Featured BlogsRss It's time to open up the GOP race, Bush41 criticism shows McCain campaign is out of touch, MEMO TO CONSERVATIVES: THE FIGHT IS JUST BEGINNING, …
Richard Viguerie praises McCain for embrace of 'deficit hawk' David Walker, Viguerie: Conservatives are watching VP choice, Washington politicians are again covering up the true size of the federal deficit
Latest News!Written By Comment Count Comment Last Three September 02, 2010
CHQ Staff
Slaying Leviathan Mark Fitzgibbons I’ve been meaning to write my own review of Leslie Carbone’s excellent book, Slaying Leviathan, published by Potomac Books, Inc. Forcing people to make tax-based decisions in place of market-based decisions -- or other freedom-based decisions -- is one way government controls freedom. My background includes working in tax law, and I saw this firsthand. Tax law can be pretty boring, but it invades nearly every aspect of our lives. Did you know conservative champion and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is a tax lawyer? My friend and friend of CHQ, Leslie Carbone, is a tax policy expert in addition to being an outstanding writer. Slaying Leviathan provides an historic, constitutional perspective about tax laws and policies that is a pure joy to read – plus it’ll make your blood boil. Below is a review, printed with permission, from Dollars & Sense, The Newsletter of The National Taxpayers Union, Summer 2010, page 12, and it’s essentially the same type of review I’d write. Those who seek freedom would do well to buy and read Leslie’s book. THE DECENT THING TO DO Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform by Leslie Carbone, Potomac Books, 2009 REVIEWED BY STEVE OSLICA YOU’D THINK IT’D BE pretty difficult to condense 240-or-so years of history down into just 163 pages. Especially when you’re recapping those 240-or-so years twice. But in Slaying Leviathan, Leslie Carbone pulls it off. She first summarizes tax policy – and Americans’ reactions to it – from the colonial period to the present day. She then goes back and does the same for spending policy, even devoting a chapter, albeit a short one, to the 2008 financial bailouts. By tracing the historical roots of tax and spending policies, Carbone makes an effective and convincing argument that some kind of reset button needs to be pushed to get the country back on a sustainable track. She looks at the Founders’ original intentions for the role of the federal government and lays out several options for what could be done to get back to that model. Her thesis, though, is different from most tax policy books. There have been plenty of books written on the basis of economic or political reasoning behind tax reform, but Carbone takes the approach of looking at taxation from a moral point of view. She examines how tax and spending policies affect people’s behavior and attitudes. Her main argument is that over time, as different means of taxation were introduced and later increased, the government’s revenues steadily increased as well, leading to more spending and entitlement programs outside the scope of the Constitution. The government, she believes, also lost a sense of overall fiscal vision and has turned to a piecemeal approach to taxation that has made the system burdensome, confusing, and ineffective. These developments have led, she argues, to many of the ills that plague society today. Another interesting argument she makes throughout the book is that because the Constitution both grants and restricts the powers of the federal government, it is rendered impotent if the government ignores the restrictions because that makes the powers it is granted worth ignoring too. This argument is important as she examines the historical debates over taxation and what was constitutional and what wasn’t. It also becomes important later as she examines the growth of government spending and power, especially after the Great Depression. Since then, she says, the idea that government should encourage or discourage certain behaviors has become generally accepted in Washington, and the prime means of carrying out that mission is through tax policy. Some policies are meant to keep people from cheating the system, others to encourage people to save money, others to discourage joblessness and poverty. But Carbone argues that there is a distinct lack of overall vision when it comes to tax policy and what purpose it should serve. Thus, the piecemeal way in which the government has gone about creating tax policy has actually hurt the government’s ability to influence society by creating a set of rules that is so large, so complex and so contradictory to itself that it is unable to do any of the things it was meant to do – except, of course, raise revenue to fuel the entitlement machine. For example, Carbone discusses the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) at length. The AMT was meant to keep wealthy people from cheating on their taxes and ensure fairness in the system. However, in practice it has both encouraged people to find ways around paying the AMT and encroached on the middle class because it has no built-in safeguards for inflation or other cost-of-living increases. Contradictions like this erode the credibility of government and keep it from performing its legitimate functions, she argues. Carbone lays out several ways in which the United States’ tax policy could be reformed to make it simpler, fairer, and more restrained. She lays out arguments for and against the FairTax national sales tax proposal and a flat income tax. Based on historical precedent and common-sense logic, she argues that reforms like those would provide a much more sustainable system of revenue collection for the federal government. Her real triumph, though, is in arguing that it’s not just the system that needs overhaul, but also the vision behind it. By looking at the big picture of all the effects tax policy has on our society and our culture, Congress could make much more common-sense determinations of what needs to be done fiscally for the country and set better goals and benchmarks – and return government to the constitutional restraints it was meant to have all along. « Steve Oslica was NTU’s Government Affairs and Communications Intern for 2009.Slaying Leviathan Mark Fitzgibbons I’ve been meaning to write my own review of Leslie Carbone’s excellent book, Slaying Leviathan, published by Potomac Books, Inc. Forcing people to make tax-based decisions in place of market-based decisions -- or other freedom-based decisions -- is one way government controls freedom. My background includes working in tax law, and I saw this firsthand. Tax law can be pretty boring, but it invades nearly every aspect of our lives. Did you know conservative champion and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is a tax lawyer? My friend and friend of CHQ, Leslie Carbone, is a tax policy expert in addition to being an outstanding writer. Slaying Leviathan provides an historic, constitutional perspective about tax laws and policies that is a pure joy to read – plus it’ll make your blood boil. Below is a review, printed with permission, from Dollars & Sense, The Newsletter of The National Taxpayers Union, Summer 2010, page 12, and it’s essentially the same type of review I’d write. Those who seek freedom would do well to buy and read Leslie’s book. THE DECENT THING TO DO Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform by Leslie Carbone, Potomac Books, 2009 REVIEWED BY STEVE OSLICA YOU’D THINK IT’D BE pretty difficult to condense 240-or-so years of history down into just 163 pages. Especially when you’re recapping those 240-or-so years twice. But in Slaying Leviathan, Leslie Carbone pulls it off. She first summarizes tax policy – and Americans’ reactions to it – from the colonial period to the present day. She then goes back and does the same for spending policy, even devoting a chapter, albeit a short one, to the 2008 financial bailouts. By tracing the historical roots of tax and spending policies, Carbone makes an effective and convincing argument that some kind of reset button needs to be pushed to get the country back on a sustainable track. She looks at the Founders’ original intentions for the role of the federal government and lays out several options for what could be done to get back to that model. Her thesis, though, is different from most tax policy books. There have been plenty of books written on the basis of economic or political reasoning behind tax reform, but Carbone takes the approach of looking at taxation from a moral point of view. She examines how tax and spending policies affect people’s behavior and attitudes. Her main argument is that over time, as different means of taxation were introduced and later increased, the government’s revenues steadily increased as well, leading to more spending and entitlement programs outside the scope of the Constitution. The government, she believes, also lost a sense of overall fiscal vision and has turned to a piecemeal approach to taxation that has made the system burdensome, confusing, and ineffective. These developments have led, she argues, to many of the ills that plague society today. Another interesting argument she makes throughout the book is that because the Constitution both grants and restricts the powers of the federal government, it is rendered impotent if the government ignores the restrictions because that makes the powers it is granted worth ignoring too. This argument is important as she examines the historical debates over taxation and what was constitutional and what wasn’t. It also becomes important later as she examines the growth of government spending and power, especially after the Great Depression. Since then, she says, the idea that government should encourage or discourage certain behaviors has become generally accepted in Washington, and the prime means of carrying out that mission is through tax policy. Some policies are meant to keep people from cheating the system, others to encourage people to save money, others to discourage joblessness and poverty. But Carbone argues that there is a distinct lack of overall vision when it comes to tax policy and what purpose it should serve. Thus, the piecemeal way in which the government has gone about creating tax policy has actually hurt the government’s ability to influence society by creating a set of rules that is so large, so complex and so contradictory to itself that it is unable to do any of the things it was meant to do – except, of course, raise revenue to fuel the entitlement machine. For example, Carbone discusses the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) at length. The AMT was meant to keep wealthy people from cheating on their taxes and ensure fairness in the system. However, in practice it has both encouraged people to find ways around paying the AMT and encroached on the middle class because it has no built-in safeguards for inflation or other cost-of-living increases. Contradictions like this erode the credibility of government and keep it from performing its legitimate functions, she argues. Carbone lays out several ways in which the United States’ tax policy could be reformed to make it simpler, fairer, and more restrained. She lays out arguments for and against the FairTax national sales tax proposal and a flat income tax. Based on historical precedent and common-sense logic, she argues that reforms like those would provide a much more sustainable system of revenue collection for the federal government. Her real triumph, though, is in arguing that it’s not just the system that needs overhaul, but also the vision behind it. By looking at the big picture of all the effects tax policy has on our society and our culture, Congress could make much more common-sense determinations of what needs to be done fiscally for the country and set better goals and benchmarks – and return government to the constitutional restraints it was meant to have all along. « Steve Oslica was NTU’s Government Affairs and Communications Intern for 2009.Leslie Carbone
1
August 12, 2010
CHQ Staff
by Art Kelly
• Since the mid-1980s, Social Security has been running big surpluses. More money was collected in payroll taxes each year than was being paid out in benefits. These surpluses were used to fund the general operations of the federal government. • In turn, the U.S. Treasury gave the Social Security Trust Fund special-issue, non-negotiable IOUs. These are NOT the same kind of bonds held by banks, foreign governments, and the public. They are stored in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, West Virginia. • In Fiscal Year 2009 alone, $137.297 Billion was “borrowed” from Social Security and spent on other federal programs. (The old age & survivors program had a $145.759 Billion surplus, but the disability program ran an $8.462 Billion deficit.) • In Fiscal Year 2010, the payroll tax will NOT take in enough money to pay out in benefits. The Treasury will have to make up from general revenue the $41 Billion shortfall. The Social Security Trustees project another shortfall in 2011 and then small surpluses in 2012 through 2014. • At the end of July 2010, the federal government owed the Social Security Trust Fund (old age & survivors and disability) more than $2.602 Trillion (The exact amount is $2,602,415,000,000.) • Raiding the Trust Fund also distorts the annual federal budget by improperly counting as income the money borrowed from Social Security through the use of an accounting trick called the “unified budget.” For instance, in Fiscal Year 2009, the federal deficit was officially $1.417 Trillion, but that did NOT include $137.297 Billion net borrowing from Social Security. The actual deficit was $1.554 Trillion. (In a double reverse in accounting procedures, the cumulative $2.602 Trillion borrowed from Social Security IS counted as part of the $13.238 Trillion total national debt.) • The crisis begins by 2015--and possibly a lot sooner--when the amount collected in payroll taxes will permanently NOT be enough to pay full Social Security benefits. Instead of real assets on which to draw, the Trust Fund will contain only meaningless IOUs from the government to itself. • If the raid of Social Security continues unabated until 2015, by then the amount owed the Trust Fund will be between $3.143 Trillion and $3.487 Trillion, depending on the economy (in current dollars). • No one has any idea how this money can be repaid. There will have to be some painful combination of reductions in Social Security benefits, tax hikes, cuts in other federal programs, and increases in the public debt. • Two important bills have been introduced to combat the raid of the Social Security Trust Fund. • The Social Security Preservation Act, HR 219, by Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) and 18 cosponsors, to require the Trust Fund to contain real assets, such as certificates of deposit in FDIC-insured institutions. • The Savings for Seniors Act, HR 1712, by Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and 22 cosponsors, to require Social Security surpluses to be saved in a special account and not spent on the general operations of federal government. • No equivalent bills have yet been introduced in the Senate. • It is critical that the Social Security Trust Fund stop being used as a slush fund! (Kelly has served on the staffs of three seniors organizations and the White House Conference on Aging.) by Art Kelly
• Since the mid-1980s, Social Security has been running big surpluses. More money was collected in payroll taxes each year than was being paid out in benefits. These surpluses were used to fund the general operations of the federal government. • In turn, the U.S. Treasury gave the Social Security Trust Fund special-issue, non-negotiable IOUs. These are NOT the same kind of bonds held by banks, foreign governments, and the public. They are stored in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, West Virginia. • In Fiscal Year 2009 alone, $137.297 Billion was “borrowed” from Social Security and spent on other federal programs. (The old age & survivors program had a $145.759 Billion surplus, but the disability program ran an $8.462 Billion deficit.) • In Fiscal Year 2010, the payroll tax will NOT take in enough money to pay out in benefits. The Treasury will have to make up from general revenue the $41 Billion shortfall. The Social Security Trustees project another shortfall in 2011 and then small surpluses in 2012 through 2014. • At the end of July 2010, the federal government owed the Social Security Trust Fund (old age & survivors and disability) more than $2.602 Trillion (The exact amount is $2,602,415,000,000.) • Raiding the Trust Fund also distorts the annual federal budget by improperly counting as income the money borrowed from Social Security through the use of an accounting trick called the “unified budget.” For instance, in Fiscal Year 2009, the federal deficit was officially $1.417 Trillion, but that did NOT include $137.297 Billion net borrowing from Social Security. The actual deficit was $1.554 Trillion. (In a double reverse in accounting procedures, the cumulative $2.602 Trillion borrowed from Social Security IS counted as part of the $13.238 Trillion total national debt.) • The crisis begins by 2015--and possibly a lot sooner--when the amount collected in payroll taxes will permanently NOT be enough to pay full Social Security benefits. Instead of real assets on which to draw, the Trust Fund will contain only meaningless IOUs from the government to itself. • If the raid of Social Security continues unabated until 2015, by then the amount owed the Trust Fund will be between $3.143 Trillion and $3.487 Trillion, depending on the economy (in current dollars). • No one has any idea how this money can be repaid. There will have to be some painful combination of reductions in Social Security benefits, tax hikes, cuts in other federal programs, and increases in the public debt. • Two important bills have been introduced to combat the raid of the Social Security Trust Fund. • The Social Security Preservation Act, HR 219, by Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) and 18 cosponsors, to require the Trust Fund to contain real assets, such as certificates of deposit in FDIC-insured institutions. • The Savings for Seniors Act, HR 1712, by Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and 22 cosponsors, to require Social Security surpluses to be saved in a special account and not spent on the general operations of federal government. • No equivalent bills have yet been introduced in the Senate. • It is critical that the Social Security Trust Fund stop being used as a slush fund! (Kelly has served on the staffs of three seniors organizations and the White House Conference on Aging.) The Obama Timeline author, Mickey, Art Kelly
3
May 21, 2010
CHQ Staff
|
| Establishment Republican Party (ERP) The Nelson Rockefeller Building K Street Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) GET-PORC |  |
BREAKING: Establishment Republicans Break to Form New Third Party!
-- Abandoned by the grassroots, disenfranchised GOPers break ranks –
-- Crist enthused, Bennett contemplates, Specter may join! --
Washington, D.C. (May 20th 2010) – In a bold preemptive move in anticipation of Tea Partiers, conservatives, and other regular Americans taking over the Republican Party, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele today announced the Republican Party is itself forming a third party for establishment Republicans.
“Reading The Washington Post, we didn’t see it coming, but it is now evident to the professional consultants and lobbyists who have been running the Republican Party that we are about to be betrayed by the voters,” said Steele. “No establishment Republican incumbent is safe, so we decided to go the third-party route.”
“Rather than go through the grueling process of primaries where we’re losing badly, incumbent establishment Republicans see this new third party, which we’ve named the Establishment Republican Party (ERP), as the future of big government,” continued outgoing RNC Chairman Steele. “The Democrats have shown their incompetence, but many of us in the GOP can’t stomach the Tea Partiers and other grassroots conservatives, who insist we stand for something. Isn’t being against the Democrats good enough anymore?”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “I’m quite comfortable hand-picking my colleagues myself, and this Tea Party thing seems almost too impolite for this Kentucky gentleman.”
Florida Republican Governor and Independent candidate for U.S. Senate, Charlie Crist, emphatically agreed in third person. “Charlie Crist is tired of not knowing from day to day what he should stand for or whose campaign money to take. It sounds like ERP was made just for Charlie Crist, and Charlie Crist certainly likes that.”
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter was quick to comment after his defeat in the Democratic primary. “People outside the Beltway don’t appreciate how difficult it is for repeat party switchers like me to live up to the standards of any political party, which is why I welcome ERP for a second – no, third chance.”
Reaction from Wall Street was immediate, as the Street began pumping money into ERP to begin balancing out its donations to Democrats. “Crony capitalism could not survive under a principled Republican Party,” said one bank executive.
Steele marveled at his choice for the new third party logo, the porcus, saying it reflected the basic essence of ERP.
“We have a big-trough porcine philosophy,” said Steele. “Our grow-government approach is slower than the Democrats, but that doesn’t mean our candidates have principles. We believe in compassionate crony capitalism, compassionate constitutionalism, compassionate bipartisanship, and compassionate establishmentarianism. Our motto should be ‘compassion trumps principle every day.’ Maybe one of the consultants can work that into our next fundraising ad.”
###
- OMG LOL
- Isn't it just like Barack Hussein Obama always trying to cover up his mistakes, this time he is covering up his dunce cap!
Talk about out of touch.
The only thing that is not going anywhere is Schwarzegger's failed political career.
Earlier this month, RINO California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (you know, the guy who's helped drive his own state to the edge of bankruptcy) told Fox News's Greta Van Susteren that the tea party movement "is not going anywhere".
Talk about out of touch.
The only thing that is not going anywhere is Schwarzegger's failed political career.
You can watch the full speech on the February 27 webcast of Leadership Tea Party. Click here to sign up:
You can watch the full speech on the February 27 webcast of Leadership Tea Party. Click here to sign up:
