I am sick of hearing all this talk about the Senate pushing for “reconciliation” of their bill.

Take a minute for some elementary school level understanding of how the political process works.

http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articles/government/howabillbecomesalaw.htm

  1. The House passes a bill
  2. The Senate passes a bill
  3. If the bills are different they have a conference to iron out the differences then…
  4. Each Chamber again votes on the new language
  5. If the Legislation passes both Chambers it goes to the President for his signature

Now let’s look at how this plays with ObamaCare

  1. The House passed a bill
  2. The Senate passed a bill
  3. They are NOT having a conference to iron out the differences
  4. They are telling the House to pass the Senate’s bill and THEN Reid and Pelosi say they will
  5. Remove the items the House does not like (Cornhusker kickback, etc...) and put in things they do want (no funding of abortion
     language, etc…) from the bill they just passed and the Senate will then vote again on this “reconciled” bill. Presupposing that the
     Senate Parliamentarian allows these changes as part of this reconciliation.
  6. Then the House would have to vote again on this new Senate bill to replace the bill they just voted for.

Here is what I predict will happen IF the House does indeed pass the Senate’s rushed through bill from December.

There will be too many items that the Parliamentarian will rule impermissible for budget reconciliation and the Senate will be unable to then actually pass a “reconciliation” bill that could also pass in the House. Then Nancy, Harry and Barack will say well we tried and just could not iron out the differences and it’s all the Republicans fault. Therefore, Barack will “reluctantly” sign the House approved Senate bill because they “have” to pass something.

Wonder if Disney sees the irony in their press release?

WALL-E is the story of the last little robot on Earth. He is a robot and his programming was to help clean up. You see, it's set way in the future. Through consumerism, rampant, unchecked consumerism, the Earth was covered with trash. And to clean up, everyone had to leave Earth and set in place millions of these little robots that went around to clean up the trash and make Earth habitable again.

Think maybe some of that rampant and unchecked consumerism will be seen in tons of Wall-E toys and other crap in Kid's meals at the local fast food chain?

Well Duh...

What is it with the warped sense of entitlement that some people have to think that their "Rights" trump other people's rights?

You have a right to do and say just about anything you want.  However, it does not mean that someone has to listen to you.  It also does not mean that if someone does bother to listen to your point of view that the they have to remain silent.

Our "Rights" as enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are NOT absolute.  Concerning Free Speech you "can" stand up in a crowed theater and yell FIRE.  But you will be held accountable for exercising your First Amendment Rights because your right is infringing on other's Rights.

That brings me to Code Pink and the City Council of the People's Republic of Bezerkley.

The City Council writes a letter telling the Marine's they are unwelcome intruders in their fair city (but illegal immigrants are welcome guests) .  Fine.  More power to 'em.  They also went a step further and passed "legislation" supporting one private groups opinion over other private groups.  But they are now discovering that others are able exercise their Free Speech Rigths too.

Code Pink, the private group given preference over other protest/counter-protest groups with the City Council awarding them free use of a public parking space, are also laboring under a warped sense of entitlement.

I loved the quote of the strangely named Code Pinker "Xanne Joi" when she displayed her ignorance and inflated sense of entitlement.

"I was under the impression that we have the right of free speech...To me, I thought free speech meant you get to say what you want without recrimination."

No Xanne.  You don't.  I can only guess what your grades were in High School Civics.

You can spout off your nonsensical kumbaya poetry as much as you want and where you want - so long as your doing so does not infringe on other's rights.  But you seem to fail to grasp that others also have the right to espouse a point of view that you disagree with.

When the goons in the white sheets wanted to march through a Black neighborhood to demonstrate their hate, intolerance and ignorance they applied for a permit.  As vile as those KKK followers are the City gave them one. But did the City take sides and stop others from gathering along the sides of the march to voice their displeasure?  Nope.  People showed up to tell the Klan to slink back into the fetid swamp that they spawned from.

I hope the "Feds" and even the State of California deny the City public funds as a demonstration that Public officials have NO BUSINESS involving the government in a dispute of opinion by taking the side of one of the protestors.  I don't hold much hope for that happening however, but it would be fun to see a precedent set that might then act as a brake on other Public Officials from bothering themselves in issues in which they should remain neutral.

From last nights SOTU address

I have to say that looking at this picture I see the following based on body language.

1. Obama and Teddy look like two high school punks plotting to tease Hillary with the way that are looking at her.  You certainly know who the object of their attention is.

2. Claire McCaskill (the lady in the cream jacket, freshman Senator from Missouri) certainly seems to have a smirk on her face. Looks like the expression that one would see on the wallflower when the homecoming queen trips on her dress.

3. Hillary, chin up greeting people with a game face on as if trying to ignore the fact the she knows everyone is looking at her.

Are the long knifes out for Hillary in a form of “moral superiority” and comeuppance?

This picture should be up for the Pulitzer

As with most purported  "news" it is what did not make the press that is the real story. Of course today the blogs are abuzz with the McCain/Romney smackdown.

Part of the flurry has even made it to the MSM.  Care to guess which part?  Yep, the McCain hits on Romney part. The parts that McCain has, for the most part, gotten a pass on is the utter and complete fabrication that is he is being allowed to spew.

Speaking of timelines let's look at on from last year when timelines, benchmarks and milestones were all the fashion rage (and oh so pre-surge) 

January 2007.  First up to bat: John McCain speaking in favor of cut and run and retreat in defeat if Iraq does not meet "his" timelines and benchmarks.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/byauthor/166271

"McCain said Thursday that he hadn't yet decided on precise benchmarks. "They'd have to be specific, and they (Iraqi government officials) would have to meet them," he said.

Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he said: "I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven't met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we're not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options."

Well Johnny, what are the "consequences" that everybody know?  You complete the thought by saying we will not be able to finish the mission.  Seems pretty clear to me that you are publicly advocating withdrawal.

Now let jump to the next month.  Stepping into the batter's box: President Bush from February of 2007

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601461.html

"...We appreciate the fact that he's beginning to meet the benchmarks that he set out for his people," Bush said..."

and

"...Bush said his new ambassador, if confirmed, will carry "a message of urgency to the Iraqi government that our patience is not unlimited and that we expect that government to perform."

Now here is the FULL quote from April of 2007 with Romney on GMA:

QUESTION: Iraq. John McCain is there in Baghdad right now. You have also been very vocal in supporting the president and the troop surge. Yet, the American public has lost faith in this war. Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, there's no question but that -- the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government.

QUESTION: So, private. You wouldn't do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave? You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don't do that with the opposition.

Did Romney say what those timetables were? Where they for withdrawal? Nope Romney was on record in that very interview being expressly against?  Was Romney given credit for being "very vocal" in supporting the surge?  Yep.

Sure Sounds like the Bush quotes confirm what Romney said two months later.  Bush was indeed having conversations with al-Maliki concerning timelines and benchmarks. Wonder when McCain will accuse Bush of being a cut and run, wave the white flag, retreat in defeat liberal too.

Case closed.  McCain is either a lying sack of crap because he knew the truth and choose to willfully "distort" the record or he is so oblivious and intellectually incurious of the information that his staff is feeding him to question and verify the data.  If he did ask to verify the data than that staffer needs to be fired and McCain makes and apology.  If McCain was simply lying then he needs to apologize.

A fair reading of Bush, McCain and Romney on this issue shows that McCain is the one calling for cut and run NOT Romney.

An Interesting post from Crosstabs.org on the Exit polls out of Nevada.

"...Now onto the Mormon vote in Nevada. Most media outlets seemed to delight in repeating that Romney got 94% of the LDS vote in Nevada. It was repeated time and again as I watched the coverage live and many pundits said/inferred that this factor accounted for Romney's win. Actually, if you subtracted out every single Mormon vote for Romney he still would have won by a double digit margin and had nearly double the votes of either of his next two competitors.

But others seemed to express dismay that one religious group would be so absolutely monolithic in it's support. However, they fail to recognize that Dems NV Exit polling shows that 3% of those participating in the Democratic caucus were Mormons. I'm guessing NONE of them voted for Romney (sarcasm intended).With voting totals around 115,000 in the Dem race (I saw that number on Fox News) that would come out to approximately 3500 LDS voters NOT voting for Romney in the Dem caucus.

By contrast, 25% of the GOP caucus in NV that were Mormon with nearly 45,000 total GOP voters --- therefore around 11250 LDS voters and 94% of them were for Romney . . . but that means nearly 500 were not.

So, 4000 LDS in Nevada voted "Not for Romney" and 10,750 voted for Romney. That breaks down to 73% LDS for Romney and 27% LDS that were not for Romney. Not quite the absolutely robotic block-voting groups that many media outlets are trying to play up, but, still, a solid base for Romney in the western/mountain states.

An interesting counter-argument about such huge LDS support for Mitt is that LDS have absolutely NO reservations about or aversion to Romney based on his religion, and can therefore view him outside of that context (while most non-LDS cannot) and therefore judge him solely on his record, experience, and issue stances. Romney surely hasn't "pandered" to the LDS base like Huckabee has to his Evangelical base. Historically speaking, there was no huge LDS groundswell of support for Orrin Hatch in 2000, or Mo Udall back in the 70s. Similarly, Harry Reid is a guy that only a tiny fraction of LDS would ever consider voting for based on co-religiosity. In Romney most LDS are able to see, outside of the context of him having a "weird religion," that he is an incredibly competent, faithful, successful, and articulate leader with a record of conservative governance and broad-based executive experience..."

Lots of verbal spewing back and forth about whether McCain is a "Conservative" or not.

Those in favor of McCain tout his American Conservative Union (ACU) lifetime rating of 82.3 as proof that McCain is a conservative.  Well, let's look at that shall we?

Yes, McCain has a lifetime rating of 82.3 but what has his rating done over time?  Especially compared to his colleague in the Senate John Kyl.

Unfortunately for John he comes off quite poor in that comparison as this chart shows. Including his time in the House when he moved to the State to run for a newly created Seat.

	McCain	Kyle	Difference
1983	96		96
1984	86		86
1985	81		81
1986	73		73
1987	91		91
1988	80		80
1989	93		93
1990	87		87
1991	86		86
1992	85		85
1993	83		83
1994	96		96
1995	96	90	6
1996	91	100	-9
1997	80	96	-16
1998	68	96	-28
1999	77	100	-23
2000	81	100	-19
2001	68	100	-32
2002	78	100	-22
2003	75	90	-15
2004	72	100	-28
2005	80	100	-20
2006	65	92	-27

Sometime in the middle of Bill Clinton's second term (1997 to be exact) McCain changed.  During his first 12 years in the Senate McCain averaged an ACU score of 86.4 but in the last twelve years he has averaged a score of 77.5.

The really dramatic - and sustained - change in his scores have come in the years since GWB beat him in 2000.  During the past 7 years McCain has scored 74.1 average but during the preceeding 7 years his score was 84.4.  McCain is clearly coasting on his first twelve years in the House/Senate to claim a "lifetime" ACU score of 82.3.  It's been downhill for quite a while now.

Obviously comparing any Senator's ACU score to John Kyl's would be problematic for most as Kyl is almost the defination of a consistant Conservative. Looking at the last year (2006) that the ACU has scores posted how does MCain compare to the other 53 Republican Senators?  He does not fare very well in this comparsion either coming in at number 46! 

Ranking	Senator	2006
1	Ensign	100
2	Coburn	100
3	Inhofe	100
4	DeMint	100
5	Thune	100
6	Chambliss	96
7	Isakson	96
8	Brunning	96
9	Dole	96
10	Santorum	96
11	Cornyn	96
12	Allen	96
13	Thomas	96
14	Enzi	96
15	Shelby	92
16	Kyl	92
17	Vitter	92
18	Talent	92
19	Burr	92
20	Allard	88
21	Grassley	88
22	Craig	88
23	Crapo	88
24	Lott	88
25	Sununu	88
26	Brownback	87
27	Martinez	84
28	Roberts	84
29	McConnell	84
30	Hutchison	84
31	Hatch	84
32	Graham	83
33	Bond	80
34	Frist	76
35	Hagel	75
36	Domenici	75
37	Sessions	74
38	Gregg	72
39	Dewine	72
40	Smith	72
41	Alexander	72
42	Bennett	72
43	Stevens	71
44	Coleman	68
45	Cochran	67
46	McCain	65
47	Murkowski	64
48	Lugar	64
49	Warner	64
50	Voinovich	56
51	Collins	48
52	Spector	43
53	Snowe	36

But wait say the McCain fans there are lots of Senators above him with the same scores.  That's true.  So let's lump those with tied scores together to "even the playing field".  Again, MCain comes out wanting ranked 16th out of 21.(BTW: Kyl would be ranked 3rd out of that field of 21)

I got into an online "debate" with a Ron Paul cultist when I asked why they had picked a terrorist traitor loser like Guy Fawkes as their symbol for Ron Paul this last fall.

In the course of that exchange I discovered that Ron Paul-bots learn their history from comic books and fantasy movies!  The really depressing thing is that this particular Ron Paul-bot is a former State Legislator in in my State.  The upside is that they are "former".

They derive their Guy Fawkes faciniation from the movie "V" which is a screen "adaptation" of a comic book!

V for Vendetta was a fantasy comic book. By the way the character “V” is an “anarchist revolutionary” that wears a Guy Fawkes mask.  I think anarchist revolutionary is a good definition for a Terrorist. Don’t you?

So are they saying that Ron Paul (or his supporters) using the “mask” of Guy Fawkes to raise money are doing so in the name of Anarchy?

They are believing a movie adaptation based on a comic book.  That is scary to think these people want to run anything.

—————-

Alan Moore (author of the comic book), however, distanced himself from the film, as he has with every screen adaptation of his works to date. He ended cooperation with his publisher, DC Comics, after its corporate parent, Warner Bros., failed to retract statements about Moore’s supposed endorsement of the movie. After reading the script, Moore remarked:

“[The movie] has been “turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country It’s a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neoconservatives?which is not what the comic V for Vendetta was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about England.”

He later adds that if the Wachowskis had wanted to protest what was going on in the United States, then they should have used a political narrative that spoke directly at the USA’s issues, similar to what Moore had done before with Britain. The film changes the original message by arguably having changed “V” into a freedom fighter instead of an anarchist. An interview with producer Joel Silver suggests that the change may not have been conscious; he identifies the V of the graphic novel as a clear-cut “superhero” a masked avenger who pretty much saves the world,” a simplification that goes against Moore’s own statements about V’s role in the story.

In a word?  NOTHING.

I hear all the time from Ron Paul cultists that Ron Paul will do this or he will do that.  They are constantly saying to look at what Ron Paul stands for.

Well... by now most people actually following the election will have heard about Ron Paul's debacle with his newsletter(s) of +20 years.  Either he is a lying, bigoted, racist politician with beliefs on par with the David Dukes of the world or he is so far out of touch and detached with what is going on around him in his own name as to call into question his ability to lead anything.

But I went even deper into the murk and looked at his actual record of recent accomplishments.

To whit:

The simple answer is that he would be President and not King.  As President he has to play with others.  He has shown through his entire legislative career that he is incapable of doing that.  In one regard that could be viewed as a positive as he has stood for his principles. On the other hand since the world does not walk in lock step with him he has actually done very little.

Facts: Let's look at his record in Congress and take the 107 Congress as a snap shot.  Note the Republicans (Ron Paul's Party") were in control then.

Click on his House Website. http://www.house.gov/paul/legis/welcome.htm then click on the Sponsored legislation for the 107th Congress.  He sponsored 68 pieces of Legislation.  64 were "referred to committee" that means they went nowhere.  3 were overwhelming voted against: 62-364, 71-359 and 47-375.  The single piece of legislation that was passed was an amendment to not fund the ICC 264-152.  That was a great amendment to offer and to have won but it shows how ineffective he has been working with others.  Being President is all about working with others.  You are not King.

On his Co-sponsored legislation from the 107 Congress: He cosponsored 323 pieces of legislation.  Of those...
1. Passed a resolution proclaiming Mexico's importance to the US
2. Passed a resolution in support of the War on Terror
3. Recognize Ronald Reagan's birthday
4. Reduce Marriage Penalty
5. Phase out Estate Tax
6. Increase benefits for Railroad Workers
7. Permit private schools to have tuition programs not be taxed
8. Expand Child tax credit
9. Tax Relief Act
10. Expand Adoption tax credit
11. expand education IRA
12. Deduction of Interest
13. Employer provided education assistance

The other 310 pieces of legislation were either "referred" or defeated.

He might be "right" on many issues but if he can't get even a reasonable portion of what he want's passed what good is he other then to offer platitudes and rhetoric to his followers while nothing is really accomplished.

The measure of a man is what he can accomplish not just what he says he wants to accomplish.

An Election is too important a thing to be squadered away with a protest vote.

Let's look at it from the Primary Election standpoint. For the sake of argument let's limit it to three candidates.

Candidate 1 = You are totally against him winning your "Parties" nomination
Candidate 2 = You agree with some positions and disagree with others.
Candidate 3 = You LOVE everything he stands for but he is polling at 2-5% and has no hope of actually winning.

You vote for Candidate 3.  Other friends of yours also vote for Candidate 3 splitting off votes that could have gone to Candidate 2 resulting in Candidate 1 winning.

Now we move to the General Election

Party 1 = Hillary
Party 2 = Candidate 1

You had already decided that Candidate 1 would not get your vote.  There is no way that you will vote for the other Party so with an Electorate split almost 50/50 your sitting on your hands and throwing a temper tantrum results in Hillary winning.

Same thing applies if Candidate 3 runs as an "Independent" and splits off votes from Candidate 1.  Hillary wins.

That is the definition of Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I see him locking the status quo in even tighter.  As an "outsider" that earned the name Dr. No by his own "colleagues" they will have little interest in working with him since he will be unwilling (and has always legislated that way) to settle issues in a win/win fashion.  Again, legislation (just like marriage) is a give and take.

Paul's track record is to not get along and to therefore not get anything done.  That is not to say that one should rush out and abandon all principle.  It is to say that you take your victories where you can find them and work to advance your agenda.  To be plain obstinate get's you no where.

Like Ron Paul, I think that we are not fully following the Constitution?  However, the President does not rule by fiat because we live in a representative democracy.  That means we have to play with others and negotiate with them to get anything done.  Think Congress would give Ron Paul the time of day?  Nope.  If he were to go third party and somehow pull off an upset do you think the Democrats and Republicans controlling Congress would pass legislation he wants?  Nope.  Think they would override any of his vetos just for the sport of it?  Yep.  He would be a lame duck before he even took the oath of office.  Think the entrenched bureaucrats that any president has to deal with would do anything he wanted?  Not hardly.

My sister emailed me the other day asking my opinion on the FairTax.

Before the the FairTax goons swam over this and tell me that I'm wrong that the tax rate is 23% and not 30% - I DON'T CARE.  The FairTax hides the tax just the same way that the current payroll tax does.  Yes, it is printed on the store reciept but then so are your payroll taxes printed on your pay stub.  As I see the purpose of a National Sales tax it is to awaken the sleeping masses to the real cost of government.  Well leave the price of goods alone and have the merchant add the tax on exclusive like is done now.  To do it inclusive like the FairTaxers want will soon become  unseen and unfelt.  Just like the frog in the pan of water.

Hey!
What are your thoughts on this FairTax thing.  I know I’d love to see a complete overhaul and simplification of the current mess but I don’t know if this is the answer - if there is an answer that would satisfy everyone.

While I like the idea that a National Sales tax will make people aware of the real cost of government as opposed to it being hidden in employment taxes, etc…  The “FairTax” is anything but “Fair. Consider just a few items…

They claim that it will do away with the IRS and get rid of tax loopholes.  Sure the IRS will go away because you won’t be sending in a 1040.  However every business in the US will now become Uncle Sam’s "unpaid" tax collector and we have to collect, report and send that money somewhere and if we don’t the newly renamed IRS will come after the business that doesn't send in the Sales Tax,

Now as to the Sales Tax.  The proponents keep saying that it is 23%  But when you find out that the tax on a $100 purchase will be $29.XX that says that the sales tax is really almost 30%.  (Again I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR about inclusive rather than exclusive and the embedded taxes not being there.)  The price on the good "should" be the cost of the item.  The Sales tax "should" be added to the item when it is purchased and not before.

FairTaxers should actually want the tax to be exclusive.  They kep saying the the cost of goods will go down so that the end result wil be that neutral.  Well, if true, keeping the tax exclusive could mean that the cost of  gallon of milk will drop from the curent advertised price of $3.00 to say $2.34.  Then when the tax is added back on at check out it would again be $3.00 and the consumer would what the cost of government was for that transaction.

Of course the proponents point out that the “poor” and “middle-class” will get a monthly pre-bate check to cover the sales tax that would be spent on things like butter, milk, eggs and #2 school pencils (etc…).  but since there is no IRS to determine who is poor or middle-class that means that every household in the US will be getting these monthly “checks” from the government.  Instead of just welfare recipients waiting by their mailboxes for their monthly government check we will have most of America on the “dole”.  Talk about making a new dependency class!  There are 301 millions people in the US (give or take) according to the latest Census estimate.  Now these checks will go to every “Household”, so you have to report somehow if you are single, married, how many kids, etc… so that the Government knows how big of a check to send you each month to cover the tax on the staples of life as determined by some Civil Servant.

You’re not filling out a 1040 but you are filling out forms.  And you have to mail those forms in and somebody has to process them.

So, who is going to receive all that mail and send out 200 million checks every month (the postal service and the paper companies will be happy)?  A renamed IRS that’s who.  Talk about rearranging the deck chairs.  Maybe the new entity could be named SRI (for Screwing Residents Individually).  Plus out of those 200 million checks that will get mailed out the US Postal Service is bound to lose at least a few each month.  So now you have to call the Federal Government to put in a request to replace your missing pre-bate check.  How long will that take?  Certainly longer then the tim before your next trip to the Grocery Store or the Gas Station.  Just what I want to do call up an entity like Motor Vehicle and expect prompt customer Service.

They also claim that it will do away with the death tax and taxes on investments.  I like the doing away with the death tax.  If I make the money and I paid taxes on it while earning it why should the government tax it again when I die.  They have already been taxing it when it was earning interest.  How many times did each of my dollars get taxed by the time I die?

But I am in favor of taxing investments.  Not onerously else there is not an incentive to save.   But if I work I get taxed and if my money is working for me earning more money I think it should be taxed too.  Let’s pick on Paris Hilton.  She inherits her money from Grandpa (although it sounds like Grandpa is tring to buy his way into Heaven by giving most of his away to Charity rather then let Paris get her hands on it) or Dad.  No tax.  The money she inherited is now sitting in various investments.  No tax on investments means she lives for free (yeah, she pays a sales tax when she buys a fendi purse or a bottle of booze) and enjoys the benefits of Society.  Nope that does not work for me.  Not as a matter of class envy but just as a matter of common sense.

Now let’s look at a typical trip to the Grocery Store.  I’m sure when you are there now you see the person in front of you in line that can stretch their dollar with coupons and smart shopping to not buy the “junk” and the person behind you will be loading the cart up with chips and pop, etc…  Given that the “Government” will be making up the rules  on what is the monthly pre-bate” think the dollar number will be geared to the frugal shopper or the spendthrift?

How soon until we see news reports of a family unable to afford the cost of groceries due to the high tax and the pre-bate not covering their spending.  Then the calls to increase the pre-bate which is know an entitlement.

The law as written limits the “Prebates” to legal residents.  How soon after it is enacted would we hear the cry that it is not fair to the “illegals” living in the shadows and demand that they be included since they are “contributing" too.

Again like I said above the pre-bates are really a method for creating a whole new dependancy class.  Rather then the current lower income welfare reciepts waiting at the mailbox for their monthly check we will have all of middle-class America standing out curbside waiting for the check too.

Then of course the pre-bates will become political.  The Whores in Washington will use them to buy off whole segments of society.  Let's raise the pre-bate because it's not fair that the tax on a new plasma TV, computer, etc... is to high and only the wealthy can afford them.

One of the FairTaxers arguments is that the Sales tax will bring untaxed money into the taxed realm since people like Drug Dealers don't pay an income tax in the first place.  The Sales tax is actually a benefit for the Drug Dealer.

Under the current system the Drug Dealer has to hide his income so that the IRS does not come after him.  Why did Al Capone go to jail?  Murder?  Robbery?  Nope.  Tax Evasion.

Without the Income Tax reporting the Drug Dealer does not have to hide his money.  He can spend it how he wants.  If he makes $5 mil what is he going to care about paying a sales tax when he does not have to worry about the conspicuous consumption raising flags based on his reported income.

Paying a Sales Tax is a lower cost of doing business then facing the IRS.

Plus doesn't this argument about Taxing Drug Dealers violate the concept of Reagan Supply Side economics?  The Drug Dealer is hiding his money by not reporting it.  So?  He is still going to spend the money. He needs the Hummer with the 22" rims, etc...  So he is spending the money anyway (it's not like he is living a lifestyle that lends itself to saving for old age retirement) which puts that money into the economy buying goods and services which generate jobs and production in the honest segments of society.

Then there is the issue of the retired or nearly retired.  They worked their whole life, earned their money and paid income taxes on what they and their investments earned.  Now the FairTaxers are going to hit these same people again (now living on fixed incomes) by taxing their money when they want to spend the money they arned over a lifetime?  Are they kidding?  How is that fair?

I could go on and on about how stupid and populist (but I repeat myself) the FairTax is.  The "concept" is good but the discussed implementation is flawed and full of unintended consequences which in the end will not reduce the size of governemnt nor it's appetite for it's citizens money.

The IRS needs to be overhauled to get rid of loopholes and complexity.  But that said the current system is far more “fair” then will be a regressive sales tax.  Plus, unless we repealed the 16th Amendment and replaced it with a new Amendment that tighten up the language in Constitution to prohibit an income based tax the Politicians in their lust for every more money they would figure a way to tap that too at some point.

The real issue is not how "we" collect money from ourselves to pay for our government, rather the issue is how and what we spend the money that we do collect, regardless of mechanism.  Do we "really" need to pay for many of the items that we give ourselves?