) could be eliminated if people simply pay their taxes when they buy something.  It would also help by cutting away most of the IRS, saving on even more government expenditures.

4)  Increased government revenues.  Most politicians believe the solution to wasteful government spending and a rapidly increasing federal deficit is more government spending and higher taxes (especially on the rich).  Under the FairTax, with everyone paying into the system, the government would recieve more funds than they do now.  Greater revenues can be used to cover the entire annual budget and actaully pay down the deficit.
Plus, many people don't realize the amount of funds Americans have secured in foreign banks and investments to protect it from the government leeches.  If those people know that they'll only be taxed when they want to spend their money, they would be more likely to bring those funds (worth Trillions of dollars) back to the country to invest in growing businesses and creating even more wealth and paying even more to help decrease the federal deficit.

These are just some of the benefits that this tax structure would bring to the people, making life better for everyone.  I encourage everyone to get behind this initiative to take taxing power away from government leeches who don't care about anyone unless they want to buy their votes and giving it back to the people to pay their taxes in the way they see fit.

I know I'm not the only one who's noticed this, but it seems strange to me that the democrat party puts so much emphasis on what the imperial federal government can and should do for them.  Although, when you think about it, it's not so strange.  It all boils down to one simple truth:  the Democrat party is now run by statists and statists hate states' rights.

Consider some of the following phenomena:

Wealthy people are leaving heavily-taxed states such as California, Oregon, New York, and New Jersey in droves for states with little or no income tax rates and a more pro-business mentality.

Those states that are more business-friendly are still experiencing high unemployment like the rest of the country, but their rate is significantly lower than in the "soak-the-rich" states that are rapidly losing tax revenues on account of many major taxpayers jumping ship.

Several states have begun to allow "gay marriage", but many more have passed amendments to their state constitutions to ban their citizenry from such an act and not recognize it from other states.

Several Republican governors banded together to try and prevent their states from taking federal funds from the "stimulus" because they knew it would come with conditions that would be next to impossible to rescind later.

Democrats continue to clamor for more laws and regulations on the national level to essentially "level the playing field" between the states as a whole such as healthcare, cap and tax, "hate crimes" legislation, "stimulus" with strings attached.

The statist knows that when the states are essentially allowed to "compete" with each other on ideas and actions that the ones that take the "progressive" approach will inevitably end up losing in the end.  Universal health care, for example,  has failed in Massachusetts and Oregon, so the Democrats want to expand it nationally so that no other states can forego it.  The constitution as a whole is a roadblock to the Democrat agenda, but the 10th ammendment is a continual thorn in the side for them because they don't want people in one state to choose to be more prosperous and free than in another and thereby attract people and tax dollars away from the states full of leeches.  The Democrats do not want anyone in any state to be able to escape their theivery or control.

Governor Rick Perry might have sounded extreme when he discussed secession for the state of Texas, but unfortunately he had to use such an illustration to get the point across to the mindless progressives in Washington that see this as "America" and not the "United States of America".  We need to get back to the founders' original ideals of a smaller federal government that helps us primarily with national defense and to step in if there are disputes with interstate commerce.  The states need to be given back the control; if some end up losing in the end it will be because they chose to live by the insanity that governs the mind of statists rather than the ideals that have sustained this great country for over twenty-three decades.

For years I have wondered how modern liberals could continue to call President Bush a "liar" (not that I agreed with everything he said, but come on, 8 years straight of it in the papers everyday?), or say that "your neighbors are out there spreading disinformation", or even go so far as to call churchgoers and pastors "narrow-minded liars".  And then it occurred to me:  when someone believes that a lie is the truth, then the truth must naturally become a lie.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised after decades of successful indoctrination in schools combined with a legal culture that scoffs at any religious expression or pretense in the public square.  Without a definite moral compass, people begin to develop their own ideas of what is right and the thought of anyone hinting at the possibility of there being a higher authority makes them believe that that someone must be lying.  After all, what's good for me is good for me and what's good for you is good for you, right?  Wrong.  Hence the reason why just about every new law and movement on the books in recent history concerning tolerance, hate crimes, public welfare, tax redistribution, and other phenomena single out conservatives and especially Christians.  This is also the reason why President Obama and so many other politicians want to call the Constitution a "living document" and see it as a stumbling block to their agenda; it couldn't possibly thruthfully dictate the terms of the state in such an ironclad fashion.

Could this be because those of us that believe in absolutes (such as the Bible and the US Constitution) to guide the nation speak the truth from what is written within?  No, it couldn't be, because according the "truthful" liberal politicians and activists all over the country, you are actually the liar and should just go on about your life without spreading any more "lies" to expose the liberal, statist agenda.  Well beware liars, I and many other conservatives understand why you cannot tolerate the truth (oh sorry, our lies) and we will continue to spread it because it is not only our God-given right but also our constitutional one.  Oh, and if you think I'm lying about that point, just go re-read the first amendment and see who's telling the truth.

Apparently the democrats are even more upset with Glenn Beck than usual because he dared to call President Obama a (gasp!) racist. I guess this stems from the fact that he’s an outspoken white man who doesn’t believe in the talking points coming from the DNC. But before they go demonizing Beck, maybe they ought to think back to some of the things the “post-racial president” and those close to him have come up with.

- “There’s white folks, and then there’s ignorant [expletive deleted] like you.” – As read in an audio book by none other than Obama.
- Given very little information about the incident, who did Obama rush to defend first – Sergeant Crowley or Professor Gates?
- Why did Attorney General Eric Holder decide not to pursue a case of thug violence brought on by the Black Panthers in Philadelphia during the election? And why did the president say nothing about it?
- Remember where Obama went to church for twenty years. He may deny his application of anything Jeremiah Wright said over the years, but I think it would be impossible not to after hearing it for so long. Wright has blamed “the white man” for many wrongs in the world.
- Who did Obama see fit to blame an “achievement gap” in black education on at the NAACP’s 100th anniversary? Why, white racists of course. Granted, the audience in this instance must be considered, but that doesn’t sound like bringing people together does it?

There are numerous other examples out there that I haven’t shown here, but it seems to me that Glenn Beck has a pretty good basis for his description of Obama and that yet again, the democrats feel the need to play the race card when Beck and others expose their “jokers”.

I don't remember the exact wording, but I know the White House wanted people to report on their neighbors because of some "false information being passed around through chain e-mails".  And yet that same White House cannot think of a better way to spread their own disinformation about their healthcare bill other than - you guessed it- chain e-mail.

Of course what do we expect from a group of politicians that screamed "dissent is patriotic" from 2003 to 2009, but now call us dissenters "Un-American"?

All I can say is, keep dissenting, keep yelling, keep screaming, keep calling, keep writing, keep doing whatever it is that can be done to drive the leaders in Washington so crazy that they will not be able to drown us out or ignore us.  And remember, the reason they will label what you say as "astroturfing" or "lies" is that they have so far removed from the truth for so long that the truth has become a lie to them.  The truth hurts, so bring on the pain!

No matter what side of the political spectrum someone comes from, it has become increasingly obvious that there are two basic notions behind every voting American: No one likes high taxes and everyone knows the economy could use some help. Based on that idea, I have complied a list of what I believe would be both short and long-term economic stimuli. Granted, this is not an exhaustive list of solutions, nor can I personally claim credit for them; they are simply being relayed by a concerned American. Also, some of these may not be classified as economic matters upon first glance, but I assure you, they all have great potential in the economic sphere.

1) Return lending freedoms to banks. When the federal government began to tell banks to lend to customers who should never have been eligible for the amount they received, then banks lost a great deal of freedom to compete amongst themselves and determine fair rates for everyone. Even though many will deny it, far too many homeowners received loans in amounts that they knew they would never be able to repay, but banks lent the money because they didn’t want the federal monkey on their backs and drooled over the possibility of receiving a lot of interest. So while some of the blame may rest with greedy bankers, the government should not have had so much oversight in the whole matter. Release banks and loan providers from the stranglehold of political favors and the opportunity for foreclosures to decrease and home values increase becomes even better as the market begins to function more like it should.

2) Cut businesses loose that have repaid bailout funds. TARP was originally designed as a loan to help financial institutions through a rough spot (much of it due to toxic assets and bad loans as mentioned above). And while the monstrosity should not have been passed in the first place, it has now become a problem for institutions that have received funds as many wish to repay those funds. Some did not even want the money but were forced to accept it; they are now at the mercy of bureaucrats trying to tell them how to run their business because they accepted money with a billion strings attached. Let the companies who can repay the bailout funds and completely release them from all the accompanying regulations and oversight. If they continue to have issues and can’t stay afloat, let them go under. The American taxpayer should not have to fund the mistakes of others; there should be no such thing as a business “too big to fail”.

3) Lower the federal minimum wage and give more control to the states. Where in the world did the idea for a “living wage” come from? The federal government should not be in the business of setting a wage floor; every time they do, it causes businesses to freeze wages, suspend hiring, or lay off workers (especially the businesses that politicians claim a minimum wage increase will help the most). What politicians seem to forget is that in the American economy (free from so many regulations like this one), if a company is not paying comparable wages for an employee, that employee has the freedom to either demand a raise from their employer or leave and find another one who will pay them better. It is a system that can operate independent of a high minimum wage, and does not force employers to have to raise all wages to compensate for a floor and then subsequently cut their workforce. Additionally, if a minimum wage is so important, let each state better determine their own amount. Different states have different needs and different standards of living; give them the freedom to determine a wage floor (if any) for their citizens without the heavy hand of the federal government.

4) Ban by law all federal pork spending. Most of the economic stimulus bill passed at the beginning of the year was not even stimulus – it was funding for thousands of pet projects in congressional districts that does not help the country as a whole. A law should be passed that bans this kind of ridiculous spending from our federal government. If a state or local community wants a project like this bad enough, they can temporarily raise taxes or create special funding without the need to take it from the U.S. Congress. Of course, when a local politician begs for more tax money for a public project, we all know how that usually goes down (because we don’t want to keep shelling out more and more in taxes!). No wonder then that our federal representatives engage in so much pork spending; they can use it to take credit for something in their district and use that as a re-election campaign. Take that power away from them and it immediately helps our economy by trimming wasteful spending.

5) Enact term limits for all elected representatives. If we can limit our president to two terms, why can’t we limit our representatives? Career politicians are a barrier to long-term economic policy solutions because they tailor policy that benefits their elite status above all else; they want to stay in power as long as possible. The concerns of the people that elected them – especially when it comes to taxes and economic policy – go right out the window; all they care about is our vote, not what we really want. Limit the time that a politician can stay in Washington and it’s almost certain that better economic policy will begin to emerge.

6) Give more ability to local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. Even though many illegal aliens in the country perform low-wage jobs, they also send a great deal of that money back out of the country. But even more important than that, many are paid under the table or in cash and hence avoid income taxes. When they fail to pay their taxes, it further shifts the burden to responsible citizens, decreases tax revenues, and increases government expenditures. Such a practice continues in part because local law enforcement officers must send lawbreaking aliens to federal agencies for deportation; many avoid deportation simply by being caught up in all the red tape and the bureaucracy. Give local law enforcement more ability to enforce federal law and more rapidly remove aliens from the country and watch what happens to the inflow and outflow of tax dollars from law-abiding citizens.

7) Eliminate the federal Department of Education. It has only been in the last few decades that education has become another federal oversight. Local schools are entangled year after year by federal regulations that force them to spend unnecessary funds. States and especially local communities should be turned loose from the noose of a federal agency that receives nearly 70 billion or our tax dollars annually to try and squeeze every school system nationwide into the same mold (No Child Left Behind is not working). Let local schools better determine how to spend tax dollars apart from the federal government; a lot of waste could be eliminated (especially in administrative costs) and the schools would be better off for it.

8) Make school vouchers available to everyone. If there’s one thing government beurocrats are more afraid of then eliminating federal funding for schools, it’s losing tax dollars to a private school. Yet on the flipside, many parents are infuriated that they pay thousands of dollars year after year for public school education whether their children make use of it or not (and many who do send their children to public schools would rather not). Give parents the freedom to use their school tax dollars to help fund a private education and very quickly public school boards will find ways to make their schools more economically and academically viable (because they’ll be competing against the private schools). Then watch the economy be stimulated as parents are given a choice on how to spend their money and public schools begin to eliminate waste and more student expenditures.

9) Revamp the tax code and tax collection. A tax code that is over 60,000 pages long and growing every year is an outrageous waste of tax money and a burden on the citizenry. While no one enjoys paying taxes, we also know that they are a necessary part of life. It just becomes frustrating to pay that necessity when there is a tax code with so many deductions and loopholes, the average citizen wastes many days out of their year simply trying to make sure their tax returns are correct. Plus, the majority of taxes is income-based and can therefore be avoided by illegal aliens, cash-only operations, or criminals. Also, when there is an economic downturn and wages are reduced or eliminated by people losing jobs, tax revenues naturally go down and the federal government then feels the need to raise or revise taxes on those who are paying, and the tax situation becomes even more convoluted. A long-term stimulus to the economy is to completely overhaul the tax collection system by simplifying how taxes are collected, eliminating so many loopholes (which are typically more politically than economically motivated), and not punishing one particular group over another. This could be accomplished by an across-the-board flat tax. Unfortunately if such a tax was income-based, many of the same problems with the current system would still linger. However, if such a tax was expenditure-based rather than income-based, it would be even more stimulating to the economy. Citizens could keep what they earn and pay taxes only when they buy something; investments in savings and other activities punished by the current tax system would greatly increase. Revenues to the government would be up because let’s face it, people enjoy spending money and spend it now even after taxes are taken out of their paycheck. It would also force tax cheats and dodgers to pay taxes, bringing in even more revenue to the government. Finally, it would stimulate businesses that would no longer be burdened by taxes woven into employee paychecks and could finally lower prices on their goods and services without having to cover the burden of so many taxes currently built into those prices.

10) Amend the Constitution to enact permanent economic change. An overhaul of the tax collection system and term limits on our representatives are positive, long-term steps to returning our economy to prosperity, but such radical changes require a method to permanently keep our lawmakers in check. This would bring about the need to make two important amendments to the United States Constitution. The first would be an amendment enacting term limits on representatives. The second would be an amendment to repeal the 16th amendment which allows the government to levy income taxes. Until the government is prohibited by the highest law in the land from dipping into our paychecks, we cannot enact long-lasting tax reform.

Again, this list of ideas to help our economy is not a complete list of solutions. I only hope it will help people think about how many possible solutions there are to bring about economic prosperity in the hands of the citizenry of the United States while reducing the burden of the federal government to itself and upon us.