Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Ed Feulner :: Townhall.com Columnist
Taxes: Keep the Cuts
by Ed Feulner
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


         The fifth anniversary is traditionally the “wood” one. But this year, instead of getting another knick-knack, millions of Americans are celebrating a fifth anniversary with paper. Paper money, that is -- and more of it.

        That’s because our country just marked the fifth year of the 2003 tax cuts.

        Five years ago, Congress and the president agreed to accelerate the key provisions of the 2001 tax act that:

  • Doubled the child tax credit to $1,000 per child.
  • Fixed the “marriage penalty” -- that quirk of the tax code that forced couples filing jointly to pay more that singles filing separately.  
  • Expanded the earned-income credit for married joint filers.
  • Created a 10 percent tax bracket for low-income taxpayers.
  • Reduced marginal tax rates across the board.

         The 2003 tax bill also slashed the top capital-gains tax rate from 20 to 15 percent and cut the tax rate on dividends from as high as 39.6 percent to 15 percent.

         These cuts gave people an incentive to work, save and invest. The results have been impressive.

         Although the media harps on our current economic woes, it’s important to note that with the tax cuts in place, the economy started growing almost immediately, adding jobs every month from August 2003 until January of this year. More than 8 million new jobs were created during those years, keeping unemployment low and providing steady growth (economic growth rates have more than doubled) for the overall economy.

        Without the cuts, the White House estimates Americans would have paid an additional $1.3 trillion in taxes by the end of last year.

        Ironically, these cuts also tilted our tax system so the rich shoulder a bigger share of the total tax burden. According to IRS statistics, the top 5 percent of income earners paid more than half (59.7 percent) of all income taxes in 2005. That’s the highest percentage since the government started keeping track in the mid-1980s.

        Meanwhile, tax revenues have been rising. In 2003, federal revenues equaled 16.1 percent of our economy. Two years later, that percentage had climbed to 17.4 -- then to 18.6 the following year. Instead of starving our government of funds, the correct type of tax cuts have stimulated growth and thus increased overall tax revenue.

        There’s still more to do, of course. After the capital-gains rate was cut in 2003, capital gains tax revenues doubled. Lawmakers should consider just eliminating this tax, which amounts to an unfair form of double taxation.

        Unfortunately, the prevailing political winds are blowing the other way. Consider an environmental measure, sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va., that lawmakers plan to take up this month.

        Its backers portray it as a way to combat global warming, but it’s really just a massive tax hike. The goal is to increase the cost of energy, so people will be forced to use less of it. In short, it would hit every American right in the wallet.

        Recently, The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis (CDA) projected the economic costs of the “Lieberman-Warner” bill. Under it, our country would lose some 500,000 jobs per year, eventually wiping out all the gains from the 2003 tax cut.

        At the same time, the Heritage study found, the average household will pay $467 more each year for its natural gas and electricity (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars). That’s the equivalent of a couple weeks’ worth of groceries -- gone.

        With the economy slowing and politicians nervous about unemployment numbers, it makes little sense to even talk about hiking taxes and slowing growth. 

        Instead, lawmakers should celebrate this anniversary by locking in the benefits of the 2003 tax cuts. They should make them permanent. (They’re set to expire starting in 2011.) That’s the surest way to guarantee many happy returns.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dr. Edwin Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation, a Townhall.com Gold Partner, and co-author of Getting America Right: The True Conservative Values Our Nation Needs Today .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ed Feulner's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
8 Million New Jobs!
"adding jobs every month from August 2003 until January of this year. More than 8 million new jobs were created during those years, keeping unemployment low and providing steady growth"

Of course, that's about 150,000 per month, slightly less than the number of new job-seekers.

During an equivalent period, the Clinton administration added 22.5 million new jobs.

"According to IRS statistics, the top 5 percent of income earners paid more than half (59.7 percent) of all income taxes in 2005."

And yet, strangely, they have about 65 percent of all the wealth.

But I'm sure that everybody knows in their heart that prosperity is sweeping the nation.

inconsistency?
I liked the article. I'm interested in how the following statements can both be true, though:

"Without the cuts, the White House estimates Americans would have paid an additional $1.3 trillion in taxes by the end of last year."

and

"...Meanwhile, tax revenues have been rising... Instead of starving our government of funds, the correct type of tax cuts have stimulated growth and thus increased overall tax revenue."

Response to chris
The answer is supply side economics.

Here is the theory in a nutshell:

Tax cuts = Additional money in possession of Taxpayers = Increased investment, savings, consumption = Larger economy (by providing increased value upon that money)

A larger economy results in more revenue despite the fact that the government's % of it has shrunk. Basically it's a smaller slice of a much larger pie.

The argument against this is based upon an unfortunate liberal assumption: Increasing taxes has no effect on the growth of the economy.

In truth however, one only needs to reverse the above formula to witness the effects:
Higher taxes= Less money in taxpayer hands= Decreased investment, savings, consumption= weaker economy.

The only reason to follow this line of logic is to give the government a larger role in the economy. This is why (traditionally anyway) liberals favor tax increases rather than tax breaks. They want the government to have more control over the free market economy.

Laffer Curve
Ope - Thanks.

I'm familiar with the Laffer Curve. Bush's tax cuts, like JFK's and Reagan's, demonstrate it nicely.

I think the "would have paid an additional $1.3T" quote is incorrect though - if revenues rose, we must have paid that and more, even if we paid it from a larger pool of wealth.

So maybe we are $1.3 trillion more wealthy than we would have been without the cuts. But we can't have paid $1.3 trillion less than we would have paid, yet increased tax revenues at the same time.

Or am I missing something?

FairTax
Taxes are always a punishment for success. Income taxes, taxes on savings, taxes on corporations, etc, have the effect of attenuating the behavior that would raise income, raise savings raise corporate profits. The FairTax eliminates all the taxes including Social Security, payroll, death tax, corporate taxes, etc and replaces them with a sales tax. No taxes on used items. All people with a SocSec number will receive a monthly "prebate" check to cover the sales tax paid on new purchases up to the poverty level. The effect is to completely UNTAX the poorest people and to tax the more lavish spending habits of the wealthy.
This system is less regressive than what we have now. It also frees up capital to be used to expand the economy. The USA will be the largest tax haven in the world.

Something called debt?
GM.
There are two things that need to be done. Forget about extending the tax cuts and cut spending. China is buying us by financing our debt. At some point they are going to call it.
Also, one can't keep spending borrowed money like there is no tomorrow. OOOOOOps. IF we keep doing that, there will be a dark tomorrow.

Make Them Permanent!
If temporary tax cuts with a defined expiration date caused this much benefit, imagine how much more benefit per buck permanent tax rate reductions %/or elimination of minefield gimmick taxes would have. Investments are made based on expectation, & an expectation of permanent low taxes v. a trap snapping shut on some date will be far more motivating.

Deficits? Deficits are caused by spending. Don't like deficits? then cut spending! The Dems played this game w/ deficits in the late 80's/early '90's (bushwacking "Read My Lips" GHW Bush), then when Waco Willie & the 1994 GOP Congress came in, some Dems warned that they need to quit talking about deficits, or the focus will be on spending less, thus disempowering them. (I wish!)

Glad to see Ed pointed out what an economic nuke the "global warming" dogma is, & how it would make tax cuts moot. Simple cure for "global warming": make them PROVE it before passing one tax or restriction. Bush the Spineless should have called the greenies' 'polar bear' bluff & MADE them sue: scientists would have been forced to testify & be x-exam'd under oath, & data, analyses, & models examined under rules of evidence.


FACTS ABOUT THE BUSH TAX CUTS:
• Through 2008, the federal government has borrowed $1.6 Trillion to pay for the Bush tax cuts.
• Even the Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors said he “would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.”
• The tax cuts are heavily tilted to the wealthiest Americans. In 2007, one third of the total benefits of the tax cuts went to the top one percent of households.
• Approximately 20 percent of total benefits went to 0.3 percent of households earning $1 million or more per year. These households received an average tax cut 103 times larger than that of middle income households.
• Investment and economic growth in this business cycle have been lower than average, indicating that the tax cuts have not had strong economic effects.

IF THEY WERE MADE PERMANENT:
• Making the cuts permanent would cost the federal government an additional $3.4 Trillion over the next decade, if they were funded by borrowing.
• Permanent tax cuts would create revenue losses over three times larger than the long-term Social Security funding gap. The windfall received by the top one percent of taxpayers alone would be sufficient to close the Social Security funding gap through 2075.
• Using optimistic assumptions, the Administration’s estimates of the possible long-term economic benefits of the tax cuts find that they would boost economic growth by a negligible four one-hundredths of one percent per year. These long-term growth benefits would only occur if tax cuts are funded through reductions in Federal spending.
• If tax cuts were funded by spending cuts, they would actually reduce net after-tax income for almost 75 percent of American households, while income among households earning $1 million per year or more would increase by almost 8 percent.

Bob Munck
If you don't think you're paying enough taxes, why don't you volunteer to pay more?

Basis or Justification?
Yes, Laffer DOES show that less tax is economically good for government as well as citizens. Problem is: Only wonks really care about this stuff.

FACT #1: Politicians are more interested in a bigger piece of a smaller pie because they primarily want POWER over even revenue.

FACT #2: The main philosophy of America is FREEDOM from taxation and other oppression.

Deficits and debts
A big reason why the U.S. dollar keeps declining, is our spiraling debt.

As Reagan himself pointed out in the 1980s, a declining dollar is a huge hidden tax on all Americans, especially in a global economy where so many of our goods like food and fuel are imported.

The GOP playbook has always been to cut taxes first, and use that as leverage to force government spending cuts.

But it has NEVER worked. We never got those spending cuts. Not under Reagan. Not under Gingrich. As soon as anyone tries it, there's a furious reaction and pushback.

So what the GOP has done in practice, is to replace the Democrats "tax and spend" policies with new "borrow and spend" policies.

So here's my proposal: The tax cuts should be made permanent ONLY ON CONDITION that the Federal budget deficit be closed first. If the GOP can figure out how to cut $400 billion a year from the Federal budget, then by all means, let's keep the tax cuts. Otherwise not.

OBAMA--RACE HUSTLER
OBAMA--GIVE AWAY PROGRAMS--TAX-TAX-TAX

Obama is just another Race Hustler. He may present a 'kinder-gentler' version to the TV cameras, but a Race Hustler all the same. The difference in this Big Time Race Hustler though, that separates him from those who are out there and have been out there, such as Jesse Jackson, Farakhan, Sharpton, his Pastor, Rev. Wright, and tohers is that OBAMA is trying to Hustle His Way Into The White House. Americans, black and white, better open their eyes and minds and start Voting with Their Minds and not on Skin color. Anyother candidate with Obama's equal credentials would not even be in this conversation right now. He is there because the Race Hustling Media with Media stars such as another Race Hustler, Oprah Winfrey hustling him on that idiotic program of hers. Wake Up America--Don't vote for this Dangerous Idiot.

jerome ennis in Alabama

tax reform
We the people pay all taxes, and we are the sole ultimate source of all tax revenue. Regardless where government initially collects the money, all tax money ultimately comes from us, the people, even though business has to pay thousands or millions of dollars at one time, and get it back from us one dollar at a time.
Since we the people are the one and only source of all tax revenue:
There should be only one tax to collect all tax revenue.
It should be a single, simple, fair, direct, graduated, individual, full-income tax levied on living persons for each level of government: One Tax and Done.
The best thing that government can do to help the country, the people, and even government, is to repeal all of the many hundreds, or thousands of existing taxes, fees, and charges. These taxes are the federal deficit. These taxes are the high price of everything. These tax eliminations are spending cuts. Every tax that is eliminated is a tax that we the people no longer have to pay. These taxes are the difference between the price we pay for health care and everything else, and the price we would pay if these taxes were repealed. Eliminating these taxes will remove them from the price paid for everything by everyone, including government.
One Tax and Done will provide many benefits to all, even government:
One Tax and Done will end government-caused recessions because governments would cut off their only source of tax revenue.
One Tax and Done will stop reductions in tax revenue because people reduced their use of water, sewage, and other governmental services.
One Tax and Done will reduce the price paid for everything by one-third.

I have a better Idea Ed.
For every job that is set at or below minimum wage level and no benefits, not a dime should be collected in income taxes, and SS payments should be a gift from their employeers, not a co-pay, not a you contribute to, but a pre paid gift from the company.
For every job shipped over seas because it is cheaper, corperation and their CEO's must fully support that worker and his family, until a new job of equal pay and benefit is secured.
For every new plant built in a foreign country, by a corperation, its products must be sold as cheaply as it is made to American Workers, I.E. a laptop built in Indonesia for $135.00 and shipped to the US, should not cost more than $337.50. Same for shoes that cost under $3.00 to make should sell for $7.50. Automobiles assembled from foreign made parts, should not be sold as American made and for less, at least 35% less.
Investors that clamor for profit over the norm and at the price of US workers must pay 80% of their investment return as tax.
CEO's that get buy outs and gold umbrella retirement packages and clauses that allow them to rape the company prior to leaving should be forced to pay a 127.5% tax rate with no deductions allowed.

Tax cuts and reforms!
The tax cuts should be reinstated not made perminant. In some cases they should be doubled for Execs with special retirement plans.
As a worker I would have gotten the old gold watch after 25 or more years, not the gold palace and not the gold plated Lamborgini.
Half of what is wrong with America today, is the wealthy fleecing the poor and hardworking class, while claiming to be doing us a favor. The other half is our government being bought by these crooks and telling us it is good for America.
What would really be good, is an old fashion linching, or a tar and feathering on a rail run them out of town. Comfiscate their assets and bare the rest to a good tanning.
Pride of a Nation has been replaced by the pride of a dollar stolen. America is not the land of one class and we shall not serve as slaves to it.
Change your act wealthy crooks or be ready for the whirlwinds of change. Your time of judgement is at hand and it is getting ugly. For we the American peoples shall endevour to percerver.

Butcher, et al: Reality
We tax “INCOME” not “WEALTH” on a progressive scale: the top 50% of INCOME EARNERS pay 96% of al INCOME TAXES. The top 10% of all wage earners pay 70% of all taxes, etc. Drop the “tax cuts for the rich” canard: I am in the top 2% of all income earners, but I drive a Honda SUV. I am hardly wealthy. I am in the top 2% because I am demonstrably more intelligent & better educated than the majority of those people not in the top 2% & I resent your collectively pathetic, pedantic envy.

Additionally, kindly separate “INCOME” taxes from “Payroll” taxes (i.e., Social Security.) Now, in addition to having to do all the HEAVY LIFTING WRT financing the daily operations of the Federal government, I’m going to be expected to pay even more money into a PONZI scheme called Social Security w/o any guarantee that I will ever be able to collect even a small portion of what I’ve paid into the system. BHO’s solution? The “progressive” Democrat’s “solution” will be to buy more votes from the “parasite class”: forget the first $15-30K in earnings and then raise the taxable income limit from $97K to $200K IOT make up the difference. This would of course place a greater tax burden on the top 50% taxpayers- most of whom are of course evil white males.

Please expect the Democrats to propose lifting the $90K ceiling on Social security taxes IOT buy even more votes from losers like you.

Munck
Thomas Sowell and others have explained the situation over and over on TH.
Where have you been?
But SteveL makes the best observation of our most dire problem.

Butcher
Sounds like a lot of bitter envy from you.
Demosthenes has it right on.

Butcher: Really?
"What would really be good, is an old fashion linching, or a tar and feathering on a rail run them out of town. Comfiscate their assets and bare the rest to a good tanning."

Really? Individual physical cowards always find courage when functioning as part of a mob.

Be very careful making such broad generalizations little man, quite of few of us are ex-military combat veterans w/ guns that we aren't afraid to employ.

Independent Thinker: Thank You
Thank you. I've dealt w/ Butcher's ilk on more than one occasion.

Bob Munck
You said : "If tax cuts were funded by spending cuts, they would actually reduce net after-tax income for almost 75 percent of American households"

You're going to have to explain that to me Bob, I must be pretty dumb. The only way that works, that I can think of, is if you count welfare, food stamps, and other handouts in that net after-tax income for almost 75% of American households. In which case it's not real income, but charity gifts.

And then you said: "...while income among households earning $1 million per year or more would increase by almost 8 percent."

Just what do you think those households will do with the 8% they would be allowed to keep? Stick it under a mattress like Silas Marner?

No, they would invest it, increase the capital of various corporations to use in expansion and hiring, they would hire someone to build them a new house, a new yacht, etc. Many people would be happy that their rich neighbor just got 8% richer, it would mean more work for them.

Butcher
You probably know the words and tune to the Internationale, don't you? You know, the phrase that goes
"E'er the thieves give up their booty
And give to all a happier lot."

Come on Comrade Butcher, don't hide your Communist Party card from us, you're among friends.

Bush's cuts DID pay for themselves
Bob Munck, your facts are bunk. You should use those higher critical brain functions before posting that - uh - stuff - you spewed in your earlier posts.

From //www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/table_6_2006_dp.xls

here are the recent total collections:

2001 2,128,831,182
2002 2,016,627,269
2003 1,952,929,045
2004 2,018,502,103
2005 2,268,895,122
2006 2,518,680,230

Funny how collections went DOWN until the cuts were passed, then BACK UP with LOWER rates. Tax cuts stimulate the economy which cause higher collections.

You write "through 2008, the federal government has borrowed $1.6 Trillion to pay for the Bush tax cuts." NO - they borrowed $1.6T to pay for Bush & GOP congress spending like drunken sailors.

That spending is what has increased our deficit, which is killing the dollor, which when combined with the impending re-instatement of higher rates is hurting our economy.

So blame our current economic situation on spending, other policy errors and the natural business cycle, but not tax cuts. Raising taxes RATES will only make it worse.


Butcher, your ideas in #15 are the kind of thing Germany and France do to increase employment, and they have exactly the opposite effect. Making employers pay all instead of half soc-sec is a meaningless shell game.

Clarification
I mentioned higher critical brain functions -

What I'm talking about is that we need to read what anyone says critically. Whoever put together Bob Munck's "facts" in #8 and #9 obviously has an axe to grind.

Charlie in #11 has his facts right - politicians - especially the liberal / socialist Democrats with careers in the beaurocracy (even in Republican administrations) could care less about collections - they want power even if it damages the country.

Bob Munck repeats their twisted version of some of the facts instead of examining for himself if they are true.

So a little critical thought and/or skepticism about anything those guys say is required.


SteveL - I agree 100% about the GOP's utter failure to control spending. But raising taxes (back to where they were or otherwise) is not going to reduce the deficit.

chris # 24
"here are the recent total collections:

2001 2,128,831,182
2002 2,016,627,269
2003 1,952,929,045
2004 2,018,502,103
2005 2,268,895,122
2006 2,518,680,230

Funny how collections went DOWN until the cuts were passed, then BACK UP with LOWER rates."

Nicely misleading. Of course, you're using total IRS collections, not just the individual income tax that we're talking about. Looking at that, and using 2001 as the baseline, we find that total collections in 2002 through 2006 are $500 billion less than they would have been if we'd stayed with the pre-cut situation.

Even using the figures you chose, we're only about $26 billion a year ahead, and that is significantly less that it should have been given population growth.

So guess what? They didn't pay for themselves, according to your figures. The IRS would have collected more if the cuts hadn't happened.

Tax Cuts?
"Even the Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors said he “would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.” - from Reply # 9

Exactly. They don't pay for themselves. We're paying for those tax cuts among many other things passed since 2003 with inflation. The real reason gas is at $4 a gallon.

causes of inflation
Inflation (and the flip-side of the same coin, a weakening dollar) is caused by borrowing due to excessive spending, not reducing the tax burden.

I repeat what I detailed in #25 - the tax cuts did pay for themselves, but we're sucking wind due to the massive growth in spending under the GOP for the last 7 years.


And Bob, from the same spreadsheet, collections in $billions, and population in millons:
Year Corp Indiv Pop
2001 187 1178 284
2002 211 1038 287
2003 194 0987 291
2004 231 0990 294
2005 307 1108 297
2006 381 1236 300
gives us $ per-capita:
2001 0657 4143
2002 0736 3610
2003 0668 3398
2004 0785 3373
2005 1013 3654
2006 1257 4079

It's the same general trend for both, except the burden is shifted somewhat from poor individuals to rich corporations. I thought that's what you wanted?

In 2003 rates went down for both individuals and corporations, and revenues, which had been going down for both, rebounded from their downward trend after rates were lowered. How is that misleading? You're comparing 2006 to 2001, when you should be comparing both to 2003 when the change was made.

If the cuts hadn't happened, I believe the economy (limping from the recession that started in 2000 and from the effects of 9-11)would have continued to falter, and revenues would have continued their trend downward. Obviously the system is far too complex to know that for sure.

The cuts paid for themselves, and for a little of the crazy spending spree the GOP's been on lately.

chris # 28
"you should be comparing both to 2003 when the change was made."

Huh? EGTRRA was in mid-2001; JGTRRA was in 2003. How in the world could you not know that and be commenting on the subject?

I notice you're still pointing out trends, not actual totals, which of course is what determines if the cuts "paid for themselves." They still didn't.

EGTRRA and JGTRRA
forgive the oversimplification.

EGTRRA was passed in mid-2001, but many of its provisions were set to take effect in 2003 or in 2006. JGTRRA accelerated the cuts originally scheduled in EGTRRA for 2006 up to 2003 (retroactively) blah blah blah.

Short story: the cuts were phased in gradually with the bulk happening in 2003.

Paying for tax cuts
The idea that tax cuts must be "paid for" is based upon the lunatic assumption that because the gubmint prints money, it is the sole creator and owner of all wealth. It's like a mugger trying to collect more welfare to compensate him for only stealing half of your money.

TAX CUTS RE.KILP & BUTCHER
WELL SAID!! (the rest of my blog is in reply to a previous columnist) Please note that our government GIVE AWAY ENOUGH OF OUR TAX DOLLARS TO WHOEVER NEEDS, BUT AMERICANS!!! so, please do not begrudge the poor and fix income folks , of whom I am one.

I work three jobs, paid taxes three times, my children have, and is still serving this country, yet they cannot get health care , but someone that is not legal in this country can get food stamps disability etc. etc ,so as judge JUDY would say please don't pee on me and tell me it is raining, I am sorry to sound off but I am sick of people talking of the poor or seniors as if they are parasites, they have work and build this country, and some have lost health care and pension that they were promise, only to see the top few (CEO) getting the cream while they receive the dregs(if they are that lucky) txa cut are given to the rich and poor pick's up the slack.



GOD SAID THAT WE SHOULD CARE FOR THE WEAK, POOR,SICK, AND NEEDY!!!! THIS GOVERNMENT REVERSE THE ORDER BY TAXING THE DOWNTRODDEN, IT IS SICK WHAT HAS BECOME OF THIS ONCE GREAT AMERICAN EAGLE!!!! IT IS EVERY MAN/WOMAN FOR THEMSELVES AND TO HELL WITH THOSE THAT HAVE SERVE THIS COUNTRY BE IT WAR OR WORKING, WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR A HAND OUT, JUST WHAT WE EARN!!!!!!!! NOW I CAN GET OFF MY SOAP BOX ,THERE!!!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.