The Gods of the “MARKET PLACE Teachings”

The Gods of the “MARKET PLACE Teachings” 

Sun, 01/30/2011 - 2:55pm

[I have done something blasphemous. I have changed some of the wording of Kipling's justly famous poem, that he entitled “The Gods of the Copybook Heading.” By way of explanation, the poem was written in 1919 England, Kipling chose the phrase Copybook Heading because it represented “conventional wisdom” truisms, and advice to be followed to live a happy life. The phrase “Market Place” carried some negative connotations in “Progressive” England at the end of WWI. Therefore, I have changed “Copybook Heading” to “Market Place Teachings”.

Nothing is lost with this change. The lessons to be learned are taught by the marketplace. And the foolish thoughts to which we cling are taught by the conventional wisdom of the Copybook.  And for this audience, I think you will appreciate the changes.

For purity’s sake go to  http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Gods_of_the_Copybook_Headings 

and read Kipling’s poem as written. In the meantime here is my version which honors the Market Place as the source of “Conventional Wisdom”.

The Gods of the “MARKETPLACE Teachings”

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Copybook Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Market Place Teachings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision, and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Copybook Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Copybook Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, they promised perpetual peace.
They swore if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Marketplace Teachings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Market Place Teachings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch, we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Market Place Teachings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Copybook tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Market Place Teachings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Market Place Teachings with terror and slaughter return!

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 9:06 pm

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 9:06 pm 

In Their Own Self-Interest by Chuck McGlawn 

The Liberty/Libertarian Movement is stuck on “Pause” or even “Play Backward”. This cannot continue. Lawmakers propose laws, not because they think it is the right law to propose, but because it is going to advance their careers, or in their own self-interest. Voters do not elect these self-promoters because they are stupid, it is because the self-promoters are proposing the laws the voters want to be proposed, or in their own self-interest. People do what they do because they know what they know. Do you remember how mad you were when you learned that the National Government caused inflation by increasing the money supply? Do you recall your anger when you come to believe that the Government increased unemployment by raising the minimum wage? You became an activist for liberty because you wanted liberty to continue, or in your own self-interest. The article below is a plan to activate approximately 4.5 million KEY PEOPLE to promote Liberty because it will be in their own self-interest.

The Premise

The Libertarian Movement, from the very beginning, has extolled the virtues of “Self-Interest. Attributing every action no matter how altruistic it may seem, to some motivation on the part of the actor engaging in his own self-interest. From Bill Gates giving multi-millions of dollars to charity, all the way down to the driver who waves another driver the right of way in traffic, and everything in between. Claiming they are all somehow acts of self-interest. Perhaps the solution to the problem is to realign large segments of the population in advancing the liberty movement because of their own self-interest.

Let us face some realities, Democrats are not Democrats because they wake up each morning thinking of ways to “Tax and tax, spend and spend and elect and elect.” It is not true that they, “have never seen a tax they didn’t like.” Activist Democrats are working for what they have concluded is their own, and therefore your best interest.

Republicans are not Republicans because the wake up each morning thinking, “What laws they can pass to make Americans better, more responsible and more moral. Republicans are working to make America better, by making Americans better, and they are invigorated by their desire to live in that better America.

In the US today we have approximately 160,000,000 adults, divided between men and women, divided again among 50 States, divided again between employment in the public or the private sectors, divided again between hundreds or thousands of professions, careers, and duties. These millions separate themselves again by personal interest, hobbies, and different activities physical and mental. Additional diversity manifests itself by political division (Rep. Dem. Libertarian Grn. ETC.) Additional diversity arises from attitudes toward each issue, (Conservative, Liberal or Libertarian). Divided again by… Divided again by… Divided again by…All of these differences are inputs to some degree of creating diversity.

The diversity that I have so inadequately tried to describe above does not even scratch the surface of the diversity that exists within the borders of the US. We are a nation of peoples that are so freethinking, that no two individuals have the exact same total agenda. Talk about people as snowflakes, with no two alike. Is it any wonder that with all that individuality and diversity with the accompanying multiple cross purposes that comes built into that system that grassroots efforts to change or divert the bulldozer of government expansion has failed. We need a way to coral all of this individual diversity regardless of their far-flung self-interest, to somehow move in the same direction. How would we begin to think of a way to get any sizeable group to have any unifying self-interest?

There are two ways to accomplish this seemingly impossible end. We are going to start with the second way. (We are starting with the second way because we have already been engaged in the first way for the last sixty years.) If we can make progress, (and it is a gigantic if) way two is our only hope. [We have been suggesting this as your mantra for the last five years.] “By reducing the size of the Federal Government to its constitutionally limited size, would create a vacuum in the taxing and regulating departments, which would be quickly filled, separately by the 50 States governments. With the 50 separate State governments, tinkering with taxation and regulation some State would stumble onto a formula that would produce a bump upward in prosperity. The other States would see and begin to imitate the prosperous State. The second State would modify their taxing and regulating slightly to better accommodate their unique location that their State occupies physically and economically, and the unique makeup of their local population which will yield a bigger bump in their prosperity, and so forth, and so forth, etc.” etc

The Launch

Then all the valuable lessons learned over the centuries would come into play. Like lessons found in "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith; Division of Labor, and specialization would come into play and constant prosperity would be the standard fare, then none of this stimulus ruse designed to buy votes from the stimulated segments of the population to the detriment of other less vote producing segments of the population, because it would have a negative impact on prosperity.

Frankly, I am not sure the second step can ever be accomplished. Face it we have only two choices, the second being to educate enough people to adopt the Declaration of independence as the “Blueprint for our National Government.” The first being, “To educate enough American voters so, that will then take an active role in legislative selection, so as to vote out the tax and spend lawmakers, in favor of economically conservative lawmakers.” Gentle reader that is a process that started in the 1950s. Let me ask, how that has that approach worked out for us? The answer is that, while we have been working tirelessly to reduce the size of government for sixty years, there is no indication that we have slowed the process one iota. From Liberal Presidents like Johnson, Carter, and Clinton through Moderate Presidents like Eisenhower, Ford, and Daddy Bush, to Conservative Presidents like Reagan. The growth in the size and intrusiveness of government has remained unchecked. You know all about the “Continuing the same steps of the past, and expecting different results.”

Today there is no clear distinction between tax and spend Democrats. who never saw a social program they didn’t like, and the borrow and spend Republicans. who never saw a war-making program that they didn’t like. Sixty years of that effort has not produced a single Administration that successfully reduced the size and reach of government. This second way is to educate enough people to somehow put the “toothpaste” of government back into the “toothpaste tube”. As impossible as that sounds, it is far easier than the first choice that we have been engaged for sixty years.

Toward being able to accomplish the second method, remember we have a highly respected, even loved, roadmap, to a small DC Government, we have a blueprint for small DC Government; we have clearly defined guidelines for a small DC Government. The document to which I refer is the Declaration of Independence. Within the Declaration of Independence, in the second paragraph, we have a clear description of man’s proper relationship relation to his DC Government. If enough could accept this paragraph as the “Mission Statement” for our DC Government, we could easily use that blueprint to create a DC Government of a size that would fit into the Constitution.

The job of educating enough people to accept the Declaration of Independence as the Mission Statement for our National Government is infinitely smaller than trying to educate the entire voting population to choose fiscally conservative lawmakers.

In just a few paragraphs, one can show clearly, the definition of our DC Government. Using the highly respect and much supported Declaration of Independence, to achieve this clarity. Direct your attention to just the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. This advice has been available for 233 years. A carefully thoughtful reading of that simple sentence can provide the understanding to fashion a small DC Government.

The Lessons

The Declaration of Independence says, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness... [There is no major disagreement here, among a very large section of out population.]

What powerfully insightful words. First, it establishes that the truths are “self-evident” and are confirmed by observation of natural law. Then it goes on to reveal, that man’s rights, (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) with the dictum that these rights are granted by the Creator or nature, called natural law, or the Rule of Law, and that they are “unalienable” which means they cannot be taken way. Not even by the government that is soon to be created.

Looking closer, you have three and only three RIGHTS. Simply by being born, you have the right to LIFE. And you have the RIGHT to do with that LIFE anything you want to do. That is called LIBERTY. You have the RIGHT to plan and conduct that LIFE in a way that you think will maximize your happiness. These are all yours ostensibly without any interference from the DC Government, so long as what you do does not interfere with another’s RIGHT to do what he/she wants to do with their LIFE. [I make a distinction between DC Government and State Government because we have a blueprint for a DC Government, but not a blueprint for State Governments. State governments will be molded and modified not by a blueprint, but by competition. Competition between the other forty-nine States for populations.]

Next, the framers make a vitally important assertion. “That to secure these rights”, (notice here, that these are rights that we had even before we had governments to "secure" them.) “Governments are instituted among Men”. Please note here exactly what is being said, that “We The People” are going to engaged in a contract with our (soon to be formed) government to “secure” (that is to protect) our rights. It is also important to note that men make  Government, and therefore precede  Government.** This means that The DC Government is the agent to and servant of man, and not the reverse. A reminder is necessary here. We are talking about our DC Government, State Governments are not held to this high standard. Remember the State governments were established before these criteria were laid down. Some States had State religions, other States allowed slavery.

** Please note that as far as I know, this is the FIRST and only time that States, individual Sovereign States, created a National Government. [I left the title "National Government" despite the fact that the Constitution did not create a 'National Government".] The European Union is another example, but that attempt will not have the impact on prosperity that these United States of America had on this Continent because by the time the EU was formed so many tenants of Socialism was built into their system.

Now the framers are going to designate from where our DC Government gets its just powers, and at the same time put an important limitation on that governmental power. The Declaration of Independence says, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” There you have it. If our DC Government gets its power from the governed, it would naturally follow that man cannot create a Government and consent to give to that government powers that man himself does not have. Let me say that again. If government gets its power from the governed, then the government cannot have powers that individual man does not have.

A question or two are in order here; does man have the right to defend his own life and property? YES is the answer. Therefore, man can institute a Government and share with that  Government the power to protect life and property. In fact, the ability to share these powers is the justification for a military and a judicial system.

Now, [and please read this carefully.] do you as a person, have the right to take money from others and give that money to someone else that you think needs it more? Do you as an individual have that right? The answer is NO. Therefore, it would follow that if a man does not have the right to do it as an individual, then he cannot create a Government, and consent to give to that Government the power to take money from others and give it to someone else that the Government thinks needs it more.

This means our DC Government can have no power to extract taxes from you to educate children. Our DC Government cannot be empowered to educate children, no matter how badly the population may think children need educating. It means that our DC Government  can have no power to extract taxes from you to fund social welfare, no matter how needy the population may think some people are. It also can have no power for health care providing, business promoting, Park building. The DC Government should not be involved in educational standards setting, régime changing, weather reporting, democracy spreading. The DC Government should not be spending tax monies on database keeping, farmer saving, speed limit setting or toilet designing. No matter how large a budget surplus our government may have it should never spend taxes on E-Mail reading, phone tapping, corporate bailouts, or the dozens of other things that the DC Government is either financing or regulating.

Let me mention just one natural result of this change. If the Declaration of Independence is adopted as the “Mission Statement” for our National Government, and if all of those broad powers, and many many more too numerous to mention, were to be removed from our DC Government, would there be a need for an IRS? I think not

The Result

The effect of creating a DC Government that is limited to just the powers that individuals had before he had a Government, would in effect divide all of that power among the fifty States. The POWER usurped by and is being exercised by our DC Government would be transferred separately to the fifty State Governments, as it was originally intended.

The DC Government would still have the power to maintain a DEFENSIVE military. You may be asking why I emphasized defensive? It is because DEFENSIVE is the only power YOU have to share with the DC Government. The DC Government would still have the power of the Judicial Branch to settle disputes between States.

This would in effect turn our States into Wal-Marts and K-Marts competing with each other for populations. The unintended consequences of this move would automatically end those dastardly “earmarks” Our DC Government would not have the money (Power) to bribe or coerce States Governments into compliance with the desires of the DC Government.

Would we have to pass laws to stop those “Horrible” lobbyists? NO. What would happen if you took away DCs Power Peddling? Then Corporations that had been paying the lobbyist to lobby for a corporate advantages would begin to spend that money on actual product improvement, or increase dividend payouts or paying higher wages, or perhaps a little of all three.

Right now, there are approximately 4.5 million state employees [That is a poor estimate. Please someone correct my numbers.] The main concern for most of those 4.5 million is to have a job next year, that gentle reader is a formula for inefficiency. There is no real thought on the part of most of those 4.5 million State employees to deliver “Betterment” to the citizens of their respective States. There is no real eye toward efficiency in State Government. It is like having 4.5 million people employed by State Governments who, by the system in place are working against our self-interest. However, if every State had to compete with the other forty-nine States for populations it would convert many of those 4.5 million State employees into machines of efficiency. Because it would be in their own self-interest to do so. That is if they wanted to keep their jobs. Each State employee would be seeking lower operating cost, always striving to become more efficient, always thinking of ways to deliver “betterment” to the populations of their State. The efficiency learning curve would be so steep as to astound lawmakers and point them toward efficiency. This would turn our State lawmakers into writing and passing laws (often times repealing laws that created inefficiency) that would benefit the populations of their State. Moreover, if the lawmakers of one State were slower to move than the lawmakers of a competing State would find their tax base dwindling. Lawmakers that were slow to move or continued to propose laws that were contrary to the wishes of the people, he would be looking for a new job after the next election. In addition, the questions about term limits would become moot.

Another unintended consequence [And there are many more. We invite you to give this concept some thought, it will spawn ideas that will astound you.] would begin to surface that being the knowledge that the voter within a State could really affect their governments through the voting process. This would make interest in governmental matters higher on an individual’s priority list likely way ahead of knowing the scores of the last NBA Basketball game, or who the starting pitcher or quarterback will be in the big game.

PS I am very interested to know what you think about this article. Do you think it has merit? Do you have thoughts on how to recapture our liberty? If yes, please share your thoughts with us. We are specifically asking for your thoughts.

Our President and The FAIR TAX by Chuck McGlawn

Our President and The FAIR TAX by Chuck McGlawn 

Sat, 01/29/2011 - 4:31 pm 

Our President has said it in the State of the Union speech, “So tonight, I’m asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. “ Let’s take him at his word. What could be more simple than the “Fair Tax” that collects a revenue-neutral tax on our spending instead of on our working income or our investment income? If you earn a $1,000.00 your paycheck is for a $1,000.00, no more withholding for income tax. (No more IRS.)
No more withholding for Social Security retirement, (No more FICA deductions.) no more complicated tax forms, no more hiring tax accountants, no more hiring tax Attorneys. And no more wondering if you are contributing to a charitable organization because you want to help their cause or because you want a tax deduction.

Our President said, “Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field.” With the “Fair Tax” there are no loopholes, and as for a level playing field the “Fair Tax” would, for the first time, collect taxes from the “Criminal Class”, pimps, bank robbers, and illegal aliens.

Our President said, “…lower the corporate tax rate...” Someone needs to tell the President that the “Fair Tax” would (without losing any income for government spending” completely eliminate the Corporate income tax. This could make it financially viable to keep factories here at home instead of shipping them South Bago Bago.

Our President talked a lot about “investing”. What he was really talking about was spending. But he used the word “investing” because he knows, that you know “investing is good”. The “Fair Tax” would eliminate the Capital Gains Tax. This would invite more people into the investor class, and American Companies would have the working capital for development, innovation, and expansion. More jobs for everyone.

All-in-all the “Fair Tax” is a win-win, win-win, win-win, did I say win-win situation. Find out more at fairtax.org.

Friday, October 15, 2010

Fifty Reasons Why Everyone Wins with the Fair-Tax

1. It allows you to keep 100% of your paycheck, with nothing withheld for
Social Security and Medicare payments. 

2. It eliminates the regressive payroll tax that hurts the poor.
Currently, every one of us is taxed a minimum of 7.65% on our first-dollar of
wages up to $90,000, if we earn that much.

3. It assures that the wealthiest Americans will be voluntarily helping
to fund social security with every last dollar they spend above the
poverty level. Today, earnings are subject to payroll taxes only up to
$90,000. The wealthiest Americans therefore do not pay into the system
above that amount. If their earnings are from investments, no earnings
fund the Social Security system. Under the FairTax, a single purchase 
(regardless of the source of the earnings) can result in greater 
contributions to the Social Security system than would be paid by an individual 
under the payroll tax of today. 

4. It provides funding for Social Security and Medicare at a level 
equal to or greater than at present, with a stronger and broader tax base. 

5. It secures the future of Social Security and Medicare because of all
spenders fund it and not just the workers.

6. It eliminates all personal income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate 
income taxes, gift taxes, death taxes, and capital gains taxes. 

7. It eliminates the income tax and the IRS. Members of Congress and
the public overwhelmingly agree that the current internal revenue code is
cumbersome, intrusive, coercive, and inefficient.

8. It is revenue neutral with the present income tax system, funding
the federal budget at current levels.

9. It will remove an average of 22% of the cost of American made goods
by removing the built-in payroll tax (the other 7.65% of earnings that
employers pay) and other business taxes that are now passed to
consumers as an "embedded" tax of approximately 22% due to the cascading of
income and payroll taxes paid by U.S. employers, at every step of
production, to the U.S. Treasury.

10. It doesn't tax used items ? clothes, cars, homes. Only new items
are taxed when sold by a business to an individual.

11. It is progressive, a "prebate" of the tax amount up to the poverty
level is given to everyone. This means that those spending below the
poverty level have a net gain because the "prebate" exceeds the amount
paid in taxes. (Under the present system they pay the payroll tax even if
they get a full refund of income tax withheld.)

12. It eliminates 90% of the cost of compliance. American families and
American businesses waste an estimated $250 ? $600 billion per year
doing the paperwork necessary to comply with the tax code. That is roughly
$1,000 ? $2,000 annually for every man, woman and child in the U.S.

13. It creates an opportunity for our products to leave this country
costing an average of 25% less, thus increasing our exports, lower our
deficit balance of trade, and increasing employment at home.

14. It encourages investment in companies located in the U.S., thus
providing a home for money already in the US and attracting more. The U.S.
will be the most attractive tax-free haven in the world for doing
business. American companies will return from offshore and overseas.

15. It encourages repatriation to the U.S. of money held by the U.S.
individuals and companies now in foreign countries, with no tax consequence.

16. All 290 million Americans and 51 million visiting tourists fund
Social Security and Medicare with their purchases. Today only 110 million
workers fund these programs via deductions from their paychecks.

17. The broader tax base includes the ten percent of our economy, an
estimated $1 trillion, that today is underground or under the table.
Under the FairTax, the illegal drug dealer will pay his tax just like the
rest of us when he buys his sunglasses, BMW, and other items, as will
those who do business for cash.

18. It allows families to save more for home ownership, education, and
retirement. An average family making $50,000 will have $7,500 more
spendable income.

19. It makes educational tuition a tax-free expenditure of tax-free
income.

20. It makes American products more competitive overseas by removing
the embedded tax from them, thus lowering their prices, which compensates
for low foreign wages.

21. It makes American products more competitive at home by removing the
embedded tax from them, compensating for the low cost of imported
products not burdened by taxes imposed by exporting countries.

22. It removes the need for formal 401-K's, IRAs, HSA, etc. Anyone will
be able to set up any kind of savings or investment account without
regard to taxes or the government.

23. It frees churches and other non-profit organizations from the
expense of filing tax returns and paying their half of Social Security and
Medicare payments for employees. There will no longer be any 501.c.3 or
501.c.4 non-profit tax status, because there will be no more tax to be
exempt from.

24. It restores to churches and non-profit organizations the 1st
Amendment right to engage in free speech, without fear of losing their
tax-free status.

25. It gives individuals and businesses the right to donate as much as
they want to in a given year to charitable causes.

26. It restores the 4th Amendment, protecting against unreasonable
searches and seizures, from which the IRS presently is exempt.

27. It restores the 5th Amendment, which guarantees the right to due
process. Under current systems, the IRS has their own courts with their
own set of rules not included in the 5th.

28. It cleans up a major flaw in campaign financing, eliminating
campaign donations for "tax favors".

29. It eliminates wrangling in Congress over tax cuts, the tax code,
and who is or is not paying a fair share of the tax bill.

30. It encourages work by letting workers keep 100% of their earnings
and giving a rebate, to boot, making the notion that the more you work,
the more money you have, a reality, unlike the current system where
welfare is lost when you go to work, so your first dollars earned after
taxes just offset what you were currently getting in welfare, making you
no better off.

31. It allows more of the lower income families to become home owners
by allowing a second job income above their current income (all tax
free) to be applied to a mortgage. Money for down payments for homes is
also saved totally tax free so that it will accumulate faster.

32. It allows families to retain farms and businesses in the hands of
those who built them through the elimination of the death tax.

33. It allows families to help each other out tax-free, by eliminating
the gift tax.

34. It encourages individuals to self-insure, making the health system
more direct pay (no 3rd party pay), thus bringing costs down.

35. Without FICA to pay, most states, counties, municipalities, and
school districts will see a large increase in their state budget revenues,
additionally lowering the overall tax burden (State & Federal) for most
Americans.

36. It assures that no American will find, at the end of the year, a
need to get a loan to pay taxes as an alternative to penalties, interest,
or cheating.

37. It restores individual privacy. The government no longer needs to
know where you work, what you are earning, and what you are doing with
it.

38. It eliminates the need to have a "marriage" clarification declaring
who you live with, as that has no bearing at all on a state or federal
sales tax.

39. It eliminates the need for courts to decide which divorced parent
gets to take the tax deduction for children.

40. It reduces production costs for farmers and other subsidized
businesses, leading to a reduction in subsidies, thus reducing the federal
budget.

41. It eliminates the administrative costs incurred by states in
collection of state sales taxes because states will piggyback the state tax
collection onto the national tax collection, for which they are
compensated by the FairTax ?% administrative cost give-back. [Doesn't this go
to the retailers?]

42. It results in a windfall profit for many of those holding taxable
corporate high interest bonds at the time of passage of FairTax, since
they will not be taxed under FairTax. (A higher interest rate is usually
paid to entice investors to buy the corporate bonds rather than go with
the lower interest, but tax free, municipal bonds, now.)

43. It shifts the tax to consumption, which consumption tables over
time show is more stable than income, therefore the tax revenue stream is
likely to be a more stable and predictable amount.

44. It results in Federal Reserve rates being based on current
consumption, which is rather stable, instead of future earnings, which are less
predictable, resulting in surer inflation prevention.

45. It allows for better planning by businesses, because they no longer
have to consider tax implications for everything they do.

46. It makes higher employment or better compensation possible in the
small business sector where today it costs approximately three dollars
in compliance costs to pay one dollar in payroll and income taxes.

47. It moves many now providing tax preparation, advice, accounting,
planning, and records maintenance into an expansive economy where they
will be producing goods and services. There they can add to the standard
of living of all Americans and likely earn more than they do currently,
instead of shuffling paper for the government (and not contributing
anything economically to society).

48. It relieves citizens of the risk of facing the shift in the burden of
proof that is so common with the current system, i.e., the taxpayer is
guilty unless innocence can be proved, when even IRS staff sometimes
give conflicting interpretations.

49. It's simple, unambiguous, and certain, the opposite of the current
tax code.

50. It's good for the environment. It reportedly would save about
300,000 trees a year that are needed to produce the paper for the IRS
compliance and tax forms, enough to reach around the equator placed end to
end 28 times. Also, since it taxes only new items, it would encourage
buying tax-free pre-owned cars, clothes, furniture, houses, etc. Reuse is
good for the environment, too.

PLEASE CONSIDER THIS ALSO:

22% of the price of all that you buy currently is tax / tax compliance cost. When that cost goes away (under the Fair Tax) the price of your $1.00 item (purchased at Wal-Mart, for example) drops in price to 78 cents (without damaging the profit margin).

1.23 X 78 cents = 96 cents.

Seeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!! Even with the 23%, Fair Tax added on, your originally $1.00 item is now 4 cents cheaper.

Posted by chuckest at Friday, October 15, 2010 

Saturday, 9/18/2010 

You Can Deny Individual Rights, but do not call it The Rule of Law 

by Chuck McGlawn 9/18/10

There is a phrase that has drifted into common use, no, it has exploded, into common use. It is a phrase that forty years ago its application would have been welcomed, and would have been celebrated by Conservatives, Right-Wingers and Libertarians alike. But, forty years ago Conservatives, Right-Wingers, and Libertarians were almost just one group. That was forty years ago. Before we get into that phrase, let us take a brief look at that same “Conservative, right-wing and libertarian” landscape.

Today the conservative movement has grown so large that they now include some special interest Conservatives. The conservatives have divided themselves into three very distinct but very much overlapping factions. There are the, I guess we will have to call them the old conservatives. They adhere to the basic conservative beliefs. They oppose high taxes, foreign aid, corporate and social welfare, farm subsidies and government regulations. They are strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution. These Conservatives call themselves “Small Government Conservatives”.

The small government conservatives are typified by the motto of The John Birch Society. One of the earliest and defining conservative organizations. Robert Welch, the founder and President of The John Birch Society said in the Blue Book, “The motto can be summed up in just five words less government and more responsibility”.

The small government conservatives could merge quite easily with libertarians and right-wingers. [The regular readers of this Liberty ViewsLetter know that the historic definition of a right-winger is an advocate of less government.] This means small government conservatives, libertarians and right-wingers are still largely just one group. The other two conservatives groups still adhere too many of those small government planks, with a few planks added.

Let us call the second group of conservatives the, “Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.” conservatives. The additional planks they add to the conservative platform are “Be ready for war with Iran” plank, They function as if the Iranians are on the verge of having nuclear weapon capability, with a burgeoning ballistic missile delivery system so that they will soon be able to lob the big one onto New York or Washington DC. This is, of course a slight exaggeration.

A close corollary to that plank is the “close the borders”, because“every job done by an illegal is a job stolen from an American.”AND, “with open borders the Iranians do not have to wait for a missile delivery system to be developed, they can just carry suitcase nukes across the ‘open border’, and BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, goodbye to San Diego, Phoenix, and Dallas.” The libertarians, and right-wing (those who are advocates of less government) would not mesh too well with these brands of conservatives.

The third wing of the conservative movement is, (and remember there is much overlapping.) the “Religious Conservatives”. Therefore, some of each of the other groups adheres to some of the planks that are added by the religious conservatives. The religious conservatives add to the platform these planks: “no abortion”, “no stem cell research” and “marriage is to be defined as being between one man and one woman”.

Now The Phrase

The phrase to which I refer is “The Rule of Law” Now I am very familiar with the term. I and many conservatives have been using it for decades to describe man’s natural or God given rights. The concept of the “Rule of law” plays heavily in any understanding and any explanation of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. The line from the Declaration that says, “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights… to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” And that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness were man’s natural rights. The basics of the Rule of Law.

I am not alone in this appraisal.

“These unwritten principles of equality, autonomy, dignity, and respect are said to transcend ordinary written laws that are enacted by government. Sometimes known as natural law or higher law theory.”
(see) http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Rule_of_Law

“Natural Law, the unwritten body of universal moral principles that underlie the ethical and legal norms by which human conduct is sometimes evaluated and governed. Natural law is often contrasted with positive law or statutes, which consists of the written rules and regulations enacted by government.” (see) http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Natural_Law)

The Rule of Law

“…maxim states that men should not be trusted to rule others unless their rule is tempered by fixed laws that prevent tyranny. Laws that prevent individuals from accumulating wealth by force, laws that prevent those in high office from exercising power over the populace without restraint, laws that prevent the majority from acting without a due regard for the rights and well-being of individuals, laws that prevent the powerful from plundering the weak. The Rule of Law is what our heroes died for in past wars for liberty.” “…not the cruel edicts of tyrant dictators or divine right decrees of kings -- is the bedrock of human justice, the philosophical cornerstone of these United States, and the foundation of hope for all mankind.” (Emphasis added) 
(see)http://lilt.ilstu.edu/rrpope/rrpopepwd/articles/definition.html

You may have heard it said of America,

"Ours is a nation of laws. We are ruled by laws, not men.’ What does this mean? Before America was born, men and women were ruled by kings who claimed the right to rule, who changed the law to suit their every whim. This was considered intolerable by our founding fathers; That, no written law may be enforced by the government unless it conforms with certain unwritten, universal principles of fairness, morality, and justice that transcend human legal systems.”

That is what was meant by the Rule of Law.(see)http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Rule_of_Law

Recently, we have seen the phrase “Rule of Law”, used to describe and justify the most egregious acts of majorities against minorities. To demonize and vilify men and women that come to this country to make for themselves a better life in pursuit of happiness. Men and women who just want the opportunity for nothing more than to make our beds and mow our lawns.

In the America, that I know and love, the “Rule of Law” once described a revolutionary change in man’s relationship with his government. It represented a giant step forward in the evolution of mankind. The point of demarcation from the brutal “might makes right”, and the dictatorial “Devine right of Kings”, into a whole new paradigm that man was capable of self-government. And the Might makes Right and the divine right of Kings was consigned to the “Trash Heap” of history. That man had RIGHTS, inalienable rights that came to him by just being born. And, that man himself could create governments and limit that government to just protecting man’s inalienable rights.

I am saddened to say, that many conservatives are duped. They have abandoned their traditional moral values that respect life, liberty, and property. They have abandoned the principles of the Rule of Law and God-given rights as recognized by the Declaration of Independence, and have turned their backs to the Rule of Law and instead embraced the interventionism of socialist central planning and the expanded intrusive State. And they have ignominiously chosen the phrase “Rule of Law” as the banner under which they march. To those conservatives, I invite a visit to and a more thoughtful reading of the Declaration of Independence.

To these misguided conservatives, I offer this gently remind that George Orwell’s “Doublethink” means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. This means you will not be able to limit our government to the adherence to The Rule of Law as understood by our Founding Fathers, while advocating the most blatant laws that enable the majority to act without a due regard for the rights and well-being of individuals.

With the conversion of our once proud Republic into an unbridled Democracy, you can deny individuals there God Given “unalienable rights” by simple statutes, but please do not call it “The Rule of Law”.

Posted by chuckest at Saturday, September 18, 2010 

The Federal Government’s Primary Purpose

Friday, July 30, 2010 

The Federal Government’s Primary Purpose 

By Chuck McGlawn

With wars raging in the Middle East and threatening to set the world aflame. With citizen security at an all-time low, it might be time to reflect on the primary function of the "federal" government.

Paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence, (which was the Mission Statement for the soon to be drafted US Constitution) Mankind has the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. To secure (that meant to protect) those rights governments are created and gets its just powers from the governed.

Our Government failed us big time, the attack on the World Trade Center was clear proof of that. And the failure continues. Americans feel more threatened (real or not) than any time in our history.

While our military is off to far-away places with strange sounding names, involved in regime change, spreading democracy, taking on the job of policemen of the world or school-yard bully, I really cannot tell which. The job they are supposed to be doing is unfilled.

In the last fifty years the US Government has spent countless trillions developing an offensive military force (Much of which became obsolete and trashed before we had a chance to use it.). When any sixth grader, with a proper education could tell you that our government is empowered to develop only a DEFENSIVE MILITARY FORCE. Bring our troops home, not only from Iraq and Afghanistan but from the over 100 nations we now occupy. (where they are spending American taxpayer money in a foreign land) Muster-out all the troops except enough for an invincible defensive force.

Half of the money spent on housing for our troops abroad should be returned to the taxpayer. I suspect it would be in excess of 75 Billion dollars. This would trigger a spending frenzy that would launch an economic upturn unprecedented in America's history. The increased tax revenues to government from this windfall should also be returned to the taxpayers. This would further fuel the skyrocketing expansion of our economy. Unemployment would become a thing of the past, and we would then be advertising in Mexico and other Central American Nations for willing laborers to come to the US to fill those vacant jobs.

Oh, and the other half of the money being spent to house US troops abroad could be put out to private bid on a DEFENSIVE weapons systems, a weapon system so diverse, so cutting edge and so state-of-the-art that another 9/11 style attack would be hugely reduced. Add to that a national policy that no longer stuck its nose into the business of every nation, and citizen security would be at an all-time high.

Immigration Cause & Effect Maybe Rearing its Head

Friday, July 23, 2010 

Immigration Cause & Effect Maybe Rearing its Head 

by Chuck McGlawn

From Phoenix comes, “Go away”, say the proponents of SB 1070 they argue that the exodus of illegal immigrants can only help Arizona's economy. Najmuddin Katchi sees it differently. The shopping center that holds his small shop is almost empty. The Food City supermarket closed this spring, then the furniture shop, then the pizzeria. The giant apartment complex across the street, once brimming with tenants, is two-thirds vacant. Katchi is behind on his store rent, lamenting that, after the 29th of July, “Maybe I have to close the store." His customers, mostly Latino immigrants, are packing to leave the state before the nation's toughest law against illegal immigrants takes effect July 29.

It's hard to determine how much of the neighborhood's woes stem from Arizona's immigration laws and how much from the state's economy, battered by a once red-hot housing marked that cooled. Katchi's says, “Revenue was already sagging before April 23”, but since SB 1070 was signed into law, sales have plummeted.

Bob Dane, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, in Washington, which argues for stricter immigration standards and estimates that illegal immigrants cost Arizona taxpayers $2.5 billion annually. But, it's hard to get solid data on illegal immigrants and the economy. A 2007 report from the Congressional Budget Office that reviewed 29 studies labeled as "modest" the burden on state budgets.

Judith Gans of the University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, says “even people whose families use more government services than they pay in taxes still help the economy. In a 2008 study, she found that Arizona immigrants contributed $29 billion annually to the state economy, representing about 8% of its activity. When immigrants leave, Gans said, "stores experience dramatic drops in sales. Apartment owners who rent to immigrants have high vacancy rates and risk losing their buildings. Legal workers or renters or consumers don't generally step in quickly enough to prevent these businesses from experiencing real additional hardship."No one has measured the effect of SB 1070 on businesses, or the number of immigrants it has prompted to leave Arizona. But merchants say the repercussions are clear — not just in how it's prompted many families to leave the state, but scared others enough to curtail their regular activities. "The economy's already bad, but SB 1070 is like a bullet in the head to us," said Osameh Odeh, 35, whose Eden Wear clothing store was empty. I have laid off workers and don't pay his utility bills until the day they come due. Additionally, Odeh is a resident of the middle-class suburb of Gilbert and has cut back his purchases at home. Edgar Vela lives in another comfortable suburb, but his ability to spend money at home hinges on the success of his Salvadoran restaurant at 43rd and Thomas, La Pupusa Loca. He just closed his neighboring bakery last week and has laid off six employees. His daughters, both doctors, now come in on weekends to work the floor. The impact spreads, Vela was told that the breadwinner renters in Vela’s rental property had been arrested by Arpaio's deputies, and they could no longer pay the rent. The bank foreclosed on Vela’s rental house.

Faviola Davenport, 42, owns 3Girlz Retail across the street from Vela's restaurant. Davenport, who emigrated legally from Mexico 23 years ago, expects she will close the shop next month. Davenport said that if the law takes effect she will probably abandon Arizona as well. SB 1070's supporters say legal residents like Davenport have nothing to fear from the law, which bans racial profiling. But earlier this year, Davenport said, she was stopped by a police officer on her way to work. She said the officer did not believe she was in the country legally and warned that he could refer her to immigration authorities for deportation. THE CAUSE Davenport said "They don't want Mexicans," THE EFFECT "So we'll leave."

Nine States & The Liberty ViewsLetter Backs Arizona on Immigration

Thursday, July 15, 2010  

Nine States & The Liberty ViewsLetter Backs Arizona on Immigration  

BUT Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox Doesn’t Get It 

By Chuck McGlawn 07/15/2010 

Disclaimer: I personally think that Arizona and the other nine States have made a bad decision concerning immigration. Please read on.

In an article by Associated Press Jul 15 David Runk reports that Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox ( I do not think he gets it) said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states that will be supporting Arizona's immigration law.

The Liberty ViewsLetter, along with all supporters of Liberty, could also support this approach to immigration. We have always said here that Immigration question is answerable only by individual States. The Thirteen original States insisted on having that power here at the time of Constitutional ratification.

Additionally, logic dictates that Washington DC could never know the population needs of all of the thirteen original States or all of the 50 existing States.

The Constitution wisely denied the US Congress power over Immigration. Framers made it very clear in Article 1 Section 8 that Congress only had the power, “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” not immigration. That is correct gentle reader the Constitution granted to Congress no power over immigration.

With that said, let me quickly say I think Arizona and the other nine States have made a bad decision. I think it is especially bad for Michigan. Michigan is going through a greater economic decline than most other States. Therefore, Michigan NEEDS CHEAP LABOR, more than any other State, even if that immigration happens to displaces Michigan workers, which studies show does not happen. The only exception is among high school dropouts.

The New Migrant Worker Policy This Could Spawn
If the ten States are successful in establishing State authority over Immigration, then it would also follow that the other States would have the same authority. In other words, migrant workers could not work in any State that did not allow it but could work in States that did allow it. Just for the sake of discussion, let us say that the State Government of Alabama was the only State that passed a law that invited migrant workers. The State could put any kind of restrictions it wanted: the length of stay, what kind of jobs they could take, who they could bring along and the kinds of Social Services to which the migrants could apply. One mandate would be the migrant must secure round-trip passage to a State and return passage to their Nation of origin. Upon entry to the State, the migrant would surrender the return passage to the Nation of origin. It would be understood that flagrant violations of the State imposed restrictions or State and or City Statutes could trigger a deportation hearing. The outcome of this hearing could lead to a sentence of a probation period or outright deportation. We believe these restrictions and limitations would lead to compliance with the restrictions and laws leading to the mutual benefit of both the State and the worker.

If it is, as I suspect, the State would experience a rise in the economic output. Even if the migrants were doing no other kind of work than standing outside of Home Depot and being picked up to do minor repair work for an unskilled homeowner. This activity would increase the sale of hammers, saws, lumber, nails, bricks, etc would start the economic growth process.

Some Handyman Services may experience a brief downturn. However, the smartest among them would begin going to the Home Depot for laborers. They would be able to reduce their bids for work that needs to be done. Lower bids would increase the demand for more work and thus the sale of more hammers, saws, lumber, nails, bricks, add to the list PVC pipe sprinkler heads, timing devices, cement, energy saving double pane windows, granite countertops recessed lighting etc would accelerate the economic growth process.

This is just the first round. The second round would manifest itself in the hiring of more clerks at the Home Depot to accommodate increased sales. Those newly hired clerks will stop collecting unemployment compensation, reducing the State Budget. The newly hired clerks would be taking their paychecks and buying clothes, shoes, CDs, iPhones, movie tickets TVs, etc. be taking their wages and spending it.

The third round of the economic growth process occurs as property values begin to rise, pushing up property taxes that can be used to fund better schools or reduce the need for other taxes to pay for State Programs.

The fourth round will come when a neighboring State decides to compete for some of that CHEAP LABOR and then we will see that economic growth process spread across State lines.

We have ignored the fact that the move that is taking place will allow the ten States to reject migration. While that alone is not a good thing, but creating a situation where other States, including the ten, will have the power to encourage immigration, well that is a good thing. And one thing that will die in this move is the fabricated or anecdotal stories about how migration is a net loss to any State that encourages migration, and at the same time discourage providing social services to migrants.

“States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders,” said, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox Wednesday in a legal brief filed on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona's immigration law. We believe that to be true, and the corollary is that States have the right to encourage migration.

However, in this instance one need only scratch the surface to learn what pushes Cox in this direction, he is one of five Republicans running for the office of Michigan governor. It is a sad day when a candidate for Governor of a major State is using racism to attract voters in this highly charged environment. And I hope he is successful. Because if the DC Government’s lawsuit prevails, saying that in essence, it is the responsibility of the DC Government to set immigration Laws. This is truly a, lose-lose situation. Either the DC Government will usurp another power over the States or the States will have the power to use racism to limit liberty. The silver lining is that States will have the authority to decide.

War, Real War with Islam Is Impossible

Friday, July 9, 2010  

War, Real War with Islam Is Impossible  

By Chuck McGlawn

It is virtually impossible for the US to be at war with Islam. There are two reasons, first, there is no military goal that the US military might set, that the entire Muslim world could prevent, even if the nearly one billion Muslims in the Middle East were unified, as one, in preventing our goal. Let me say right off, there are more splits and schisms in the Muslim world than the American mind can even contemplate.

Secondly, there is no harm that the Muslim military could inflict the US Military unless our Commander in Chief puts our military in harm's way.

An example of US military might took place when a very small part of the US Air Force destroyed fully one-half of the Iranian Navy in just one afternoon in the 1980s during the Iran/Iraq War. A Navy that Iran would not have had without the military assistance the US was giving to Iran in the 1960s and 1970s, to bolster the Shaw of Iran, "our man in the Middle East". A second devastating blow to Iran came when the US shared simple satellite information with the Iraqi military. On that day Saddam's forces killed thousands, yes thousands in just one day. Stop and think about it, we were taxed to have an Air Force in the mid-1980s so we could destroy the Navy that we had been taxed to provide the Iranian's a decade earlier.

The next step in the lunacy in the Middle East was Desert Storm. The US Military arrayed against Saddam Hussein's Military. So, Americans were taxed in the 1990s to pay for a military to destroy the military that Americans had been taxed in the 1980s to provide Iraq with the means to wage war on our 1980s enemy the Iranians.

Let's take this insanity full circle. Iran would not have been our enemy in the 1970s, had our tax money of the 1950s and 1960s not been used to impose the Shaw of Iran onto the Iranian people.

Let's summarize. The US didn't like the elected secular leader of Iran in the 1950s. We financed the opposition, the Shaw. The Shaw used our support to build the nuclear capability we so fear today. Just like a lid forced onto a boiling pot the pressure builds. The hatred for "our man" built until the Shaw fled Iran in fear of his life, leaving religionist to run the country. When we brought The Shaw to the US for medical treatment, the religionist in November of 1979 took over our Embassy in Iran.

Then we financed Hussein in a war with Iran. When that ended, we were ready for war with Iraq and Desert Storm. Then a decade later, we initiated "Shock and Awe". We have removed the secular leadership of Iraq. If a real election were held today the Iraqis would elect a religionist government, setting the stage for another war a decade hence when the US will tax our children to destroy the military ability we are providing now.

You can put Mike Tyson in the ring with a six-month-old infant and call it a boxing match but there will be very little boxing taking place. You can pit the massive US military against a force one-twentieth the size, and a technology that is a decade out of date. However, you can bet, the weaponry we are providing Iraqi Police Forces will be used against us in some future conflict. Just like Tyson and the infant is not a boxing match, the US against Iraq is not a war. I say it is time to get off the Tax, Build then Destroy Merry-go-round of war.