Taxes

Taxes.  

It's the beginning of a new year and an election year at that, so we should discuss taxes.  It is especially prescient as the (current) Obama Administration decided to "weaponize" the IRS against Conservatives.  Its agent, Lois Lerner and Commissioner, John Koskinen have delayed, lied and obfuscated before Congress, in trying to get away from the Fact that they made it more difficult for conservative, "patriotic," or TEA Party groups (which usually vote Republican) to form 501-C-3 groups rather than groups that would be more Liberal or Progressive and would reliably vote Democrat. The issue here wasn't which party was aggrieved, but rather unequal treatment under the law.  While I'm a conservative (note that I did not say republican) Richard Nixon was impeached by a Congress for abusing the power of his administration, in a lesser fashion.  What has happened with the IRS under the Obama Administration is nothing less than criminal.

Sir Isaac Newton's 3rd law of Motion states that "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Basically, this means that when you step away, you are pushing off against the ground you were stepping on.  If the ground were not attached, the ground would move away from you, with the same force and velocity that you are moving away from the curb (actually, you would move 1/2 of the distance and the ground would move 1/2 of the distance).  

It is also true in politics.  As the IRS has been weaponized against one group of citizens, that group of citizens has pushed back in an incredible fashion.  It has publicized its case and now has formerly uninterested citizens VERY INTERESTED in reigning in the powers of the IRS.  As a result, many of the candidates for the Republi-crat (I call them this, as they have become so co-opted by the Democrat populist, progressive movement that they would be unrecognizable to Conservative Republicans such as Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater) candidates fro the 2016 Presidential Election want to get rid of the IRS and severely throttle any power that the IRS has.

Before I go on,let's make one thing clear:  No One Will EVER do away with the IRS.  The Nation's taxes are required to fund the military and the government.  There needs to be an agency to enforce the fair payment of taxes by a nations citizens - ALL OF ITS CITIZENS.  However, when citizens see their tax dollars squandered, paying for things they did not want, going further into debt for things that are unnecessary, that has no purpose and has no business being funded by a government and should be funded by a private corporation if at all (e.g. high speed rail), then you get calls for ending the IRS and any taxation that is wasted on frivolous spending.  So Rand Paul's call to end the IRS will never happen. However, you can get the next best things:  Calls for a Fair Tax or a Flat Tax.  

There are technically 3 types of Taxes that would hit everyone equivalently.  

1. There is an income tax of equal rates, where everyone with an income, pays the same percentage, whether they are at the lowest or highest levels of income.  
2. There is a consumption tax, where everyone that purchases anything is taxed at a certain equivalent rate.
3. There is a General Levy that would require everyone to pay a tax, despite whether that person had the income or savings required to pay it. 

So we need to define what is Fair or what is Flat.  

Carly Fiorina (yes, I'm a fan and here is one of the reasons) discussed taxes, along with several other issues, with anchor Chris Wallace on the Nov. 29 edition of Fox News Sunday, in an interview with Chris Wallace (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/tax_advice_for_gop_presidential_candidates.html).  Here’s a bit of what she said:

A 73,000-page tax code is so complicated. This is how the government maintains power. […]

The fundamental design philosophy, however, is lower every rate, close every loophole, […]

This is what the government does. It takes away too much money and then with all those deductions and loopholes, it exerts power. […]

If you go from 73,000 pages down to three pages, everybody’s ox gets gored -- every politician, every lobbyist, every accountant, every lawyer.  The only people who benefit are the small, the powerless, the new business. […] 

The tax code, the complexity of government, favors the big, the powerful, the wealthy, the well-connected. It's called crony capitalism. […]

If you level the playing field by simplifying, then you help the small, and the powerless, and the middle class. 

Candidate Fiorina has been criticized recently for not being specific enough about her tax plan. Actually, Ms. Fiorina has said plenty, but what she’s said may be so radical, so “paradigm-shifting,” that journalists can’t really grasp what she’s saying, which is: that she would eliminate every exception in the Tax Code, including the deductions for home mortgages and charity.

If you want the lowest possible tax rate(s), then you need to accept ending all exceptions, as Fiorina advocates.  Here's a speech given at the. Mises Institute, discussing the flat tax, the fair tax and a mean fee tax.
  
https://mises.org/library/flat-tax-not-flat-and-fairtax-not-fair

A mean fee tax (using the mathematical term "mean") is unrealistic, as many citizens could not afford to pay "the mean," due to their income being too low.  

The Flat Tax is only Flat when ALL exceptions are removed from it (e.g. Earned Income Tax Credit, Minimum Threshold for Taxation of Income, Exemptions For Personal Use Real Estate Interest Paid and Donations to Religious or Non-Profit Charities).  These groups have their lobbying arms, ready to go to Congress and fight for these exemptions, as do many others.  Sure, it's a bumpy road that will be exploited by Democrats that cheer for the anarchists protesting the 1%, while posturing as Progressives and railing against Capitalism.  And Ted Cruz has already gone there (http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2015/03/23/ted-cruz-to-run-for-president-why-his-plan-for-a-flat-tax-may-doom-his-candidacy/), and started sliding down that slippery slope. 

Worse still, Fair Tax is defacto Taxation for the Right to Live and because it's a National Sales Tax (which still allows an Income Tax, unless the 16th Amendment is Repealed).

Carly Fiorina is right in saying that the Tax System needs to be simplified.  It also needs to be:

• Fair toward ALL who are governed by it. 
• Easy to Understand and File.  
• Enforcable.  
• Most Importantly, it needs to be modified where it CAN NEVER BE WEAPONIZED AGAINST ANY POLITICAL ENEMY in the future. 

So her statement that "Everyone's ox gets 'gored'" must happen, otherwise the Flat Tax isn't flat:  Those with mortgage payments, those with charitable deductions or having other" exemptions" from the tax (e.g. a minimum threshold or child tax credit) will pay less or even nothing.

However, there will always be a statistical group that makes so little, where they won't be able to afford a flat tax (for example 10%).  In order to be sensitive to these citizens and not overburden them, we will have to give them some kind of break.  The break must be small enough, so as not to discourage them when they make enough income to go to the standard tax rate.

As for me, I'm willing to end ALL of my deductions and live with a FLAT 10% across the board at any income level, whether I'm buying a house or contributing to a charity.

To Be or Not to Be Conservative: The Republican Dilemma

You probably already know that there is a widening schism within the party, that was once both Conservative and Republican.  The Media Apparatchik wing of the Democrat Party is only too happy to tell anyone that will listen about this, because they are out of ideas, candidates and the ability to win elections.  They want this schism to widen and hope to exploit it to continue to be a viable party.

Many Republicans, from Rush Limbaugh down, would protest that the only thing that the separation of Conservatives from the Republican Party will do is assure that the Dems keep winning.  Those of this opinion believe that "Conservatives need to take over the GOP from within."  Pardon me, but I think this is the same old bull-shit that the Republicans have been feeding Conservatives for years.

The problem as I see it is that the Republicans and Conservatives members of the Republican Party are ALREADY DIVIDED.

Without the Conservative base, the Country Club/Establishment Republicans are just "Democrat-Light (Republi-crat, if you please)," offering so little difference as to their value systems that it is unrecognizable to the average voter. The only difference between the Democrats and Establishment/Country Club Republicans that I see is at least Democrat (Socialist) Obama had the stones to say what he believes: "...they cling to their guns and religion."  

In order to do this, one would first need to define Conservatism in America.  I see conservatism defined in the 5 following pillars:

1. Defense/2ndAmendment Conservatives, that champion to keep a strong defense and the right to defend ourselves with deadly force if necessary, both individually and as a country when necessary
2. Small Government Conservatives that want to limit the size and scope of our Federal  Government
3. Fiscal Conservatives that want America, as a nation, to live within its budget. Because we pay taxes from our hard earned income, we DEMAND that what was our money is used responsibly by our supposed representatives in Washington, not wasted to buy votes to keep themselves in office,  where they will need more of our money to take care of the actual functions of Governing our nation. 
4. Religious Conservatives that want to defend the right of Freedom of Religion and Worship (not Freedom from Religion) and
5. Moral Conservatives who have risked life and home to champion the causes of Right to Life, Abolition of Slavery, and Equality for ALL under the Law (with no consideration of race, creed, national background, sex, age, and ethnicity)

For the sake of brevity, I'll just separate these 5 groups into 3 overarching groups, 2 of which have 2 groups each of similar goals.  These are the So-Cons (Religious and Moral Conservatives), the Fis-Cons (Small Government and Fiscal Conservatives) and the Defense/2nd Amendment Cons.

When the Conservatives (be they Defense Hawks, Fis-Cons, or So-Cons), feel that they are getting railroaded by Establishment/Country Club Republicans, they stay home and give the election to the Dem-Bulbs.  

Here are examples of Presidential Elections that have happened since Nixon used the Southern Strategy in 1972, when a non-Conservative has run as the Republican nominee:

• Gerald Ford vs. Jimmy Carter
• Reagan vs.Carter vs. John Anderson
• Reagan vs. Mondale
• George H. W. Bush vs. Dukakis
• George H.W. Bush vs. Clinton vs. Ross Perot
• Bob Dole vs. Clinton,
• George W. Bush vs. Al Gore, Jr.
• George W. Bush vs. John Kerry
• John McCain vs. Obama, &
• Mitt Romney vs. Obama 

Do you notice a trend?  What I see is when the Establishment/Country Club Republican candidate runs against the Democrats they lose.  

Although the South stayed Conservative, Jimmy Carter carried the South after the Watergate debacle and Carter gained the title as worst POTUS to date.

The record of Republicans winning without Conservative backing is pretty dismal. Ronald Reagan, a Conservative, with Conservative beliefs, courted  the "Moral Majority," much to the dismay of the Establishment/Country Club Republicans and won in 1980 and 1984. 

When George H.W. Bush ran against Michael Dukakis, the Conservatives were sold a load of "George Bush will continue the Reagan Revolution." How did that work out for them?

It should have come as no surprise when the Conservatives stayed home or voted for Ross Perot when George H. W. Bush ran against Bill Clinton...and lost.  At the end of Bill Clinton's first term in 1994, with the failure of Hillary Care.  

So, let's get the George H.W.Bush vs. Michael Dukakis question out of the way right now.  In running as a continuation of Ronald Reagan's Conservatism, G.H.W. Bush was to be the 3rd term of Reagan.  However, with his Neo-Con Gulf War against Sadam Hussein and the broken promise of "Read my lips, 'No New Taxes!,'" Fiscal Conservatives dropped him like a hot rock.  

When George W. Bush ran against Al Gore, So-Cons voted for him because they saw a Religious Conservative (and hopefully a Moral Conservative) and the Fis-Cons thought they had both a Small Government and a Fiscal Conservative. Looking back on the candidate they chose (rather than Steve Forbes) and then re-elected (against "John F. Kerry"), most Fis-Cons would say they had buyers remorse, as they were angry at Bush for "crossing the aisle too many times," and allowing the size of the Federal Government and the National Debt to grow . So-Cons were (or should be) concerned at the lack of morality of turning a blind eye to the millions of illegal immigrants that crossed the border of the United States and remained as an "under class" (better than slaves, but) without any of the Constitutional Protections enjoyed by Citizens of the United States.

If any High Ranking, Establishment/Country Club Republican Leader were to openly expressed the disdain that then candidate Barack Obama did during an election cycle, the Conservatives would once again withdraw and let the Democrats continue to Fly the Country Straight into the ground. Again.  They would also punish those leaders as they did with Former Speaker of the House, John Boehner, by forcing him to resign or "primarying" him as Dave Brat did with Former Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

Late this past summer, I came across a commentary by Duane V. Grassell (http://patriotpost.us/commentary/28499), posing the question of whether it's time for Conservatives to abandon the Republican Party and encouraging the Patriots, So-Cons and Fis-Cons to seriously consider this issue.  It's been a question that's been building for many years now, so let's dive deep into the subject.  

From what I see, I would guess that he electorate is divided in this way: 

• Liberal Democrats (the Left) => 32%,
• Establishment/Country Club Republicans (the Center) => 30,
• Conservatives (the Right) => 34%,
• Everyone Else Combined  => 4% 

The marks of a split between Conservatives and Others should be recognized in early American History, based on which European country colonized each region of America -(UP IN ARMS - THE BATTLE LINES OF TODAY’S DEBATES OVER GUN CONTROL, STAND-YOUR-GROUND LAWS, AND OTHER VIOLENCE-RELATED ISSUES WERE DRAWN CENTURIES AGO BY AMERICA’S EARLY SETTLERS, by Colin Woodward, http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html). While the article referenced speaks primarily to the issue of Gun Control, in reading the article, it's easy to see how and why the South remains Conservative.  

   

Largely recognized as a rural frontier, the Colonial South was more or less the independent frontier, out of sight and out of mind of the more Cosmopolitian North.  Once the frontier was settled, most frontiersmen (Scots-Irish) became farmers, who are traditionally independent and self-reliant.  For the most part, they were too busy with feeding their families to be involved in the "latest thinking of the day."  Proven methods allowed them to put food on their table and allowed them to weather another season.  

Coalition governments work in every other Representative Republic in the world.  Why not in America?  Whether you decide to stay and work to change the party from within or leave the Republican Party is strictly your decision.

The Subjects I Blog About: How and Why I Choose Them

This page has been written well after my original "Welcome" post.  I should have written it earlier, but the way my brain organizes things, it didn't happen until now.

I'm a multi-faceted individual with many interests.  I'm of Scots-Irish stock on both sides and line most Ulster-Scots/Scots-Irish "border-landers" we're damn good at taming the wilderness, but not so good about living in it after it's been tamed.

I live in a small town that's turned into a bedroom community of a rapidly growing, decent sized city.  It was small when I moved here 26 years ago and being across the county line, insurance rates were lower, housing prices were lower and it was between where my parents and my bride's parents lived.  We are both eldest children and family is important to both of us, so living near by, where we can help our parents is a no-brainer.

I write about what interests me.

• After slogging through 1100 pages of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, I've learned many of the lessons she taught.  So I rail against untrue accusations that impugn the innocent and I challenge the moral standing of those that accuse us falsely.  There is nothing wrong with making a profit on goods or service
• As a "Mechanical Night-Mare," I'm interested in Cars, Trains, Locomotives, Planes, Industrial Equipment, Construction Equipment, etc..  
• I love steam locomotives and have photographed them for years, although I was born after the demise of US Mainline Steam Locomotives in everyday use.  I'm also into trains of all types
• As someone in their mid-50s, I'm a father, a son, a brother, and a husband.  
• As a Christian ,  I am serious about following my LORD, Jesus, the Christ.  As a walking-wounded, former member of a Church, I'm passionate about how those who claim to be members treat others in the church.
• As a supply chain professional who was retired from business, I might even write about business plans, mergers or do a strategic analysis about a supply chain.
• I'm passionate about our country and culture so I write about how it's being pried from our very hands.
• As a Political Conservative, and as someone who espouses conservative principals, I write about how politics affects our culture 
• I'm into design.  Some of the areas interest are automobile design, airplane design, and architecture.
• Because I'm into Architecture, Tiny Houses and the way that their designers and owners use every square inch of space fascinate me

 

Good-Bye Carly! Thank you for your stand for Conservatism. (Please come back soon.)

I'm a conservative.  In this world of Conservative wannabes and their claim to bear that mantle, it's important to define Conservatism.  In order to do this, I see conservatism defined in the 5 following pillars:

1. Defense/2ndAmendment Conservatives, that champion the need to keep a strong defense and the right to defend ourselves with deadly force if and when necessary, both individually and as a country
2. Small Government Conservatives that want to limit the size and scope of our Federal  Government
3. Fiscal Conservatives that want America, as a nation, to live within its budget. Because we pay taxes from our hard earned income, we DEMAND that what was our money be used responsibly by our supposed representatives in Washington, not wasted to buy votes to keep themselves in office,  where they will need more of our money to take care of the actual functions of Governing our nation. 
4. Religious Conservatives that want to defend the right of Freedom of Religion and Worship (not Freedom from Religion) and
5. Moral Conservatives who have risked life and home to champion the causes of Right to Life, Abolition of Slavery, and Equality for ALL, Under the Law (with no consideration of race, creed, national background, sex, age, and ethnicity)

For the sake of brevity, I'll just separate these 5 groups into 3 overarching groups, 2 of which have 2 groups each of similar goals.  These are the So-Cons (Religious and Moral Conservatives), the Fis-Cons (Small Government and Fiscal Conservatives) and the Defense/2nd Amendment Cons.

I’ll miss Carly because of her Fiscal/Small Government Conservatism. She actually had a position on the Debt and a reason for small government.  Her 1-2-3 punches were unmatched by ANY OTHER CANDIDATE for the office of President in this electorial cycle.

These positions were (and still are):  

1. Shrinking Government through Attrition (by not replacing Retiring Employees)
2. Zero-Base Budgeting (which will rid the Bureaucracy of useless programs and incompent management)
3. A Flat-Tax, “where everyone’s ox gets gored (and where the IRS can no longer be weaponized against any political group).”

Similarly, Carly was a Defense Conservative, in her calling out both ISIS and Russia as enemies.  

As far as the Social/Moral Conservatism goes, Carly was also there.  

1. Her championing of ending the Live Birth Abortions, where the baby's umbilical cord is clamped off, suffocating the infant, because its lungs are not developed and then "harvesting" the fresh organs to be sold to researchers was sublime.   In calling for the end of Abortion on demand after 20 weeks of pregnancy proved her moral standing, without calling for the end of Abortion in all circumstances.  (For those that believe that wasn't only calling for this much outlawing of Abortion was not enough, please remember that it takes small, incremental steps to change the culture.  There's not been a President since Ronald Reagan that has embraced the Social/Moral Conservatives and called for an end to the liberal Sacrament of Abortion on Demand, even to the point of being born alive).
2. Stopping illegal immigration is a Morally Conservative Issue.  In Judaism, there was the year of Jubilee, when ALL DEBTS were forgiven.  Although there was a biblical principle of debt, debtors selling themselves and even their families into indentured servitude (slavery because of debt), they believed in freedom.  Later, Christians, believed in the same biblical principle, when they understood that GOD sent JESUS into the world to pay our sin debt and set those doomed souls already in slavery and justly sentenced to an eternity in Hell, free through his atoning sacrifice.  Upon HIS death, one of HIS last statements was "It Is Finished!"  Christians are taught that "It is Finished" is translated from the Greek into English, with the meaning that a monetary debt has been satisfied. In the case of Christ's death, it  meant that our indentured servitude to sin was paid in full.  We were free men, bought at a tremendous cost. Similarly, radical abolitionist  thinkers (who were Republican) were convicted by conscience that slavery was a type of dhimmitude, making slaves less than human and more like property.  John Brown and men of like convictions,  hijacked the Federal Armory in Harpers Ferry, Maryland, in an act of Treason that cost them their lives, in an effort to engage the public against the evil of slavery.  When we look the other way and allow people to come into America illegally, we grant them something less than citizenship.  They are not slaves, brought to a foreign country by someone who bought them from a rival tribe, to sell them as property and into the bondage of another man.  However, as they are here illegally,  when the law isn't enforced they have no rights.  Please understand that I am not calling on any politician to grant citizenship to those who are here illegally.  However, when we allow a "sub-class" of non-citizens, without the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, we are behaving in an immoral fashion, robbing them of dignity, by denying their rights.  By demanding that the border is secured against an onslaught of illegals, Carly demonstrated Moral Conservatism.
3. While we were on the subject of Slavery, indentured servitude and dhimmitude, the practice of purchasing something at the cost of your life service to another is considered abhorrent and has been outlawed in America for 150 years. Yet, here we are spending ourselves into oblivion, with no hope of repaying what we owe within our Lifetime, nor our children's lifetime, nor our grand-children's lifetime, nor even our great-grand-children's lifetime. We are indentured servants, having sold our freedom (and that of our children, grandchildren, and great-grand children). In doing so, we either are one of two things; a thief with no moral conscience or an immoral slave trader. Either way, we as a nation have overspent with malice of forethought. The only way to correct this is to live within our means, spend less than we take in, and pay down our debt with the surplus. This used to be called stewardship. While it is the basis of FISCAL CONSERVATISM, it is Morally Conservative to call out debt and deficits making us, our children, grand-children and great-grand-children into indentured servants.  We must practice this pillar principle of Conservatism as well as preach it. Only Carly had a reasonable plan to shrink government, deficits and debt.
   
   

I wish Carly could have gotten the endorsements of Scott Walker and Rick Perry when they dropped out of the race. That might have been enough to keep her going, but alas a shrewd young Texan pounced on those opportunities.

We know that Trump won’t choose her as VEEP (“Look at that face!” – I’m betting he'll call on another RINO, Michael Bloomberg (the most dangerous politician in America), as his partner, whether he runs as a Republi-crat (someone whose positions do not differ from that of the Democrats), a Democrat (in reality, a Socialist, as Bernie Sanders correctly calls himself) or an Independent (what Trump swore to the American people that he would not run as).  

However, maybe Ted Cruz, that shrewd Texan, will see the wisdom of Carly Fiorina as the credible running mate, that attracts Fiscal/Small Government Conservatives and Libertarians, Social and Moral Conservatives and Defense/2nd Amendment Conservatives.

How to Prove that Conservative Republicans are Not Serious

Fritz Pettyjohn is a great blogger, and the author of The Reagan Project.  He currently supports Ted Cruz for the Republican primary nomination for POTUS.  While Ted is an ideological fit (and a top 3 choice), he isn't my first choice for nominee.  

My top choice was Carly Fiorina (due to her business experience and her stand on the issues-shrinking the Federal Government by retirement attrition, zero-based budgeting and flat tax-where "everybody's ox gets gored"), followed closely by former candidate Governor Scott Walker (due to his breaking the government workers union and balancing the budget by cutting such frivolities as high speed rail and the 2 Special Talgo trains that went with it.

Cruz, however, is special to me.  He's a bombastic brick thrower, much like Newt Gingrich.  His "antics" of calling (Republican) Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell "a liar" on the senate floor is epic and akin to some of the antebellum antics that occurred between Representatives and Senators from states of disparate cultures.  And his recreation of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, in a losing effort to stop the implementation of Obamacare is heady stuff from this young Texan.

In the January 15th issue of The Reagan Project, http://reaganproject.com/2016/01/15/who-hires-morons-like-mike-murphy/, following the 5th Republican debate in North Charleston, SC, Pettyjohn discussed how Cruz played it cool with Donald Trump and how he should approach the Iowa Corn/Ethanol full employment for farmers lobby.

Then Pettyjohn suggested that Cruz pick Marco Rubio for Veep (assuming that Cruz gets the nomination).  

I think that would be a HUGE mistake.  While having Rubio as a VEEP for Cruz looks to be expedient, I believe that it's only a short term winner that kills the Conservative Movement.   With Rubio having joined up with the "Gang of 8" Senators that were  hell-bent to confer legal status to illegal aliens, Rubio can NEVER  pass himself off as a conservative.  

Remember that it was Establishment/Country Club Republi-crat Bush 1 whose team coined and who used the derisionary term "Trickle Down Economics" unsuccessfully against Reagan in 1980.  As a career politician, George Herbert Walker Bush was to be "the chosen one" by the Republican establishment.  And, much like Reagan with Bush 1, if Rubio is Cruz's VEEP, he will be the sold as the third term of Cruz, moderate the message and compromise (The Bush 1 sell out on "Read my lips - No new taxes!"), pissing off the despised groups of the Republican Coalition (Social Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives and Defense/2nd Amendment Conservatives to the advantage of the Establishment/Country Club Republicans that want to establish "the new world order").  Once that happens, we wander in the wilderness for another 28 or more years, waiting for conditions to arise when the Country Club Repubs decide it's better for them to compromise  their values rather than to the country to go down in flames (e.g. the end of the Carter Administration).  

In order to be trusted, the Conservative message must be conservative, continuous and consistent. Choosing a Country Club/Establishment Republi-crat, like Marco Rubio, as the VEEP nominee doesn't send that message.