A Letter For The Ages

If I tried a million times I could not articulate what this woman articulated in her letter to Glenn Beck this week. It is unbelievable. It is a letter for the ages, a letter our founding fathers would have written. Please read it...please read it again and again until you feel what she feels. If you then cannot feel a fire burn within you to stand up and say no more to this government, then so be it.

Here it is:

I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when hewill rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

New World Health Care

According to our president, our country is now faced with another crisis. This time it is the crisis in health care. I won't go into the details as why the president considers this an important issue, but suffice it to say that the only reason he considers it a crisis is for the purpose of creating a faux panic amongst Americans and thus to Congress, so that he can get this legislation through quickly.

Quickly? Hmmm...a recurring theme with this president.

It would seem our president is very sly. He understands a certain fact that many Americans are just now waking up to, namely that he will not have four years to get all the things done that he wants to get done. He'll be lucky to have a year. Because, by this time next year (actually much early than now...perhaps as early as this October), the entire House and a third of the Senate will be scrambling to figure out how they can possibly keep from being lynched, let alone keep their jobs. By January of next year the president won't be able to get a dog leash law passed.

He knows full well that if he does not get this health care bill passed and passed by September of this year, it will never pass.

So, he is putting on the full court press. He's got one of the government's news agencies (ABC) all ready to air the Obama Info-Mercial on why we MUST have his health care plan. He actually thinks he can pull another fast one over on the American public. Frankly, with the help of the various government news agencies (NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CNN, NYT, Washington Post and so on), they could very well make Congress BELIEVE that the American people are behind Obama on this one.

Let me make one thing clear, I am not stepping over the line in saying THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT WANT THIS. Pass this bill and everyone of you are gone..sooner than later..gone.

So, let's ignore all the rhetoric and look a couple of simple issues here:

Simple Cost Analysis

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that, without taking into account many of the provisions of the president's proposal, this bill cost taxpayers $1.6 TRILLION. The caveat of that previous sentence means that it will, when they finally figure out the costs of ALL the provisions of his proposal, cost FAR more than that.

In addition, the estimates show that of the supposed 50 million people currently not insured, the president's proposal will leave about 35 million of them still uninsured. It will also remove about 23 million from current employer-paid plans and put them on this plan. BUT, it will only insure about 15 million people who aren't currently insured (for argument's sake and to make numbers easier to crunch, I'm going to round to 16 million newly insured).

Now, don't get me wrong, being able to insure 15 million new people is nice. But what's the cost? I don't wanna get crazy here with too much, so let's just keep it simple. What's $1.6 TRILLION divided by 16 million people (remember I rounded up to make this easy)?

$100,000 per newly insured person...MINIMUM.

Do I need to say more about this? Okay, I will. Obama wants us to believe, based upon his talk to the AMA and other speeches, that this will be paid for by the immense savings this country will experience from having everyone insured. But remember, there are still another 35 million people uninsured. Not to mention that the CBO estimates show little or no savings from this perspective.

Well, there is ONE way the government run health care system would save money. You see, statistics show that 80% of all health care costs are from a mere 20% of the population. Anyone wanna guess what that 20% is? Mostly the elderly.

Do you remember Tom Daschle? He's the guy Obama originally wanted to run Health and Human Services (HSS). Fortunely for us, Daschle ran into some ethics issues and had to withdraw his name from consideration. However, his theories on the health care "crisis" still live on. Daschle wrote a book called Critical: What Can We Do About The Health Care Crisis. In the book, one of his views on how to deal with the extreme costs of health care is for all citizens to accept the inevitable...death. He suggests that Americans are too caught up on extending life year after year after year, no matter the costs. That if Americans would just realize that we are only making it more painful for those that survive us....FINANCIALLY, we would be willing to withdraw from many of the life-extending treatments we endure.

This, my friends, is why England's health care board (a system Obama has openly stated is the model for what he wants) stopped all medications for breast cancer patients...to SAVE MONEY.

THIS is how Obama intends on saving money and paying for his plan. GET IT?

Competition?

Let's move on. Obama says he does not want to eliminate private health insurance carriers. He just wants to add a "public option" as a competition to private insurers. He wants the government, in other words, to open up an insurance company to compete with private companies. Do you understand what this is?

What would it mean to you, if you run or ran a business, if your chief competitor had unlimited access to money, set all the rules for all the companies doing business in that industry, and could, essentially dictate how much of YOUR profits they could take from you legally?

Let answer that simply....they would either have you agreeing to do things their way on everything or they would run you out of business.

Have you ever seen one of those westerns where the big cattle baron puts a dam on the river upstream from all the small cattle ranchers? The big bad cattle baron controlled the water. The other ranchers either did things his way or they were forced to sell their land and their cattle to those big bad cattle barons. That's what's happening here.

Do They Really Know How to Run a Business?

Stop laughing...really. Honestly, the government has done some things right..like our military (though, I must admit that most of the mistakes made militarily usually occurred when politicians interfere...i.e. - Vietnam and Iraq). Oh okay...so they don't typically do things right from a business perspective. At least they try.

But let's just look at this health care issue from a business perspective. First, when a company is seeking to make significant changes to their business structure they usually will scale things into place in order to work out the kinks in the changes they're putting into place.

Let me explain. I work for a national photography company. When they made the transition, several years ago, to digital cameras from film cameras, they did not make these changes immediately and across the board. After, of course, coming up with a plan for the implementation and a cost analysis, they initiated the transition in one of 16 districts around the country. Once the testing period was complete they had a good idea of what kinks needed to be worked out. They proceeded to fix those kinks and transitioned a second district. That transition exposed additional kinks. When they had done this enough times to felt that they had worked out enough of the kinks to make it work efficiently, they transitioned the rest of the districts.

Has the federal government done this with regards to health care? Well, actually, yes, they have. Its called Medicare. Have there been kinks in the Medicare system? Duh. Of course there have. Have there been efforts by Congress to fix those kinks? Duh. Of course there have. Have they worked out enough of those kinks to justify transitioning the rest of the country? Well, you make the call...but to me the answer that question is also...DUH..NO WAY.

Do you want to know what happens when a company makes a broad, across the board business transition? They usually end up spending a whole lot of money fixing the mess and often times go out of business...especially if they are not a properly capitalized company. Has anyone done a quick analysis on the financial stability of the federal government to see if it might screw us all if they try this and fail? Do we really want people who didn't properly GUESS what the unemployment figures would be when calculating the consequences of passing the stimulus bill spending another $1.6 trillion and then some screwing with the health care system?

Can It Be Done?

I have NO idea. It don't look good. No other...SMALLER...country has ever succeeded at it. I'm really not sure why these guys think they can. But here's a simple alternative.

1. Instead of spending $100K per PERSON on this idea, let every American have a Health Savings Plan. My company and my wife's school do and WE LOVE IT. They provide a major medical plan that takes care of most everything we need after a $5000 maximum out of pocket cost per year. Then we get to save up to $5000 per year (each of us) into a pre-tax account. We then get these VISA cards that give us access to those accounts for medical purposes. We get to go, pretty much, wherever we want. It covers health, dental, vision, chiropractic, weight loss (when prescribed by a doctor) and more. If we don't use up all the money, it carries over. So we get to build up the account for later years when the needs are greater.

2. For the seniors in this country who are already on Medicare, fulfill the obligation to them until they die. The costs will diminish as the years go on.

3. Provide incentives for ALL employers to provide these plans in the form of tax credits and/or additional tax savings. That savings will only go back into the economy in the form of higher personal income taxes to the owners, hiring more employees or increasing return on investments.

4. Fund each family's account, who is not already under a corporate plan, with $5000. That's a heckuva lot less than the $100K PER PERSON that the president's plan would cost. This cost should be the ONLY out of pocket cost to the government since the tax incentives would provide enough economic activity to provide tax revenue to the government to pay for its costs. That would cost about $600Billion one time.

5. As a last resort, for those slipping through the cracks, do the following: a) set up health savings account for them (as stated earlier), b) make arrangements with every health insurer for them to put money from their profits into a pool for use by unemployed, under-employed and uninsured for a major medical plan. The unemployed would received free benefits; the under-employed would get a discount based upon need; and the uninsured (but fully employed) could buy into the major medical plan at the best rates possible by actuarials. Small businesses, who can't afford to do their own plans, could buy into as well, based upon certain income levels and such. It would be run by a consortium of people from the various insurers, plus government representatives. The rules for participation would be legislated. Each insurance company's involvement would be based upon what percentage of the health insurance pie they have; c) provide only emergency health care for illegal immigrants only. All hospitals must participate by either helping to finance (those hospitals not in the hot zone where illegals usually live and need care) or by accepting the illegals.

Okay...there's the foundation for what I think we should do. Can you do better? I definitely don't think the Obama plan is better.

Obama Imperialism

President Obama has spent countless energy apologizing around the globe for America's imperialistic policies, even as he puts pressure on Israel to do what he wants with regards to the Middle East peace process.

If you heard him speak recently regarding the disturbing violence in Iran over their fraudulent election results, you know that, according to him, it is not his policy to "meddle" in the affairs of a sovereign country.

Yet, going almost unnoticed by the mainstream media in the past few weeks was the Obama administration's direction to forces in Afghanistan that are now required to read captured enemy combatants their Miranda rights. You know, "you have the right to remain silent, etc."

Now wait a second. The Miranda case was a U.S. case...right? It was regarding accused criminals when they are arrested, right? If I'm not mistaken, those are rights afforded to Americans or foreigners arrested on American soil, correct? WHY, do our soldiers (who are not policemen, btw) have to tell foreigns combatants, captured in a war on FOREIGN soil, that hey have AMERICAN rights?

Isn't that imposing American values on citizens from another country? Isn't THAT imperialism?

What it is, my friends, is Obama imposing HIS values on the world. Obama is playing a great game of diversion. While apologizing for America's past policies and acts (at least ones that don't jive with what he wants to achieve), he is imposing, not just upon foreign lands, but upon all of us, his view of how things should be everywhere.

So, think about what he is doing and judge for yourself what his intentions, policies and desires are.

1. He calls for one spending bill after another with visible means of paying for anything.
2. He manipulates the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler, re-writing the rules of law and commerce to bypass bond-holders in favor of the UAW. (add to this that he says he has no desire to own or control GM, despite offering no viable means for GM to buyout the US shares, leaving the UAW and the federal government in complete charge of both companies)
3. He forces banks to take TARP money and then refuses to let them pay it back.
4. He forces stimulus money onto various states that do not want it.
5. His Secretary of Homeland Security calls virtually any and all organizations and people who stand in opposition to Obama and his administration domestic terrorists, or potential domestic terrorists. He then proceeds to push for legislation giving him and policing agencies greater ability to keep guns or remove guns from the hands of terrorists.
6. He promotes the false statistic that 90% of the guns used in the Mexican drug wars were purchased in the U.S.
7. He no longer allows anyone in his administration to call foreign terrorists by the word "terrorist" but rather as enemy combatants. So, in other words, while people who would blow up the Sears Towers are not terrorists, but Americans who own guns, support the Pro-Life movement, attend fundamental Christian churches and/or are returning veterans are, or are potential, terrorists.
8. American soldiers are now required by Obama to afford those "enemy combatants" the rights that they are not legally afforded, but would like to take away our 2nd amendment rights, eliminate free speech and free press from those who oppose him, advocate that a private organization (the federal reserve board) control ALL financial organizations, even non-banks, and that the federal government has a right dictate to private organizations how much they pay their employees.
9. He wants to install a federally run health care program for ALL Americans without a visible means of paying for it, despite the protests of the majority of Americans. (see my next blog post for more on this subject).
10. He wants to require that all youth volunteer for community organizations (like ACORN and its plethera of affiliates) in order for the government to provide financial aid for college tuition. And, of course, with more and more Americans becoming utterly incapable, due to the financial disaster he has placed upon us all, to pay for their children's education, more and more and more college students will NEED the help of the federal government for tuition assistance. And let's not forget that the feds are placing more and more pressure on private universities (especially Christian based ones) to do things like - allow gay students admission, hire gay employees, and so on...or they will cease providing grants for students attending their schools.

I'm going to leave this at 10 items...for two reasons. Number one, I could be here all day listing everything. And number two, because I want you, my friends to add to the list. I do not know all the things this man is doing. But from these ten alone, it is clear, the direction he wants this country....AND THE WORLD...to be heading into. Only God can help us now. It is time to return to Him.

What Exactly IS Obama's Economic Plan

Obama claims to be interested in reducing the tax burden of 101 million middle and lower income families in America. He says that no one making less than $250K will see an increase in their tax burden. He wants to grow the economy from the bottom up. But what exactly are his economic plans?

First, he wants to raise individual tax rates on those making more than $250K to 39.6% (the same as the Clinton rate).

Second, he wants to reduce the tax burden on the middle class and send money in the form of a "rebate" to people who don't even owe any taxes.

Third, he wants to eliminate or sharply raise the cap on FICA (Social Security) taxes. The current cap is around $100K. This is my first point of contention with his plan. He wants to raise the income tax rate by 3.9% on those making over $250K. And he wants to raise the FICA tax (currently the employee and the employer each pay 6.7% of the income) on anyone making over $100K. So, if that is true, he actually DOES want to raise taxes on the middle class.

Anyone making currently $120K would see an increase in taxes (FICA) of $1340 per year. A person making $150K would see an increase in taxes of $3340. A person making $300K would see an increase in taxes of over $15K. And if that same person is also either self employed or happens to run a small business, they will also have the pay the increased EMPLOYER'S side of FICA.

So, Obama, do NOT tell us we will not pay anything more in taxes if we're making less than $250K. That is a big fat lie.

Next, he wants to take that money we pay in increased taxes and GIVE it to the poor. All he's doing here is re-defining government handouts, welfare, through nothing less than wealth re-distribution. He calls it "fairness" or "evening things out" or "sharing the wealth". But who is he to tell me or my boss that they HAVE to share their wealth? Afterall, isn't the business owner the one who puts his ass(ets) on the line by starting a business and working himself/herself to the bones trying to make it work? And Obama wants to FORCE that business owner to SHARE their success with the "less fortunate"....meaning the "less capable or willing to work themselves to the bones or put their entire life savings on the line to make it work"? Frankly, all this amounts to is giving a hungry man a fish instead of teaching him how to fish.

Next he wants me to pay for the 40 million people who do not have health insurance. Frankly, I already do. My rates are as high as they are because the government refuses to do what it should to help lower the COSTS of health care. Forget about trying to get everyone insured. How about lowering the costs of drugs and lower the caps on malpractice suits and eliminating the overabusing powers of the FDA regarding the sales and distributions of pharmaceuticals.

Do that first and then let's see what we can do about getting the rest of the people onto health care.

Then he wants us to actually spend even more money on a failed public school system. The fundamental problem with education is not that there is not enough money being spent on it, but that the money being spent on it is ill-spent. If education really IS important than emulate countries like Japan which has year-round school and encourages rapid advancement through high schools that are almost all magnet schools.

The hole in the Obama and Democratic economic plan is that they want to raise taxes and increase government involvement in economic stimulus. In a recessionary environment this is a literal blueprint for economic disaster.

Palin Victorious

Debates are not about presenting your ticket's proposals for health care or education or foreign affairs. They are good for only two things. First the candidates are looking for one-liners, talking points that can be replayed over and over and over again. They'd prefer they be GOOD one-liners FROM them. But they will accept a BAD one-liner from the opponent.

Second, debates are designed to make the candidate LOOK good to a LARGE audience. That's why Kennedy won in '60. He looked VERY good on TV and many Americans fell in love with him. Reagan didn't get elected because he knew more than anyone else about economics and foreign affairs. He got elected because he had great advisors and knew how to memorize and deliver a line. Clinton got elected for the same reason.

During the past eight years we forgot that because we had no memorable democratic candidate. Gore and Kerry were only good for one thing, being the target of jokes. Now, the Dems have a very appealing candidate. Someone who looks good on TV and knows how to deliver a line well. McCain looks stiff and stoic and has no idea how to deliver a line. That's why Obama benefitted from the last presidential debate. And that's why Palin won this debate hands down. She is MUCH more appealing on TV than ANY of the candidates...and she certainly knows how to deliver a line. She came away from tonight with the one-liners and clearly showed herself as an appealing figure to her followers. Whether that will translate into more votes for McCain is yet to be determined.

Typically, Vice Presidential candidates don't win or lose too many votes nationally. But the reason McCain chose Palin was to help him win Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Missouri, the conservative part of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Nevada and possibly Minnesota. I will be watching to see if there are any movements in those states over the next few days.

In the meantime, McCain needs to gear up for his next debate. By then the house should have passed the bailout bill and this economic crisis should be on track to recovery. If that shows up in an easing of credit and market gains between now and Tuesday, he needs to pounce on his DIRECT involvement in helping to solve the problem. He needs to also make sure that Americans know that a simple bill does not finish the matter but that it requires a president who is willing to roll up his sleeves longterm to make sure the bill does what it is supposed to do.

He also needs to hit Obama hard on how he plans on finding money for the spending he STILL insists on adding to the budgetary woes.

One thing I have proposed in a prior post that I wish McCain would adapt and adopt is my idea for fixing the problem with Social Security. Here it is again in bullet point form.

1. Raise the cap on FICA for employees ONLY. Do not burden business owners with a raise of the cap for the employer's portion of the tax. For self employed, raise ONLY the cap for one half of their FICA payments (the part that would ordinarily be the employee's portion of the tax). Frankly, I don't care whether the cap is $250K or no cap at all. Most high income earners have a vested interest (through stock or direct ownership) in a business. And since I am not proposing raising the cap for the employer portion, who are they to complain?

2. Eliminate FICA on the first $25k of wages for people making less than $50k annually (indexed for CPI). This would assist the low income people to keep more of their money. But let's not cause this to reduce their ultimate benefits. They still get credits as though they were making their normal payments.

3. Require that 1/2 of the savings for low income people be invested by them into their company's 401K or into a private retirement account. This money would be invested at their discretion. This would give them better retirement income when added to normal Social Security benefits. It would add investment capital into the markets. And would provide long term tax revenues when they ultimately withdraw and spend that money...years later.

4. The other half of their savings is theirs to use as they please. This immediately aids them in living a better life now and infuses money into the economy now.

This plan provides things for both Democrats and Republicans to love and hate. The raise in the cap puts a smile on the faces of Democrats but will anger the Republicans. But so long as there is still a cap and so long as the cap is not imposed upon the business owners also, the Republicans will accept it. The tax relief for the poor will make the Democrats happy, even if it is not enough relief. But the Republicans will get, in a watered down version, their desire for a self-directing retirement program. Even though the Republicans would rather have that for all contributors, that's not what this is for.

I am not proposing altering how Social Security benefits are invested. I am proposing a supplement to Social Security for low income people. And although Democrats will not like the requirement to have half the tax savings for the poor invested in retirement accounts, they will be happy that it will NOT reduce or replace Social Security for these people one iota.

And frankly, Democrats will have a difficult time explaining away the increased savings rates for low income Americans, the increased income for them and the rise in tax revenues from the money spent by low income people. Republicans will have a difficult time accepting the rise in the cap, but the only other alternatives are to keep things the way they are or eliminate the cap altogether (something that may ultimately be more fair). And honestly, how can they complain about it when the increased cap will not burden down business owners and corporations. In addition, to some degree, the Republicans get their hope, to a limited degree, for a self directed retirement alternative to Social Security. Even if it doesn't replace or reduce Social Security one iota.

Conservative Domestic Policy

I don't know who reads Senator McCain's email. And I truly doubt anyone is going to take my suggestions seriously. And frankly, even if no one does, I'm still voting for the ticket. But I have thought through several ideas regarding this "Rescue" plan of Congress. And I think the whole deal stinks. I know Senator McCain voted for it only because he thought it best. And I trust his judgment.
However, this is what I would have suggested as the Plan, along with Domestic Policies:

1) Make the lenders restructure the bad loans for the customers. Have the back payments added to the principle and even delay first payment by three months. The lenders will do this in return for the feds buying up the truly bad loans...the ones where there is little chance of the borrowers ever repaying (foreclosure imminent). The delayed payments would be an economic stimulus. Those who are having financial troubles at home will have a fresh chance to catch up. Those not in trouble (and need no restructuring) will use the 3 months of payments as any consumer would...increasing tax revenues and helping the government pay for those truly bad loans they had to buy from the lenders. This keeps the government, for the most part, out of the lending business (something Sen. McCain spoke about earlier).

2) Force all congressmen/women to cut their personal budgets by 25%. No increase, just straight cuts, until such time as the budget is balanced. Make them take commercial flights sometimes. I bet airline safety legislation will pass very quickly. And having them use commercial flights will only help the failing airlines.

3) Make congress and most government agencies begin a 10 year process of replacing most, if not all, government owned vehicles with hybrid vehicles. This shows the government is serious about alternatives fuels and the expenditures will only aid the young industry.

4) Make ALL new government buildings GREEN. Be the leaders you are supposed to be and lead us into a GREEN era. And retrofit existing buildings, as much as possible, to be GREEN (recycle water, add geothermal, wind and solar power to them).

5) Demand Congress pass legislation requiring the entire federal government use a zero base budget. The money saved from this alone could fund alternative fuel research, retooling the auto industry, and revive hopes of a balanced budget again.

6) Change the structure of FICA. Have the cap set higher (i.e. - $250K or more), but eliminate the employee contribution on the first $25K of those earning less than $50K. I am definitely not privy the economic ramifications of this. But if the numbers work out, it would essentially give a tax decrease to low income families and raise revenue from higher earners (which is a legitimate raise). You could tack on the requirement that the reduction in FICA tax must go 1/2 into their company 401K (or personal IRA) and half can be received in the form of a higher paycheck. This increases the potential that low income earners won't be so reliant on SS at retirement and adds money to the economy which will only raise more revenue for the federal government. Having that money put into 401Ks and IRAs will also raise investment capital which will do Wall St. some good. It will also have the longterm effect of increasing tax revenues at the retirement of these people because the addition of a more fully funded retirement plan will give more discretionary funds to spend in the economy at retirement.

The Dems may think this is sneaky way of privatizing SS but the earners would still earn the same credits for SS benefits as they would if that money went into the system. They are just being given the money as a tax break and being required to put at least half into a retirement account. The Dems will also get their wish of higher taxes for the "rich" in the form of higher FICA taxes.

For the self-employed, who pay the entire 15.2% FICA tax, the same plan applies only to half the FICA payments.

7) Education - Increase funding of Charter Schools. Dems won't go for vouchers. But Charter Schools work great...especially when they are well-funded. Some provide oversite for independent study programs, some provide block classes a few days a week and still others are five-day a week classes. Fund them all. They all have their benefits. Not the least of which is heavy parent involvement. Those who wish to use more religious-based curriculum are free to do so, as long as the school does not pay for the books. It costs the state less to finance these schools, for the most part, and test scores show these students invariably do better than they would have in regular schools.

As far as secondary education, I think getting major corporations involved in education at the college level is vital. These are the companies wanting the best and brightest graduates. Give them incentive to work more closely with the universities. Heck, you could do this down the high school level as well.

In addition, I like Senator Obama's idea of making students who need government help for college join the military or Peace Corp or some other noble cause that the government would be wanting to fund anyway.

I also think Newt Gingrich had a great idea as well. Motivate our best and brightest high school students. Give them a chance to graduate from high school early. If they graduate in 3 years then the government pays for their senior year of college. If they graduate high school in 2 years then the government pays for their junior and senior years. I actually believe that many of the most troublesome high school students would jump on this idea and show themselves much smarter than they previously let on. I think juvenile delinquincey would decline, and our youth would be better served.

Taxes = Class Warfare

Those who have studied history are aware of the fact that one of the main tennents of the Communist Manifesto is a graduated income tax. The idea behind a graduated income tax is that it balances out the wealth of nation. This, of course, is known as wealth re-distribution (another tennent of the Communist Manifesto).

Traditionally, one of the primary differences between the Democrats and Republicans is over taxes. As of 2006, the richest 1% of Americans, under our current tax system, earns 22% of the income in America, but pays 40% of all income tax. Of course, as the Democrats would point out, those same people OWN that much of America's wealth.

I was doing some research recently on the history of the income tax laws here in the US and ran across the Pollack case of 1895. Congress tried imposing a tax on dividends and interests back in the early 1890s. It was immediately challenged as a direct tax without apportionment, a violation of the Constitution. The law was, of course, struck down for that very reason. But in reading the text of the decision I came across a very interesting statement in there.

“The legislation (the tax law), in the discrimination it makes, is class legislation. Whenever a distinction is made in the burdens a law imposes or in the benefits it confers on any citizens by reason of their birth, or wealth, or religion, it is class legislation, and leads inevitably to oppression and abuses, and to general unrest and disturbance in society. It was hoped and believed that the great amendments to the constitution which followed the late Civil War had rendered such legislation impossible for all future time. But the objectionable legislation reappears in the act under consideration.” Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 596 (1895) (emphasis added)

I won't, at this time, go into the details of what I discovered about the Federal Income Tax laws, the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court cases which followed or the way in which the laws are enforced today. But suffice it to say that I am fully convinced that we've been hoodwinked and bullied into paying income taxes...and in some case, obeying other laws that simply do not apply to American Citizens.

As a little teaser for your own curiosity, ask yourself these questions:

1) If, by legal definition, a license is permission from government to do something you ordinarily would have no right doing, why do we need a license to get married? Why do we need a license to use our own property (a car) to travel the public roads for non-commercial purpose? Why do we need a license to catch food in a pond or lake located on public lands or even on our own property?

2) Why, if the 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to impose a direct tax on income, did the Supreme Court say that the 16th Amendment gave Congress NO NEW power of taxation? Why does the OMB tell us that the persons required to file a form 1040 are agents or representatives of non-resident aliens? And that the only form required to be filled out by Americans upon whom the income tax is imposed (Sect. 1.1 of the IRC) is Form 2555 (for Americans earning income abroad)? Why do we submit ourselves to having money withheld from our paychecks when the Withholding Agent, as defined in the IRC, is only required to withhold taxes from FOREIGN INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS and TRUSTS?

These are just a small number of questions I am now asking as I continue my research into this matter. Of course, if you've fallen for the line of the liberals that taxes are a necessary evil for a civilized country, then don't worry about asking these questions, your mind has been sufficiently programmed by the government, the liberals of this country and the media. You don't have to question anything.