On Saturday, the Democrats voted 220-215 to ignore the Constitution and do what they pleased. Nancy Pelosi cackled and the Democrats put forth a rousing cheer when the vote total was announced. As Rush Limbaugh put it on his show today, many of the Democrats may have just voted themselves out of office by voting for the bill. Hugh Hewitt’s suggestion in his column today is to target the 20 most vulnerable of these Democrats and start a campaign to get good candidates and fund them.

I do agree with both Rush and Hugh Hewitt that many of these Democrats have just put themselves on notice as candidates to not be there in January 2011. I did a quick scan of the Democrats that voted for the bill and it looked to me like all the Democrats from Arizona voted for the bill. That would mean that all of them, except for maybe Ed Pastor, would be targeted. Ed Pastor comes from the most Democrat area of the state. Rep. Pastor could be caught with a smoking gun and a dead body and still be elected from his district it is so heavily Democrat. The other Democrats in the state are not so lucky. They come from districts that are more evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. That means in a situation like this, they could easily be targeted for defeat. The easiest would be Harry Mitchell of Tempe. His district is normally a Republican district. The others are 50/50.

The Associated Press reports that the House Unconstitutional Power Grab for Pelosi/Obamacare is dead on arrival in the Senate. The reports say that the “public option” is the part that will make the bill unpalatable to the Senate. I would hope that the bill is dead on arrival. That would show that someone over in the Senate might actually know what is in the Constitution. There are 219 Democrat Representatives and one Republican Representative that do not have any idea what is in the Constitution. Their job is to defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. How can they protect the Constitution when they have no idea what it says? Maybe people should have to take a test on the Constitution before they could actually take a seat in Congress. That way we know that they know what they are doing. Right now, they can claim ignorance and they would obviously be right.

Even though the House bill is DOA in the Senate, I do not hold any great hopes that there are any Democrat Senators who are Constitutional Scholars. All of the Democrat Senators have come out for some sort of universal healthcare system. Since a universal healthcare system would be unconstitutional, they obviously are not educated on what is included in the Constitution any more than their House brethren. They just have a higher hurdle to overcome in the 60 vote minimum to pass a healthcare bill. That means that any healthcare bill would have to be less intrusive than the House bill that was just passed.

As long as we have “Progressives” in the Congress we will have to worry about this kind of abuse. Progressives do not believe in the rule of law. They believe in the rule of man. The rule of man says that the rules can be changed to whatever you want, whenever you want. The rule of law says that you have to follow the law as set forth in the original documents. If you want to change those laws, you have to go through complicated steps to change them. The object of making it difficult to change the law is to look out for the rights of the people that are in the minority. The problem with Progressives is that they believe that they are smarter than you and so they should be able to tell you what to do. The Progressive does not have to follow those rules because they know better and can decide for themselves. But everyone that is not a Progressive has to follow restrictive laws to make things “fair”. By making things “fair”, Progressives make things unfair. But, Progressives cannot see that because they are already on to the next thing they want to mess up.

Barack Obama had a photo op with about 150 doctors that he had invited to the White House. These doctors support socialized medicine. Since only about 8% of doctors support socialized medicine, this group makes up most of them. At the photo op, Barack Obama thought that the doctors did not look like doctors. They did not have on their white coats. So, he passed out white lab coats for each one to wear. That way everyone would know that these are doctors, not just someone in a suit or dress.

If George W. Bush had pulled a stunt like that, the press would have hammered him for days. So far, the press has said nothing about the incident. In fact, they treated the photo op like it was an important state function. They took the photos that they were supposed to take, and no more. They asked the questions they were supposed to ask. They did not ask a single tough question to anyone at the press conference.

The Democrats are trying to sell the American people something that they do not want. The Democrats are using slick advertising with wonderful pictures. They have celebrities cooperating with the push for socialized medicine. Still, the majority of the American people are not buying the idea. The number of Americans buying the idea drops each time they take a poll. Usually slick advertising can overcome a weak message. This proves that slick advertising cannot overcome a bad message.

Part of the reason for the failure of the slick media blitz to connect is the alternate media that is available today. People can tweet and use Facebook for immediate connections. The internet and You Tube allow people to pass information around for a more in depth study. All of this alternate media use has been entirely without the direction of any political party. The Republicans are the beneficiaries of the outcomes, but they were not the instigators. This amateur production has achieved a critical mass without any visual leadership of any single individual or party. The groundswell has been genuine and heartfelt.

As Bear in the Woods put it on Hugh Hewitt.com today, if you look at the flags that people are flying you get an idea where they stand. The most popular flag is the American flag. The second most popular flag is the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag with the snake. This flag is also known as the Gadsden flag. That shows that the sentiment among many, if not most, of the Tea Party goers is that they want a reduction in government. A smart politician could pick up on that bit of information and use it to design a campaign. If the campaign promised a reduction in the size and scope of government, it would resonate with a large number of people. That just might be enough to get that person elected President. Of course, that could not be the only item on the platform, but it is an excellent start.

We are at a crossroads in history. We can either take the path that Barack Obama is showing us or take the path that the Tea Partiers are showing us. One leads to bondage and oppression. The other leads back to freedom and prosperity. One promises security. The other promises a chance to succeed. One promises that you can remain a child for the rest of your life. The other makes you grow up and be an adult to face the world as a free individual.

I choose freedom for my choice. The Founding Fathers chose freedom for this country. We cannot allow people to come here and throw away the American dream for the false promise of security. It has been said that those that give up their freedom for security find themselves neither free nor secure. I hope the rest of America chooses Freedom at this crossroads in time.

Tonight, Barack Obama is going to try and rescue his Presidency. I know the talk is about healthcare, but it really is about saving his Presidency. He has staked everything on getting HIS version of healthcare passed by the House and Senate. Right now, there is a lot of opposition to his version of healthcare. He is going to try and change minds tonight during his speech.

The talk show hosts from the Salem Radio Network (Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt) will be presenting about 1.3 million signatures to Capitol Hill. They will be received by Republicans in the House and Senate. The Republicans will then deliver the petitions to the leadership of the House and Senate. That is the largest number of signatures delivered on a single topic on Capitol Hill. My wife and I signed the petition and will definitely vote against any Senator or House member that votes for the bill. I would hope that other signers would have the same commitment. This petition puts a lot of voters on record as opposing Obamacare. This is a big hill to climb.

Barack Obama has a lot to overcome tonight. We shall see if he even tries to overcome this built in opposition. My guess is that he will assume that everyone is on board, at least a little bit. He will most likely repeat the things that we have been hearing for the past few weeks. Most of the statements that he uses to promote the healthcare bill have been determined to be false by logic, if nothing else. He will probably bring the government option back on the table for discussion. The government option gives Obama the quickest and easiest way to get to the “single-payer” Healthcare system. Since that is the goal of the Democrats, the government option is most likely the path he will choose.

The main goal is to get the Obamacare bill passed, period. The second goal is to pass the bill with at least one Republican vote. If they get 1 Republican to vote for the bill (Olympia Snowe, that is you I am talking about), they can call the bill bi-partisan. A bi-partisan bill gives Democrats cover. If they are given cover by the Republicans, the debacle predicted for them in 2010 will be blunted. Democrats need the cover. Republicans should not give it to them by voting for Obamacare. If Obamacare is as bad as predicted, the Democrats will be severely punished. If it is the best healthcare system in the world, then they will be able to reap the rewards. Since every politician knows that it will be a disaster, Democrats want the cover very badly. They may even be willing to compromise, but the compromise would be just for show. It would go back to the worst of Obamacare as soon as the Democrats felt that they could get away with eliminating the compromise.

There are a lot of quick and easy things that could be done that would make health insurance more affordable. But this debate is not about making health care more affordable for all Americans. It is about giving Democrats more power.  The words used make it seem like Democrats are concerned about the cost of healthcare. If that was the case, the Democrats would have proposed fixes to the healthcare system that would have saved everyone money. The Democrats want power. They will use and/or abuse anything to get more power.

The Republicans have proposed the fixes to the system that will reduce the cost for everyone. The Republican proposals get the government out of the healthcare system. That is always a good idea. President Reagan had it right when he said, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” If you use that idea you can solve any problem the federal, state and local governments have. It will always result in lower cost and more freedom. Since our goal should always be more freedom, we should try and reduce the government in our lives. Unfortunately, that is not what we will hear tonight from Barack Hussein Obama.

Barack Obama and other Democrats have been telling us since the House bill was introduced that Obamacare will not cover illegal aliens. Obama even devoted part of his Saturday address to repeat that illegal aliens will not be covered by the Obamacare bill. Today, that has been refuted by the Congressional Budget Office. They report that the bill will include illegal aliens.

The way it would work is that everyone living in the country will be covered. There are no provisions to check the immigration status on anyone. So, if an illegal alien signed up for Obamacare, they would be covered and nobody would check to kick them out. The bill does state that undocumented immigrants will not be covered. That means that illegal aliens will be covered because nobody will check their paperwork to discover that they are illegal.

The other insidious nature of Obamacare is that as the plan is introduced, the limits on what can be done will not be reached. After Obamacare has been used for a couple of years the shortages will start. At that point we can either give up this benefit or endure rationing. We will be just like every other country that has introduced socialized medicine; we will endure rationing over giving up the benefit. That means the time to fight Obamacare is now, not after it is passed.

Mike Gallagher from KKNT and the National Center for Policy Analysis will be delivering a petition to Congress next week. The petition is in opposition to Obamacare. Currently there are 1.2 million signatures on the petition. The original goal was 1 million signatures. They are now hoping that they make it to 1.5 million signatures before next week. My wife and I have signed the petition. I signed in the first 100,000. My wife signed when the number reached 500,000. Here is the link: Free Our Health Care Now Online Petition

The Democrats keep saying that we should keep the debate open and honest. They are strongly hinting that it is the people opposing the Obamacare bill that are not telling the truth. But, whenever anyone checks on the facts, Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats are wrong and the people opposing the bill are right. We would love an open and honest debate on the issues of this bill. What we get from the supporters are lies and attacks. What we get from the people opposing the bill is passion on the prospect of losing their current healthcare coverage and facts. We do not get personal attacks from the people opposing the bill.

You might get some that will say that when you say that Barack Obama lied to us that is a personal attack. No, that is not a personal attack. It is a fact. There is a huge difference between an attack that falsely accuses someone of something and giving facts about someone. When you tell facts, you are not attacking. You are just clearing the air. Just to make sure we all are on the same page, if you know something is false before you say it that is a lie. An error is if you believe something to be true and it turns out to be false. Since the Democrats supposedly wrote the bill, they are expected to know what is in the bill before they come out and discuss it with the public. The people opposing the bill only know what has been published, not what is behind closed doors. It is a pretty sad commentary that the public knows a bill better than the people that supposedly wrote it.

Democrats may ultimately get this bill passed. It does not take effect until 2013. So, if we elect enough people that oppose the Obamacare bill we might be able to get it killed through the back door. That is a long shot. Democrats that vote for this bill will have a difficult time getting re-elected come 2010. That fear might be enough to keep this bill from being actually voted on in the Senate. The best thing right now would be for Harry Reid to bury the bill where the sun doesn’t shine. Hugh Hewitt has a plan to donate money to Danny Tarkanian, Harry Reid’s opponent in the Nevada Senate race. Hugh has also targeted a Colorado Congressional seat. To get the links go to Hughhewitt.townhall.com.  I participated in the plan to donate and then write to the target and tell them why. Hopefully it is having some impact.

We can stop Obamacare, soon to be Kennedycare. But it will take strength from people like us to give Republicans with noodles for spines a chance to stand tall. We have to rely on notoriously unreliable Republicans to stand against the onslaught of Democrats. It can be done, but the Republicans need to know that you are there.

The amount of disinformation coming from the White House, Democrats in general and the President in particular is astounding. They know that we have “hot buttons” that if pressed would immediately destroy the subprime healthcare bill. (The term subprime healthcare bill is borrowed from Hugh Hewitt) So, in the interest of saving their bill, they tell us what we want to hear, regardless of what is really in the bill. Some people might call that making mistakes. But, the consistency with which it happens makes me think that the intent is to tell something that is not true. By definition, telling something that is not true is a lie.

Let’s look at a few examples of what I am talking about. First would be the insistence by the President that if we like our insurance carriers we can keep it and if we like our doctors we can keep our doctors. Anyone with half a brain knows that cannot possibly be true. Since over 80% of people are happy with their current insurance coverage there would be no possible space for a “public option”. The estimates are that the “public option” will cover over half of the country initially. The two ideas are not compatible. Either we keep our existing coverage or we will be forced into the “public option”. Since the obvious goal is to get everyone in the public option, the truth has to be that the public option would cover most Americans initially and all Americans eventually.

The second part of the President’s statement is that we would be able to keep our current doctors. Listening to talk radio and doing research on the internet, I understand that doctors that are currently near retirement age would retire if this subprime healthcare bill gets passed. That would lower the number of doctors available to see patients immediately. Since this number would greatly exceed the number of doctors that would enter the workforce in that first year, the total number of doctors available would go down. Also, many doctors have said that under no circumstances would they take payment from any “public option” patients. That means if you are forced to the public option you would most likely lose your doctor at the same time. Democrats have to know this as they are much more connected to this information than I am. They also have large numbers of employees that can check the information as it becomes available.

The next one I want to look at is funding for abortions. Since over half of the country does not believe in public funding for abortions, the Democrats have been telling everyone that there are no provisions in the bill to pay for abortions. The wording in the bill is a big ambiguous, but bills that attempt to clarify the language by making it policy that there is no public money spent on abortions is immediately rejected by the Democrats in Congress. If there was no language in the bill to fund abortions, there should be no objection to clarifying the language. Since they obviously did not want the language clarified, it can be assumed that the Democrats want the language to be interpreted to mean that there CAN be public money spent on abortions.

The other thing that really amuses me is whenever Barack Obama brings up an example of a government program that works well, it never does. Even the “Cash for Clunkers” program that simply gave money to people to buy cars could not be done right. If the Congress cannot get a simple program like giving away money correct, what are the chances they can get a complicated program like the subprime healthcare bill correct?

Democrats are not telling the American people the truth. There is no reason for them not to know what is contained in the bill, as they wrote it. Republicans might get things wrong every now and then because they did not write the bill. But Democrats should have a record of getting their facts correct almost all of the time. Since their record of getting the facts on the subprime healthcare bill is near zero, there has to be a reason for the discrepancy. Either they truly do not know what is in the bill or they are lying. Since there is no excuse for them not to know what is in the bill, the only conclusion is that the Democrats are lying about what is in the bill. They have to be lying for a reason. The only reason I can think of is so that they can get some Republican support for this subprime healthcare bill. That would give them some cover when the bill goes belly up within a few months of implementation.

Plus, I still do not know why the emergency when the bill will not be implemented until 2013. If it will take that long to get it implemented, we can take a year or two to get it right. The only reason for speed is to pull a fast one over on the American people.

The liberals are always talking about free speech. They constantly say that they believe in the importance of all views being heard in the debate. They even came up with a slogan during the Bush years, “dissention is patriotic”. Now their views on free speech are being tested and they don’t like it very much.

What liberals mean by free speech is that all liberal views should be heard. No conservative should ever dare question any liberal position on anything. When liberals say that dissention is patriotic, they mean that dissention is patriotic when it is a liberal protesting against a conservative. That is the natural order of things, so of course it is patriotic. When a conservative questions a liberal the natural order of things has been upset and so it is not patrioti

Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer signed a statement the other day that basically said that there is no free speech for conservatives. Now, I am reading between the lines and making conclusions from their arguments, but I think that most liberals would agree with that assessment. If they were two people off of the street, it would be a dangerous document. But, because they are the top two Democrats in the House of Representatives it is radioactive in its impact. The White House and Barack Obama seem to agree with that sentiment as they continually talk about being attacked by right wingers.

Democrats from the House and Senate on recess are cancelling Townhall meetings at a record pace. They are being confronted at every event and always come off looking like the fools they are. I saw a You-Tube video of a man with a handicapped child in Michigan who confronted his Congressman. He was removed from the room for his efforts. There was a doctor in Atlanta, GA that was accused of being from outside the area and a Republican. Both charges were completely false. Democrats are hiding behind closed doors or accusing their constituents of being paid by the insurance companies. Their fear is showing. That is a good sign as it might tell them that this so-called healthcare bill is not something they want to support.

Hopefully Democrats are getting the message that people are upset. I know that around here people are upset enough to vote the person out of office in 2010, if they vote for the bill. To pass the bill, Nancy Pelosi needs almost all the Democrats to vote with her. She is unlikely to get any Republican votes. That makes the move a Democrat Albatross. If it is as bad as advertised, and it is most likely worse, Democrats will be on the outside of power rather quickly.

So far, the Democrat leadership has been completely tone deaf on this issue. They are determined to pass the bill, regardless of the lack of support. Some of their members have their ears to the ground and know that to vote for the bill is political suicide. The leadership will try to pay the members off with millions or even billions of our dollars to get them to agree to vote for this monster. That will just add a fiscal irresponsibility tag to the arrogant politician tag. Those tags will not fly very well in the 2010 and 2012 elections. People want fiscally responsible politicians in Washington and the Democrats have proven themselves unworthy of the public trust.

The Republicans have not taken the lead on the issue as of this date. They can take the lead, if they desire to. So far, all the Republican response has been fractured and disjointed. Of course, it has been filtered by the news media. An election cycle will take care of that problem. It is just that there is no unified voice of the party. That person needs to emerge, and quickly. Whoever takes the lead on this issue will be the next President in 2012. But, that window of opportunity is open only for a short time. If you don’t grab the bull by the horns now, it will take more work in 2012. Let’s hope that someone decides to get out in front and be willing to take the arrows. Arrows from Democrats may sound terrible, but are really nothing of consequence.

Yesterday, I heard some stirrings from Mitt Romney on the Hugh Hewitt show. The scenario is written as a perfect script for Romney. If he wrote up his dream scenario, this would be it. I am not sure why he has not jumped out in front and said here I am, follow me. If he says it now and provides real leadership, then the bigots will have no impact on his campaign.

Democrats are finding out that people do not like their planned takeover of the healthcare system. From coast to coast and border to border, Americans are turning out to let their Senators and Representatives know how they feel. Some of these meetings have become rather heated, but the tone has remained the same in all that we do not like what you propose.

What is the Democrat response to an almost unanimous rejection of their ideas? They say that it is all paid for by the insurance companies. They want to try to let “real” Americans show up at these meetings, instead of those bussed in by the insurance companies. They are also cancelling many meetings for fear that this reaction will happen in their district. In other words, the Democrat response to the rejection of their healthcare proposal is to bury their head in the sand.

Many Democrats have come out with statements that the nearly unanimous rejection of their ideas at these Townhall meetings has made them more resolved to pass the legislation approving the plan. What do these Democrats not understand? Don’t they see the handwriting on the wall? If they pass this bill they are writing their defeat in 2010. We may take some time undoing the damage that these Democrats will do, but it will start with a sound rejection of Democrat politicians in 2010.

What happens at the meeting is that people listen to the politician go on about the health care proposal. Then when the time is open for questions, the politician is asked about specific parts of the proposed legislation. The politician does not know the answer, as they have not read the bill, so they get defensive. Question after question comes in and then it becomes a near riot as people express their frustration at the fact that the Democrat at the podium (their legislator) is not listening to them. After the meeting, the Democrat blames the insurance companies over what happened. Also, there is the Democrat version over what happened at these meetings and there is the version that the participants at the meeting remember. Far more people remember the participation version. Only the Democrat politician remembers the Democrat version. I am not sure which is right, but I will take the participants version over the Democrat politician version. There are more people that remember it one way than the other. That is usually a good rule to follow when trying to find out which is the truth.

Democrats who are not up for election in 2010 are urging passage of this monstrosity of a health insurance bill as soon as possible. Those that are up for re-election are now having second thoughts. They will undoubtedly be brought to the Democrat position, as Democrats do not have independent thoughts. But, just like Bill Clinton in 1994, Barack Obama may see the Congress change hands in 2010. That is why he is pushing hard to get is far left agenda passed as soon as he possibly can. He knows that in 2010 the window of opportunity will have closed. That gives him about 5 more months to pass far left agenda items. The problem is that people have been stirred to action on this health care bill. That will mean more action in legislative districts in the 2010 election. The new Congress might be an almost 100% Republican victory, if they play their cards right over the next 12 months. That is not necessarily a given as Republicans have a tendency to fumble the ball on a regular basis.

There is a petition being championed by Hugh Hewitt and Mike Gallagher, among others. This petition has over 1 million signatures as of yesterday morning. If you have not signed the petition, please click on the link I shamefully stole from Hugh Hewitt’s website. And well over a million of our listeners signed the "Stop Obamacare" petition (you can still add you signature.)

Last night, Barack Obama held a press conference about his health care initiative. He appeared articulate and in command of the issues when he was presenting his information. When you check his facts, on the other hand, you find that they were made up or completely false. The news media did its usual job of rolling over so Obama could rub its tummy. Just when a couple of them start to ask tough questions, you think they might ask one in the press conference. If they asked a mild question, Barack Obama danced around the issue without answering it for about 5 minutes. As a result, this press conference had to be one with the fewest questions asked since the invention of the radio.

I did not get to hear the press conference. I work nights and so was at work during the conference. I did get to hear Hugh Hewitt make a comment about the opening statement. Hugh said that the opening statement was completely false. On the way home from work, I did get to hear part of the Mark Levin show where he went over the press conference as it was happening. When I was listening the show was delayed by at least 3 hours. The little I heard told me that Obama sounded like he knew what he was talking about, but the facts I knew were completely different than the facts he was giving at the press conference.

The first point that stuck out to me was when Obama was talking about the deficit. I may get the numbers wrong as I was driving in the dark when I heard them. He mentioned that he inherited a deficit. That is a true statement. The projected deficit when he took office was around $200-250 billion. He projected Bush deficits over the next 10 years and came up with a figure of about $9.3 trillion. He then said that he had done wonders with the economy and that the deficit over those same ten years was only going to be $7 trillion. That was a savings of $2.3 trillion. As I remember, the deficit for the first six months of office is about $1 trillion +. The only way his figures can be correct is if he did not expect Bush to collect taxes and that all those taxes went to paying down his debts. Then, I might believe his numbers. Obama is going to rack up deficits in one year that will dwarf all the deficits of all the Presidents from Washington to George W. Bush, combined.

Obama also went on and on that his health care plan was going to save money. He must be the only person on the planet that believes that. The Congressional Budget Office, ran by Democrats, says that the plan will increase costs by $1.3 trillion. And, those costs will not keep down the regular costs of medicine. We all know how accurate the Congressional Budget Office estimates are. When they estimated the cost of Medicare, they said it would cost $9 billion by 1990. By 1990, Medicare costs were over $66 Billion. Other estimates have been even worse than that one. Using that as the baseline, would peg the actual costs of this health care bill at about $9.1 trillion. That sounds a lot more like what the actual costs will be. The $1 trillion figure just seemed way too low.

There is a way to almost instantly reduce the cost of health insurance and then the resulting cost of health care in this country. Right now, health insurance is a highly regulated business. Policies have to contain certain things in order to be sold in a particular state. That means I have to purchase maternity insurance even though my wife and I are both over 60 years of age. We should be able to drop that coverage and then reduce our insurance cost by that much. Other provisions in health insurance are also required by the states and federal government. If we eliminated those requirements, health insurance costs would drop dramatically.

The other related item that would greatly reduce the cost of health insurance is to make health insurance completely portable. Right now, my policy in Arizona covers me if I go to other states. If I move to Georgia, I have to buy a different policy based on Georgia’s requirements. I should be able to find a policy that I want at a price I want to pay and buy it. Say I live in New York where insurance costs are about the highest, I should be able to buy my policy from a company anywhere in the country. Then, I could pay the same low cost for insurance that they pay in Wisconsin.

If those are the only things done to reduce costs, it would greatly reduce the cost to the consumer. There are a lot of other ideas that would get more people insured and reduce the cost of medical practices. Those will have to be the topic for another post. I have lots of ideas on the topic. Strangely, none of them involve the government, except to remove it from the scene.

On the way to work today, I heard Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt debate the pros and cons of the Fair Tax. Dennis Prager generally believes that the Fair Tax would be a good idea. Hugh Hewitt thinks that the Fair Tax is a pie in the sky idea that is impractical.

To review for those of you who are not up to speed on the Fair Tax, the Fair Tax is a consumption tax. A consumption tax is a tax on the things you buy, not an income tax. The income tax would be repealed, so you would get your entire paycheck. Since the government has to have money to pay for things it needs tax revenue. The Fair Tax would take the place of the income tax. Rep. Lindner and Neal Boortz came up with the Fair Tax and say that the rate should be 23% to replace the income tax. So that the lower income people would not have to pay any tax, people would get a “prebate” of what they would be expected to pay in tax for that month. Then, every time you bought something you would pay the tax. If you spend less than your prebate, you made money. If you bought more than your prebate, then you ended up paying the government.

Hugh Hewitt says that the rate for the consumption tax is not 23%, but 30%. I have not read his book, so I will have to take him at his word on how he gets to that point. Neal Boortz and Rep. Lindner go to great lengths in their books to make sure that the 23% figure is shown. They also address the question of whether the rate is 23% or 30%. An economist came out with the 30% figure a few years ago and Neal Boortz explained how that economist got to 30%. The economist was incorrect in how he got to 30%; I do not know how Hugh came up with the figure. I am not really sure on this point, which person is correct. I respect and believe in the honesty of all three men, so I would have to see their arguments placed side by side before I could really determine it for myself.

Hugh Hewitt’s main argument is that the Fair Tax can never be passed. I agree with him on that. There is a lot of power associated with taxes. Congress would have to voluntarily give up a lot of power to vote for the Fair Tax. Since Democrats thirst for power with every breath, they will never in their lifetimes vote for the Fair Tax. Republicans would have to produce all the votes for the bill. That would be unlikely as some Republicans like power almost as much as Democrats. You would have to have a Congress with about 70% Republicans in both Houses to have a chance and that is not likely to happen given the public is generally split 50-50.

Hugh Hewitt thinks that Republicans should support a flat tax as that is more likely to be passed by Congress.  That is correct. There is a far greater chance of a flat tax passing over the Fair Tax. All Republicans could get behind it and you might even be able to persuade some Democrats to follow suit. It is unlikely to get much Democrat support, but even one Democrat is far more than you would get for the Fair Tax.

In conclusion, the flat tax is the more likely solution to the confusion tax situation we have today. Right now, if you take your taxes to 10 tax experts to have them done, you are likely to get at least 6 different answers. With a flat tax, all that would go away. Of course, so would the need to have your taxes done by a CPA. Anyone would be able to write down their income and multiply it by the tax number to come up with how much tax they owed. This plan has a similar problem to the Fair Tax in that Congress would have to give up some power over taxes. Since it is a much smaller amount than the Fair Tax would require, it would have a greater chance of success. Also, it would be a good first step to the Fair Tax if that is your ultimate goal.

If your goal is to have the Fair Tax enacted, to go from our current confusing income tax system to the Fair Tax is a steep jump. To take an intermediate jump to a flat tax and then the Fair Tax would seem reasonable. It would mean a delay of probably a few years, but that should not be a problem. So, anyone who would like the Fair Tax, you should support a flat tax as an intermediate step. Then, you can get people moving in your direction for the final leap to the Fair Tax. Problem Solved!

“Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” This quote by Jesus Christ is still as true today as it was at the time he uttered it. I read an article by Bear in the Woods that said basically the same thing. He was guest writing on Hugh Hewitt’s blog site.

Bear in the Wood’s point is that there are two words that are magic in advertising. Those two words are: free and truth. He should know because he is in advertising. He also said that the Democrats have invested heavily in the word “free”. Because they have invested in the word free and there is always a cost, we should invest in the word truth. There is also a cost associated with the word truth. That cost is not dollars and cents in their pure sense, it is in behavior.

Bear in the Woods said that if Republicans decide that the way to combat the Democrats use of the word free is with the word truth, they should be ready to pay the cost. The cost is to admit that they made mistakes in the last 8 years under President George W. Bush. The cost is also to admit that there are some in their number that have abused the earmark provision in the past. The cost will also be to swear never to use the earmark provision again. If the Republicans decide to call the Democrats on their pork barrel spending, they have to be fiscally responsible themselves. They also have to call out those in their number that are not fiscally responsible. That will give those that are fiscally responsible added credibility. There is a resistance in the political class to call anyone to repentance as they likely can be called on it themselves. They have to walk the walk, before they can talk the talk and be believed.

There are a few that are already there. Jeff Flake comes to mind. He happens to be my Congressman and he does not take earmarks. He is doing exactly what Bear in the Woods says we should be doing. Unfortunately, he seems to be a lone wolf as he is kept off committees that would highlight his message of fiscal responsibility. He needs to have a higher profile if the Republicans are to be believed. For a start, he needs to be put on the Appropriations Committee. That committee is the one that works on the bills that spend money. It would be a perfect forum for him to highlight his message of no earmarks and fiscal responsibility. If the others on the Appropriations Committee were as committed to fiscal responsibility as Jeff Flake, the Republicans would quickly get the public to believe the message. Until that happens, the message will be lost in the myriad of Republicans that want their cake (earmarks) and to talk fiscal responsibility for the Democrats. That is what got us into this mess in the first place.

The bloated federal budget is a perfect target for a spirited attack by a Republican Party that is committed to fiscal responsibility. But, the entire group or almost the entire group needs to be committed to that goal. If they are committed, it will not be long and they will be back in power. They will be back in power to get the federal budget under control and to cut spending. I do not mean Washington cuts where you just cut the increase, I mean real cuts where you actually cut the amount they get. Sometimes those budget numbers should be cut to zero. The federal government is doing far more things than it is authorized to do. There are 15 states that are working on bills to get the federal government to recognize the 10^th amendment to the Constitution. That is the one that says that the federal government’s powers are limited to what are stated in the Constitution and the rest of the power is given to the states. If enough states really adopt and use that provision, the size of the federal government will necessarily shrink in power and authority.

The other thing that needs to happen to get the power back to the states is for the state legislatures need to start appointing the Senators again. That would make the Senators responsible to the States rather than what they can get away with. This will probably not pass, but it should.