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
Monday, February 02, 2009
Mike Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
Exhuming James Madison
by Mike Adams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



During the fall of 2000, a political science professor at my university stated, quite correctly, I think, that the Democratic and Republican parties were becoming so alike that Americans were given no real choice in a given election year. I agreed with him then and I agree with him now.

Many Republicans, myself included, voted for George W. Bush because we didn’t think it possible that he could be as fiscally irresponsible as his father, our 41st president who was replaced by a more fiscally responsible – though considerably more morally flawed – Democrat.

In 2004, after the inexcusable expansion of entitlement programs and the creation of new government offices such as the utterly unnecessary and hopelessly inefficient Department of Homeland Security, many of us voted for Bush again. We did it because we thought Bush would make decent Supreme Court choices, and we were right. We also thought he could not become more fiscally irresponsible, and we were wrong.

By the end of his second term in office, we realized we had more than just a liberal Republican president on our hands. With the help of the worst Secretary of Treasury in history we had a president who would move our country further in the direction of socialism than any Republican president in history.

Some have called George W. Bush “our Jimmy Carter.” But that is unfair to Carter whose mistakes could be remedied in a few short years. It will take decades to correct Bush’s economic mistakes and years to rebuild the Republican Party.

It will be difficult for the Republicans to recover from the damage done by the two very bad presidents – and the two very bad losing presidential candidates – we have offered voters since Ronald Reagan left office. But, if we do recover, it will happen because we followed the advice of our fourth president James Madison.

James Madison believed that a republic is best served by competing political parties, which offer constituents very different visions of governance. His successor, James Monroe did not. Our fifth president thought we should move past the notion of political parties and work together towards common goals. But after six years of widespread cooperation, the last two years of Monroe’s tenure were characterized by considerable political strife.

Anyone who believes it is both possible and desirable to abandon partisanship should explore the history of the so called Era of Good Feelings and the presidency of James Monroe. While Monroe was re-elected easily the last two years of his second term are a testament to difficultly of sustained elimination of rivalry between political parties.

In Monroe’s final years he was crippled in his efforts to get compensation for tens of thousands of dollars of debt incurred during forty years of service to America. Never finishing his memoirs his last written words were spent addressing bitter conflicts that had erupted before he left office.

But today some are saying we should try to enter into a new Era of Good Feelings characterized by bi-partisan cooperation in the name of some sort of community interest and purpose, which allegedly binds the people of the United States together.

I disagree. I believe the Republican Party should immediately redefine itself by declaring a War on Intellectual Poverty against the Obama administration. I also believe we need to drive certain people from the ranks of the Republican Party.

We should begin our purge with those responsible for frustrating the Madisonian ideal of offering the electorate a distinct choice between different parties based on different ideals. In other words, we should send our Democrats back to the Democratic Party in the hopes of creating a party that appeals to a greater number of independents. Here are some ways we can do just that:

1. Reject Bailouts. The Republican Party has shown its first signs of life in a recent vote against the Democrats’ massive stimulus package – totaling well over a trillion dollars when interest is added to expenditures. As Republicans, we must embrace the notion of ideological litmus tests. We must remove everyone from office who does not conform to our absolute rejection of government bailouts. As a party, we will not succeed until out hatred of bailouts meets or exceeds our hatred of abortion.

2. Embrace the Fair Tax. Opposing bailouts means stopping this country’s gradual drift towards socialism. But that isn’t enough. We need to actually begin moving back in the other direction. That means we are going to have to actually close down some government agencies. I look forward to the day when “Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms” is nothing more than a chain of convenience stores. But, first, we must overthrow the I.R.S. By merely making a serious effort to do so, we will win back a lot of the Reagan Democrats we lost in the Clinton era.

3. Attack Immigration. Our weakness on immigration has cost us dearly. We need to reject McCain amnesty and take a harsher stance on this issue. We refrain from doing so because we believe we will lose the Hispanic vote. But the data indicate that as we softened our stance on immigration between 2000 and 2008 we lost ground with Hispanic voters. We need to target Hispanic voters by running towards, not away from, our core principles. Hispanics are pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-business. We will win them over on those three issues alone – but only if we refuse to be side-tracked by racial identity politics.

4. Court Ron Paul Republicans. Our refusal to allow Dr. Paul a prominent speaking slot at the 2008 convention was disgraceful. We need to energize the young vote and no one can do so like Ron Paul. Some people say he’s crazy. Personally, I think everyone else in Washington is crazy. Regardless of whether he runs in 2012, we need to stop hiding this man during our conventions.

5. Embrace Greed. I bought a house four years ago. Immediately, I began to tear out old dying bushes and trees. I then planted jasmine along the back wall of the house and a big, beautiful willow tree in the middle of the yard. I put out bird feeders, which have now attracted six species of woodpeckers. But I didn’t do any of this because I love the environment. I did it to increase my property values. And it has been a successful venture. My point is that greed is not bad. It’s good for a lot of things including the environment. The next time we hear a Republican say “My friends, we need to do something about greed on Wall Street” we need to cordially ask him to leave the party.

These are just a few things we can do to start rebuilding the party – most of which are focused on our economic problems. In a future column, I’ll talk about how we need to retool our social policies in order to provide the voters with a true example of “choice.”

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Mike Adams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Will
I still am not a homosexual.

EXHUMING JAMES MADISON

I BELIEVE YOUR ARTICLE IS RIGHT ON AND KEEP TELLING IT LIKE IT IS.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS MOVED TO MUCH TO THE CENTER AND SHOULD MOVE BACK WHERE IT BELONGS.
THIS COUNTRY BASICALLY LEANS RIGHT AND ALL THESE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN WHO VOTE FOR THE STIMULUS AND OTHER RADICAL IDEAS SHOULD BE POSTED SO WE CAN GET RID OF THEM.
IF THEY KNOW THIS MAYBE THEY WILL VOTE THEIR CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES

Alike, and not Alike
True, it is beyond awful that we should have to choose between a party that is openly hostile to freedom, individual rights, and capitalism and one that merely pretends from time to time to favor them, if it doesn't threaten their standing with the newspapers.

But having two parties both dedicated to the principles on which the country was founded, and filled with people possessing the character of the Founders would not be a bad thing.

Unlikely in the extreme today, but not bad. In that sense, it would be great if both parties were very much alike and shared the same vision for America.

This country's foundation
As spelled out in the book "Founding Brothers", this nation was started by two groups of men that had opposing views about government. The Federalists felt that national identity was the most important idea for the continuation of the new union. The Dem/Rep felt that a strong central government was just going to re-create the one we had just left. The true elegence of this country is the fact that we have been able to balance these two seeming incompatable ideas without resorting to violence (except that little problem in the mid 1800s). The concept of individual freedom vs national security is far from not new, it is the very foundation of this country.

Sacrifice and volunteerism
BHO wants the folk to volunteer to sacrifice their children; wants our children to have it worse than we did; a dingy city in a dump;pestilence and despair; and a communist revolution.

Finding people with ....
a spine to do the things needed to fight the creeping socialism of the Democrat Base is the challenge. We need folks who do not wish to be DC "beautiful people", men and women not afraid to be called all the vile names the Dems are so quick to throw out, people of principle who will stand their ground and say"No More!".

Find the person whose tears up listening to the national anthem and believe in the "Shining City on the Hill", and you just may find a way out from under the Obamanation.

2000 and 2004 Elections
I voted for W in 2000 because he had been a good governor (Texas) and because I held an intense dislike for moonbat and liar Al Gore (one of the dimmest, if not the dimmest, vice-presidents in US history). I voted for W in 2004 because I held (and still hold) an intense dislike for scumbag, traitor and liar John Kerry.

You had me until...
Ron Paul!

This man truly believes we should DECREASE funding for defense and INCREASE funding for first responders! I believe we're spread too thin, by policing nearly the entire world, but talk about sticking your head in the sand... You DON'T combat bullies (terrorist) by weakening our military.

Greed again .......................
I think the concept related to acquisition and the just use of the things/wealth we acquire could be summed up in Jesus' parable of the talents. To those given much, much is expected.

We are only the Master's stewards of the talents we posses and the benefits we derive from those talents. The "Golden Rule" (love God above all and your neighbor as yourself) should be our guide when applying our talents and sharing the benefits we derive.

"Greed is good" is a poor philosophy without the parable of the talents and the Golden Rule as a guide.

Our founding fathers "got it" and many stated that our form of government would not survive if its citizens were not guided by the moral principles of our Creator.

Greed
I agree with everything Mike stated yet planned to post a comment related to his statments on Greed. However, Patrick in Post #19 said everything better than I would have noted:

Greed??
Dr. Adams,
Since greed is one of the “seven deadly sins”, on any ones list, I don’t think that is the idea you meant to convey. I think the idea you meant to convey is that it is not wrong to make a profit. It isn’t even necessarily wrong to make a lot of profit.

The thought of 18th century religious reformer and founder of the Methodist movement, John Wesley, is very helpful on this point. In his sermon on the use of money he left three instructions that are inexorably linked; 1. Make as much as you can. 2. Save as much as you can. 3. Give as much as you can. "Giving as much as you can” being the corrective that helps to insure that the “love of money” does not become the root of your own personal evil and the wedge that drives you from God.

Don Juan
I am normally a big supporter of the rough and tumble battle of ideologies in the arena of ideas. Even when those ideas are as stupidly ill-informed and as poorly expressed as I generally find yours to be, I think we all benefit by allowing the full run of them out in the public. In fact, in the 6 years or so that I have been reading Townhall, I have flagged exactly one post as offensive because I am absolutely committed to free speech. However, your puerile name calling of Mother of 4 was so over the top that I was disgusted. In addition to being every bit the libertine that your namesake was, you are a boor and pompous little internet bully. If you were half a man, you would publicly apologize and ask her forgiveness but I am certain that you lack the integrity and graciousness to do that. I intend to take what action I can by flagging every single post I see with your name on it as offensive. Automatically and without reading it. Forever.

NWO
The Bilderbergers own both parties but keep us fighting so we don't realize that they are the same. Only a third party of Americans who believe in and will fight for the Constitution will give us our America back.
They want us fighting, oh and they want fewer of us. We will all be dead or slaves unless we wake up that the two party system is one party out to control and downsize us.

Carter vs. Bush
Mike: I agree with most of your thoughts except your opinion of Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter is the dumbest human being ever to inhabit the White House and we will never recover from his idiotic mistakes. We have him to thank for Iran, large corporate farms and the mess our public education system has become.

Buckaroo Boots

Jack, that would be fun!
Pass the popcorn!

Rich D.
Careful! You'll make Will and Doug get into a lovers' quarrel!

Jack, he's embarrassed that Dr. Adams
has a successful publishing, writing, and speaking career while all he did was serve as president of a union and study emotion and arousal. Perhaps he could tell us why Dr. Adams arouses him so much and generates such negative emotions.

Dr. Douglas Dingleberry
Call Dr. Adams by his proper title, not "Adams" or "Mr. Adams."

Madison on Political Parties
From The National Gazette, January 23, 1792

In every political society, parties are unavoidable. A difference of interests, real or supposed is the most natural and fruitful source of them. The great objects should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing political equality among all. 2. By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches. 3. By the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort. 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest, at the expence of another. 5. By making one party a check on the other, so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented, nor their views accommodated.—If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism.

In all political societies, different interests and parties arise out of the nature of things, and the great art of politicians lies in making them checks and balances to each other. Let us then increase these natural distinctions by favoring an inequality of property; and let us add to them artificial distinctions, by establishing kings and nobles, and plebeians. We shall then have the more checks to oppose to each other; we shall then have the more scales and the more weights to protect and maintain the equilibrium. This is as little the voice of reason, as it is of republicanism.

From the expediency, in politics, of making natural parties, mutual checks on each other, to infer the propriety of creating artificial parties, in order to form them into mutual checks, is not less absurd than it would be in ethics, to say, that new vices ought to be promoted, where they would counteract each other, because this use may be made of existing vices.


Rebuttal of the Good Dr. Douglas
Dr. Douglas,

Despite your credentials, which I indeed hold in esteem, I am deeply concerned about your reasoning ability due to the wording of your reply:

"is still trying to constrain his tendency to smear academics and minority groups (though he does manage to attack immigrants)."

This statement is a non-argument, and therefore not ad hominem but would certainly be so in the context of one. What this is is actually the fallacy of poisoning the well. Your inability to cite where Dr. Adams *insults* immigrants, and the fact that you do not address in your argument against him after saying this at the beginning of your reply , shows a certain intellectual bankruptcy, namely, the bankruptcy of placing an uncited assertion at the front of a line in order to poison the well of Adams's assertions, then going off on an unrelated line of reasoning. Your thoughts Dr. ?

Purge the Party… Or begin Anew
We need to insist on conservative bases governing the Republican Party to restore the symbiosis between the opposition parties. The imbalance of the left is destroying the country from within. We are helping them by meeting them half way… only to find them remaining far left of the fulcrum. The see-saw leaves us up in the air.

Income Taxes or Sales Taxes
Why isn't anybody examining whether or not the federal government actually has the authority to step into a sovereign state and tax transactions wholly contained within the state?

Can the feds tax imports and exports that cross the national boundaries? Yes, clearly. Article 1 Sec. 8

Can they tax imports or exports from states? Clearly not. Art. 1 Sec 9.

If their authority is limited to what crosses national boundaries, then how can they place excise taxes on the trade of labor within a state?

It's nice to see that Adams

is still trying to constrain his tendency to smear academics and minority groups (though he does manage to attack immigrants).

Still, the depth of his analysis is very superficial. All five of his suggestions are questionable at best, but to focus on one, take the last suggestion about "embracing greed". This sounds like junior high school logic to me. Only one example is given, and there's no way of knowing whether his "greed" improved or damaged the local environment in his yard. And of course he ignores the enormous downside of greed, a motivation which has plagued humanity for thousands of years. But so what. If it means more money for me, then it's good.

.




Are you silly?
zapdoodat "How's the 100 year social engineering project going in Iraq?"

MadisonWould Be Appalled...
....at the incompetence of the Clinton/ Obama Administration. They all have made so many 'honest mistakes'. That does not make them bad,just error-prone. Sad.


Ontime- Libs don't pay taxes
See Tom Daschle, Tim Geithner and C rangle for the how to manual.

Mother of 4
Your husband is one lucky man.

LIb's Need to Pay More in Taxes
Since this lib party is taking place right before our very eyes and they are now dancing naked in the firelight in a sort of blind ecstacy, why not wander in on the party doings and bring in that big empty jar and ask them to donate lots more of the fun money. Tell them it's their chance to tell and show all the conservatives that they, the Libs, are a more generous sect of folk than any tight wad logical conservative. Tell them that toxic, upside down loans are needed to preserve their debt to society and that is their money alone that will soon make them as equal as their debt ridden societal victims and then all will be well within their house of cards. Limousine libs arise!

Well you could tell them this.......

Flat rate income tax
Flat "rate" income tax ............. not flat tax.

I Look Forward
To your column on social issues, the issues you discussed in this column are surely a way to start reforming the Republican party. The moderates say that our ideas and policies lose voters and elections, but the truth is that our country is conservative and looking for leaders who will lead us in a conservative manner.

It will be interesting to see the direction in which the RNC leads the Party.

Dead on..
I just don't understand why we can't have minds such as Mike Adams, Thomas Sowell, Medved, etc etc representing the republican party in office... this country would be much better off.

FeedFwd
Then Mr. Linder and everyone else who created the Fair Tax are either guilty of false advertising or they flunked arithmatic.

GO MIKE ADAMS!!
Mike,

I love this column. It's so true that instead of compromising with people whose core issues are so different than our we need to show that we have our values and that's that.

On abortion - there are no two ways about it - either we allow unborn children to be killed or we don't.

On Guns - either we have the right to have them, as many as we want, for the ORIGINAL reason the 2nd Amendment was created, or we don't.

On "Bail-outs" / Socialism - Either the fruits of my labor are mine, or they are not.

On "Wall Street Greed" - the "poor" who lament Wall Street making money seem to have gone to Publik Skool and not understand that investing in a corporation, and owning stock in it CREATES the very jobs they need and will allow them to have an independant "Social Security" account that does not depend on taxes.

I could go on - but you seem to be doing find Mike.

Keep writing, I'll keep reading.

L. Steven Beene II

LobaAzul...
The way the Fair Tax plan is today...
You spend $100, 23% or $23 goes to the governmentas tax. That means the sale price on the item was $77. If you use $77 as the price, then a 30% tax on $77 is $23 and your final spend is $100.

False!
"Income tax is not a cost on the EMPLOYER (except for the cost of the accountant's time and the means of transmission of the instructions to the bank). Income tax is a cost on the EMPLOYEE -- who would have the right to the EXACT SAME AGREED-UPON WAGE if the employers collected no tax but left it to the employees to pay it in person from their paychecks.

The cost of an employee's wages to the employer have nothing whatsoever to do with that employee's tax rate."

Nobody wants a pay cut. But if there were no income taxes tomorrow, my take home pay would be instantly higher. No need to change anything, but I am better off. Now that is exactly how it could go down. But if employers said you don't need the extra income from not having to pay taxes and I could be more competitive by lowering my prices, I could pay you the same take home pay and lower my price and be just as profitable. That is the other extreme. Like it or not, labor is a commodity, just like everything else. And the market will find the price that is the "optimal balance" of lower prices and lower wages. If I have my original wage scale, I will have to use my tax savings to pay the sales tax. If I take a pay cut, the things I buy will cost less and so my the price of the goods I buy will be the same after tax as they were when the income tax was in play. Is that not a possibility?

Well Said, Dr. Adams
My new slogan is, "Stop Group Think--Be Divisive!"




MO4
I so often am right beside you in thought.

Although I prefer the Fair Tax by a wide margin over the Flat Tax, I'll take either one. The Flat Tax would normally have a much better chance of being approved, however, if our economy goes far enough down the tubes - I'm going to push for the grand prize, the Fair Tax.

You've come up with a few good points about the flaws of the Fair Tax but you are going to need a few thousand more to make me believe it isn't vastly superior to what we have now.

I'm biased, to be sure. I just found out that after the worst income earning year of my adult life, I will owe an extra $1,200 in income taxes because I volunteered for a brief medical study which paid me $1,600. You see - according to the IRS, I am now self-employed and will have to file quarterly tax estimates in case I ever do it again.

Its 1099-Misc income, but its taxed like self-employment. You see- as a business owner I must pay both mine (employee) and the business owner's (me) federal taxes. Its an additional $1,200. Plus - I had to avoid the penalty for not filing a quarterly tax estimate before I realized I was "self-employed".

I could go on but I don't want to bore everyone. I don't intend to put the effort into debating either as I am shutting down for the day.

Just know that I hope the Flat taxers & the Fair taxers can live together in peace & harmony in the same party.

An income tax weighs ONLY on...
... those who work. If you work more, you pay more tax, whether the rate is flat or not. If you are wealthy, whether inherited wealth, the lucky lottery winner, simply hard work, you can fore go work at the margin and take more leisure time. I call that a disincentive to work. It doesn't weigh on the rich as much as the poor, because the rich don't need to work as hard anymore. That is the unfortunate disconnect for most people. Earnings are not always correlated with wealth, for a number of reasons. Those who want to work to get rich will find it harder with an income tax. A rising entrepreneur is typically investing in his business rather than spending on material pleasantries.

Payroll withholding is one of the worst aspects of the income tax. It removes transparency for most people. A sales tax hits you in the eye every time you buy something.

How does an income tax, flat or not, give everybody an equal stake in government? If equality is what you want, then a head tax is what you want. But you nor do most people really want that. If I earn $100K and pay 5%, then I have paid more than someone who earns $50K and pays 5%. Where is the equality? And those wealthy trust-fund babies and responsible retirees don't work and therefore don't pay for government, although somebody may have paid on their behalf or they may have during their working days.

Conservative Politics, re - Madison
I could not agree more. In the last election we had a choice vote of a democrat or a democrat wannabe (McCain). John McCain is the worst Senator we have right next to Phil Graham, who was a democrat and is now a RINO. We must put up people for election who are total "conservative republicans" with no marks on them from compromise in any issue. These are people who we expect to represent us, not negociate with some liberal on any point. The republican party has been drifting into the backwater of liberalism for the last 16 years starting with GHWB who was a damn fool as a politician and as a VP for doing business with Clinton and his band of thieves in Arkansas during Iran Contra. Of course that is what got Clinton elected after GHWB. Clinton knew where all of the bodies were buried.
Starting now we should throw any one out of the party who votes with jughead and the dumbocrats. This includes McCain. Let him be a would be Maverick on his own nickle. Right now we would have different President than we have except for the choices that were given. And maybe, before it is all over, we will actually find out that who we elected, wasn't electable. Let us all take Mike's advice and put up real candidates in the future -- no RINOs.
al@bellaproducts.com

That lousy liberal
Sarah Palin.

"The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, planned to meet in Washington this weekend with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other senators to press for her state's share of the package."

Well, SHE'S obviously out as a possible Republican candidate for national office in 2012. She's a lefty.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i7-R1kzxg bD531An5glFlllGZVvAD962B5480

Mother of 4
"It Is Probably Possible,
It is probably possible to create a national sales tax that would be no more of a problem in its application or in its effects on the economy than a low, flat income tax would be. Especially if both were coupled to getting rid of all the extra-Constitutional baggage the government has acquired over the years."


I agree that it is possible but I am against it regardless. If we are to remain a nation based in equality then we should all have an equal ownership stake in our society. This is why we have people going back to only land owners being allowed to vote. They are tired of their votes being canceled out by people who do not pay any taxes.

I sincerely doubt that any man paying 15% of their earnings, no matter how much that 15% adds up to, would be so quick to vote to raise taxes. However, if he gets to vote to raise taxes on other people of other incomes, he will do so, since it effects him little.

A flat tax needs to be implemented with the caveat that any tax increases are equally increased across the board.

Time to have some real equality in this country.

Rich D.
I agree completely, hence the reason we have so much graft and corruption in government at all levels. The promise results and give us incompetence, complete with excuses, to hide them lining their own pockets.

It isn't just the money that attracts them, it is the power that goes with social engineering. Politicians are worse than doctors about their "God complex".

Bipartisanship/Centrism
I think this last election showed that people want a viable choice between candidates and that if they don't have a viable choice, they often just roll the dice and see what they get.

McCain is a centrist. Mr. Obama is a left-wing radical liberal. Unless the whole country somehow received a personality polarity treatment in the last four years and became liberal (possible if we lived in a sci-fi universe, I suppose, but not likely in the real world), something else beside a large shift in ideology occurred. For example, perhaps some voters (I'd guess at least 3%of the 6% who swung the election) were voting against centrism and demanding a CHOICE next time. I've spoke with quite a few people who would have voted for the Republican ticket except that they didn't think McCain was conservative enough and felt that four years of Mr. Obama would teach the country a lesson. Okay, they're idiots, but they make a salient point. Bipartisanship, ruling from the center sounds so good and inclusive until you remember that old saw "You can't please everybody all the time." Compromise sounds so good until you realize that compromise means nobody wins anything and somebody is going to have to compromise their values in order to make it work. I guess if you have no values or free-floating ones that can change with the political wind (which I think means the same thing), then it's okay to compromise because nothing is really all that important to you anyway.

Give the American people a choice and I think you're going to find out that we're a lot more conservative than anyone realizes.

reply to Charles LPKY #78 and Swampfox
For Charles LPKY: Yes, absolutely. I base my recommendation on the opinions of TH readers and some of the TH columnists. What I offer is a distillation of hundreds of posts over the last two years. What I found--and what I recommend--is what I believe real conservatives embrace. It's reasonably clear to me tht what many real conservatives really seek--and most of them don't yet see it--is a true party of the Right. In this country, true Right means Bible-based conservatism, which is summarized in my recommendations.

For Swampfox: I hadn't thought of your recommendation, but it fits with my vision of what a truly conservative Republican party should encourage. The Republicans should be the "straight" party as well as the conservatie party. They'll find enough votes to be viable if they take that road clearly and openly.

maybe when sales tax is low...
...you don't take it into account. But you were the one noting that people cross state lines to avoid sales tax. If you are going to buy a new car, you shop around. With a 30+% sales tax, you will most certainly take it into account. That $30K car is going to cost $39K and that $40K is going to be $52K. That used car, that was priced $30K but cost $39K after taxes is not looking to bad at $31K with no tax on it. I understand the affect of depreciation, but the option people are really facing is lower price for used goods vs a higher price for new goods. The total cost includes the tax on new goods. The market will find the price that best satisfies buyers and sellers in the market for both new and used goods.

FeedFwd,
"The embedded tax is the cost of income tax and payroll tax on each employee."

Income tax is not a cost on the EMPLOYER (except for the cost of the accountant's time and the means of transmission of the instructions to the bank). Income tax is a cost on the EMPLOYEE -- who would have the right to the EXACT SAME AGREED-UPON WAGE if the employers collected no tax but left it to the employees to pay it in person from their paychecks.

The cost of an employee's wages to the employer have nothing whatsoever to do with that employee's tax rate.

Don Juan
So I guess you're okay with the corporate tax rate in this country being nearly 15% higher than in any socialist country in Europe?

THAT eliminates any incentive to invest! And, it will only become less attractive as this president increases taxes on the so-called wealthy, people like my friends David and Jon, brothers in a family corporation. Neither of them takes home an incredible amount of money -- somewhere around $30,000 a year. Their business supports a dozen employees who make right around what they do and their parents' retirement (Dad was too busy building the business to set aside a retirement fund). They fall into Mr. Obama's "rich" zone because of the way business taxes are calculated. So they're fixing to be slammed by the new fiscal policies. They're young men, so will be able to go out and get jobs when Mr. Obama's "bailout" plan devastates their business (if there are any available), but Mom and Dad, both in their 70s, are going to lose their income and those dozen employees who now enjoy health insurance and a wonderful work environment, not to mention a annual wage that's decent for their field of employ, will be looking for work also.

I'm not convinced of the flat tax, but I do know that the current system penalizes people for trying to do well and encourages those who would rather not to continue sitting on their rears and doing nothing.

Possible, part 2,
...

But is not a car a necessity in modern life? How could a person work without one?

But is not a computer a necessity in modern life? How could a student excel without one?

Additionally, there is always the temptation towards social engineering with sales taxes -- to slap on additional "vice" taxes for things that some people believe others should be punished for wanting.

So you could get things like not taxing food, except that we will tax prepared, frozen dinners -- because people ought to cook from scratch. Or fruit imported from other countries (you think lobbyists from agricultural reasons wouldn't try that one after you eliminated the extra-Constitutional subsidies they get now?).

An income tax is less vulnerable because you don't miss money so badly when you never see it (as anyone who has ever used auto-drafting from their paycheck to fund their savings knows well.

This fact may slightly reduce the utility of it as a reminder that government costs us money, not gives us money, but it would reduce even more the ability to justify exemptions -- especially with the cost stripped down to the legitimate, Constitutional functions of federal government.

And a low, flat, income tax does what a sales tax cannot in that it gives incentive to earn more because there is no diminishing rate of return.

At the level of a person struggling to get buy there is probably little to choose between the two. But at the level of the entrepreneur -- the most productive people in society -- a sales tax is a heavy drag because it punishes him for desiring the outward, material trappings of his success.

An income tax weighs the same on the poor and the rich alike.

That's a Fair Tax without the scare quotes!

It Is Probably Possible,
It is probably possible to create a national sales tax that would be no more of a problem in its application or in its effects on the economy than a low, flat income tax would be. Especially if both were coupled to getting rid of all the extra-Constitutional baggage the government has acquired over the years.

The "Fair Tax" is not it.

IF such a national sales tax WERE to be designed, preference would come down to your philosophy.

I prefer an income tax because I believe that best gives each person equal stake in the government and because it is less vulnerable to creeping exceptions.

IF any of the state sales taxes do NOT except "necessities" in the form of food, shelter, and clothing I am not aware of it. (Please, chime in if you pay state sales taxes on these things). This strongly indicates that it would be very difficult to enact a national sales tax without these exceptions as well.

And once you have legitimized ANY exceptions then you have made it possible to legitimize more exceptions. Food, clothing, shelter, ...

...

Not a fan
of the Fair Tax as it is but ...

I see how some of you come up with the 30% thing. However, in my arithmatic calculations, if I've spent $100 tax inclusive, I've purchased goods in the amount of $81.30 plus 23% tax.

KeepTheChange
4 years in The Liberal Labor Ghettos around Pittsburgh (Murtha's District) was my eye opener. NOTHING ever chamged for them, but these USWA UMWA and UAW acolytes sent Murtha back to Congress with 60% of the vote every 2 years.

MO4 sez:
"BTW -- I don't believe the claims of "embedded taxes" in the form given. And I don't believe that the simple substitution of a sales tax for an income tax would get rid of any taxes earlier in the process of making any given item if for no other reason than the fact that many of those taxes are state and local -- which the federal government has no authority to override."

It is good to be skeptical. There has been a lot of research into this. It is well documented. Is there some assumption or issue that you don't believe or are you just generally skeptical. The embedded tax is the cost of income tax and payroll tax on each employee. As I said earlier, it is an aggregate look. YMMV. The devil is in the details. But it is worth examining with a critical eye and the promoters are certainly willing to put all their facts, figures, and assumptions out there for all to see and they are actively soliciting input and constructive criticism. That alone is a huge improvement over government as usual.

Top 10 drunken cities-thanks liberalism
What are the top 10 cities with the highest poverty?
Detroit, MI ...hasn't elected a
Republican mayor since 1961
Buffalo, NY (2nd)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since
1954;
Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since
1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)....hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1989;
Miami, FL (5th)...has never had a Republican mayor;
St. Louis, MO (6th)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1949

El Paso, TX (7th)....has never had a Republican mayor;
Milwaukee, WI (8th)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1908

Philadelphia, PA (9th)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1952

Newark, NJ (10th)...hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1907

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought
For, protected, and handed on to them to do the same, or one day we will
spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children
what it was once like in the United States where men were free".
-Ronald Wilson Reagan


Georgetwin
I enjoy your work. That link was just a microcosm of the top ten cities-all run into the ground with one party rule.

I witnessed Buffalo up close for 10 years before moving to Raleigh. It drives me nuts when these guys whine about the exact nonsense that the left has been masters of for decades.

They seem not to be able to make the connnection that it is a one party system closely aligned with their "ideas".

I couldn't care less if another GOP'er NEVER won anything.

scott s.,
Thank you.

You've got excellent points about stacking the "Fair Tax" on top of state taxes.


Anne,
I never pay the slightest attention to Will.

He's just mad because even he can't manage to turn a debate comparing the merits of the "Fair Tax" to the merits of other forms of taxation into a discussion of his favorite subject. ;-)

Of course, given his life choices, he has no clue of the parental responsibility to work on making the world a better place for one's kids. I don't have a lot of money to give to causes, I don't have the personal charisma to run for office, and I don't have the right sort of personality to stand on a streetcorner passing out literature.

But I can use my skills at debate and typing to try to influence the opinions of people who can more actively make the right sort of difference in the world.

I've also played with my toddler, helped the 15yo with an art project, made lunch, looked something up for my husband, tag-teamed cleaning the bird cage with the 17yo (Hey Will, my flock is just fine in a freshly-cleaned cage after being bathed and groomed), and I'm about to cut into a butcher pack of eye round I got on sale to make steak for dinner and put at least 2 more meals into the freezer.

I guess people with one-track minds can't multi-task like the normal, American, SAHM can. LOL

zapdooBOT! Really now! You've managed to

take the liberal "circular thinking" to an art form!

Somehow, because Pres. Bush signed a "banking bailout" so business could continue to get their regular weekly or monthly business loans to make payroll, which btw the libs LOVED, you're blaming him???

And all that Medicare, etc., is right up the liberal alley... So what's your complaint this time?


However, as I've said before, what Pres. Bush "spent" is, by comparison to Bozo's $1.2TRILLION, is no more than chicken feed!

And of course, that's not counting what Bozo wants to control... Like our lives.

Get a clue!

Back to Madison
The problem with Mike Adam's parties of principle idea, is getting a big enough party based on your chosen principles. In Madison's time we had the rise of Federalist/Anti-Federalist. The problem is that the Federalists were unable to capture enough "hearts and minds" of the electorate to achieve national viability. so you had the federalists having to form a fusion/coalition party with other parties having no particular interest in federalist ideals, which they called "American Whigs" (the main point of agreement was that they didn't like Jackson). Unfortunately the Whigs had the typical problems of "big-tent" parties: getting agreement on a national platform and someone who could run on it. The only way through was to nominate "nominal" Whigs (those with little attachment to federalist ideals) who were military heroes (Harrison, Taylor, Scott) -- guess we would call these Winos :). One effect of this was that "social liberals" if the abolition movement can be called such, weren't that interested in the economic primacy of the federalist ideals, leading to their disaffection and removal into the Liberty Party. This reduced the pool of available voters for which the Whigs could contend. When they ran a "true Whig" Clay in 44 he just couldn't get over the top. Interesting to me, is that in 52 you had two "true Whigs" contending for nomination (Webster and Fillmore) and they cancelled each other out resulting in Wino Scott getting the nom (reminds me of 2008 republicans). Fillmore would later try to resurect Federalist ideas within an "American Party" that tried to co-opt the Know-Nothing movement by additionally accepting anti-immigration policy.

Really, That's Nonsense,
"There simply won't be much difference between costs and prices of new plus taxes and used without taxes going forward."

That really is nonsense.

A. First, a sales tax is laid ON TOP OF the price so the buyer gets hit with the tax only after the price has been established.

B. With the exception of items which are valuable on account of their age -- classic cars, antique furniture, etc. -- no sensible person will pay the same price for old and worn as they will pay for new and fresh.

Newness itself has value.

If you buy a car, drive it half a mile down the street to a different dealer, and try to sell it you'll find that its lost thousands of dollars of value in that short trip. That has nothing to do with taxes, it doesn't even have to do with its condition. Its simply because it isn't new anymore.

If a woman was fool enough to pay $200 for designer jeans, wear them once, wash them, and decide that she doesn't like them she will be lucky to get $50 in a consignment shop.

Add 30% on top of the cost of the new car or new designer jeans by comparison to the cost of the once-worn designer jeans and you INCREASE rather than decrease the difference. Maybe, possibly, shortages might make a pair of used designer jeans go up 50% at the outside. But the out-of-pocket difference would still be $185.

Joycey
What's the difference? Why all the drama?

zapdoodat
And so answer the question?
Is this the direction we want to go?
Is this where OBAMA is leading?

Joycey
The Republicans increased entitlement spending.

The Republicans are unrepentant Socialist and corporate welfare-istas.

It was the Bush administration and the Republicans who added the $50 billion a year Medicare Prescription, Part D program, while absurdly claiming it would only cost $40 billion a year.

When someone in the Congressional Budget Office wanted to inform Congress that the program would really cost $50 billion a year, the Republicans fired him.

This additional spending program was a handout to the pharmaceutical companies, on the backs of the American taxpayer.

A year later, President Bush campaigned about the looming crisis in entitlement spending. What a joke, this just after the Republicans had tacked on yet another entitlement spending program, paid by dumping the entire cost onto the national credit card.

Do you think an American should be able to shop for drugs in Canada or Mexico if that's what they want to do? The Republican party says that is criminal behavior. Talk about nanny-staters!

On the other hand
Washington warned us against the danger of faction. I agree that we need to have a choice other than the socialism being offered by the Democrats & Republicans. But I would caution against people who put the good of the party above the good of the nation.

FeedFwd,
A head tax criminalizes poverty because if you don't pay your taxes you are jailed.

If you are too poor to pay the amount demanded for the head tax then you're jailed for being poor.

For some this might provide needed incentive to get off their lazy backsides and get a job. But for the disabled, the elderly, and those struck by temporary misfortune who must choose between paying that lump sum of the head tax and paying for food/rent/clothing for their kids its the criminalization of poverty.

BTW -- I don't believe the claims of "embedded taxes" in the form given. And I don't believe that the simple substitution of a sales tax for an income tax would get rid of any taxes earlier in the process of making any given item if for no other reason than the fact that many of those taxes are state and local -- which the federal government has no authority to override.


Prof. Adams
How much of the Federal Budget goes to paying all of the beaurocrats that keep voting Democrat in elections?

Zap
Republicans are as bad as democrats are as bad as republicans...In other words there is not much difference between them. They are both sending the Nation into the abyss.

MO4
I think the concerns you raise are pretty much good. I also share your concerns, especially how the fair taxers refuse to even consider the problems of things like the prebate. The fair tax provides a % of the take back to the states in return for states administering the tax. The assumption is that the FT is identical to a state sales tax and so would be "free" to administer. I don't believe that is the case at all. Thre are many ways in which the FT differs from the typical (if you can even make that assumption) state sales tax. What's left unmentioned, is what the feds do if a state declines to administer the FT. In that case the IRS would have to administer it. (And BTW, the IRS administers other taxes than just individual and corporate income tax, and estate/gift tax, os it isn't "going away").

The one thing I can see about the FT, is that by removing all corporate/business income taxes it would make domestic goods cheaper while leaving imports unchanged. (This feeds into the 23%/30% argument. Obviously the tax on imports is 30%. For domestics IF the removal of income taxes is passed on to the consumer in the form of lower price, then you could argue that the FT is an equivalent to 23% of the former (unadjusted) price).

Also, what's never discussed is what happens to state income tax? Most states base their taxes off the federal 1040 AGI so they would either have to develop their own 1040 or go to their own fair tax. Which would result is what overall tax adding state+federal.

ZAP, the broken record
For crying out loud, I have read that same post from you 50 times minimum.

Many, if not most here KNOW that Bush and the feckless GOP congress, led by that pathetic twit Denny Hastert were big spending liberal republicans.

Don't you ever get tired of posting the same tripe? Point taken and agreed. So now what?

You are becoming a broken record.

Do you think that more liberalism-the kind that has been virtually unchecked for 75+ years- is a solution?

To Zapdoodat
Zapdoodat writes, "If you want to blame someone for the state of affairs in taxing and spending in today's government, have your favorite Republican, yourself, for example, look in the mirror." You are absolutely correct. But, I do think that Democrats have the knack to take it to another level.

zapdoodat
Entitlements are 44% of government spending.
Soon to be 65% even without national healthcare. You don't see a problem with that. At some point soon the workers will stop working.

Georgetwin
"Swampfox
You NAILED it!"


Agreed

will-CA to Mother of 4: "Shouldn't you b

taking care of your flock?"

Gee will, who exactly do you think you are?

None of YOUR business!!!



Swampfox
You NAILED it!

Cowalker
"Hmm. I guess that shoots down Adams' argument that Americans weren't given a real choice in November. So what should the Republican Party do? I still think they should follow Adams' plan. They shouldn't let reality intrude on ideology."

It doesn't matter what the republican party does, the damage is done.

The party needs to remember what it used to stand for. Smaller Govt., low taxes and a strong national defense. It is the loss of these value that made me search out a new party. It is why i am now a Libertarian.

swampfox
The cost of our government is $10,000 per person per year in the USA.

That's $3 trillion divided by 300 million Americans. George Bush and his Republican enablers, did jack-squat to diminish government. He presided over the largest increase in government since LBJ's 'Great Society.'

Additionally, the Republicans controlled the House from January, 1995 through January of 2007. The US Constitution gives Congress the 'power to tax and to spend.'

If you want to blame someone for the state of affairs in taxing and spending in today's government, have your favorite Republican, yourself, for example, look in the mirror.


MO4...
What if we abandoned the notion of revenue neutrality and offered a lower Fair Tax rate. Your argument regarding compliance costs disappear for the same reason. I would prefer we lower tax rates however they are collected for a host of reasons. But as long as they keep spending it, we will pay one way or they other... through taxes or through the hidden taxation of inflation.

MO4...
The entire math is predicated on supply and demand. If there are no new workers and there is no new production and the Fair Tax is revenue neutral, then everything is exactly the same. Well except that the progressive nature of the income tax is removed, so workers who earn less will share a greater percentage of the burden. And that is why the prebate was created. To help the low earners. You can argue about the correct figures, but the economic law of supply and demand will require that workers receive the same net pay if the cost of living remains the same. Otherwise, companies will compete harder for cheap labor or workers will compete harder for higher paying jobs. Either of these will try to drive the price back to equilibrium.

Mother of 4,
You are practically camped out on this thread...


Shouldn't you be taking care of your flock?

Ron Paul
The Republican Party, in truth, is becoming the Democratic party under a pseudonym. So many so-called Republicans espouse Democratic Party idiocy that the Republican Party is no longer recognizable as a separate party. We need to turn this around, and I agree with the article that Ron Paul is the individual to do just that.

FeedFwd,
In my advocacy of a low, flat tax I never said anything about being revenue neutral.

I believe that the rate should be set to cover the LEGITIMATE costs of government -- those areas of responsibility laid out in the Constitution.

I don't need to be paying for governmental mission creep. And one of the advantages of a universally-applied, no exceptions flat tax is that it would no longer be possible for people who pay no taxes to vote to give themselves government goodies.

Give people "government money" to spend and they go wild with it. Have them EARN money and they are a lot more careful in their spending.

stimulus... Why?
1)Politicians are afraid they won't get elected if they do nothing.
2)Politicians think they are smarter than you and me.
3)The whole point of politics is power. What power do they have if they let you spend your money instead of spending it themselves.

cynicism off.

Charles LPKY reminds me
"cowalker
There was a Real Conservative to vote for...His name was Bob Barr and he ran on the Libertarian ticket."

Hmm. I guess that shoots down Adams' argument that Americans weren't given a real choice in November. So what should the Republican Party do? I still think they should follow Adams' plan. They shouldn't let reality intrude on ideology.

FeedFwd,
"If there was no income tax, workers could receive the same net pay and producers could lower their price, not having to send payroll taxes off to the IRS. Or, prices of goods could remain the same, but workers would receive their entire check, with no taxes removed."

Whether they're sending some of it off to the IRS or not, the employer still has to pay out the rate agreed upon. So the cost to the employer would remain the same, perhaps lest a small fraction of an accountant's time. But if you think that reduced costs means an equal reduction in price think about the recent reduction in gas prices relative to the reduction in price of a barrel of crude oil. Gas has come down a bit, but not as much a percentage as oil has.

So, maybe, prices will drop a few pennies on the dollar. BUT the same cost of government* will be slapped on as "Fair Tax" so the out-of-pocket cost -- price plus tax -- will rise far more than that slight drop. Leaving the workers worse off than before with an increase in their take home pay that does not match the percentage increase in the costs of the goods they are buying.




*Previous discussions have made a great deal of this being "revenue neutral" so its not tied to any drastic cuts in government spending.

a head tax....
...doesn't criminalize anything. It might make it impossible for welfare recipients to vote for more benefits from the taxpayer. Is that a problem?

MO4...
Yes, I agree! All forms of taxation have their pros and cons. Higher taxes are always worse than lower taxes.

Income taxes, no matter how low will cause people at the margin to fore go work and income and if there are blurry definitions of what is income, it will drive people to shelter income. It inevitably becomes a vehicle for politicians to do social engineering.

I bought something (say a house) when the costs included 23% that was paid to the government as income tax buy the laborers who built it. Forget for the moment that it was built by illegals who don't pay taxes. Now I build a house without that 23% embedded tax, but I have to add a 30% sales tax to the price I sell. I can lower my price to compete, because it cost me less to build. More or less the same price, give or take appreciation/depreciation.

Now suppose Joe buys my new house with the tax. He goes to sell it. My price for the next house I build is the same, plus the 30% tax. He already paid the tax once and when he sells it again, he is going to want to recoup some of that. So his selling price, without sales tax is going to be similar to my price plus sales tax give or take appreciation/depreciation.

There simply won't be much difference between costs and prices of new plus taxes and used without taxes going forward.

I freely admit, there will be transition issues. It is a big change. It isn't a show stopper in my humble opinion.

Cost of Government
I think that we can all agree that the cost of government has gotten out-of-hand. Why is it called a stimulus package when government spends taxpayer money ......It certainly makes more sense to allow those that earn their money to keep more of it and spend it as they wish.

Now You're Talking............

"I also believe we need to drive certain people from the ranks of the Republican Party."

This is step NUMBER ONE.......

A fair tax would tax CONSUMPTION, not PRODUCTION.......

Those big screen tv's and 40 oz. malt liquors could raise enough taxes to keep the economy afloat for years!



FeedFwd,
A "head tax" is unfair because it criminalizes poverty -- those who are unemployed due to temporary ill-fortune or permanent disability will be unable to pay.

Property taxes are suitable for local use because the property owners directly benefit from the services provided AND can have a significant voice in the local government. Beyond the local level they become unfair because there is no return benefit to the property owners and because of the accumulation of freeloaders who can vote themselves goodies at the property owner's expense.

Income taxes have the advantage of applying a tax only once to the same money and of making visible burden of the cost of government immediately apparent to everyone. Like sales taxes they do not drag too heavily on the economy if the rate is low, especially if the rate is also flat so that those who earn more always get to keep more rather than reaching a state of diminishing returns.

Also like sales taxes they can fall heavily on those least able to afford to have their income diminished, which leads to a temptation to make them "progressive". But the advantages of a low, flat tax in its simplicity of application and the way its obviousness serves to give everyone a stake in government and to motivate people to keep said government in check outweigh that.

FeedFwd,
Sales taxes are not inherently unfair. When set low enough they are not too large a drag on the economy. BUT they do hit hardest on those least able to afford the increase in prices, which is why they almost always have some kind of exemptions built in -- which opens them up to creeping exemptions via lobbying.

The "Fair Tax" itself is ill-judged in its application. It calls for a ruinously high tax rate, well above what the economy could tolerate, and a bureaucracy at least as massive and unwieldy as the current version of the IRS. Additionally, it carries the drawbacks of requiring the government to monitor the whereabouts of every US citizen every single month.

Furthermore the "pre-bate", setting a government-approved standard of living acts as a social engineering tool to punish those who dare to desire to live in comfort and luxury (a favorite cause of the left-liberals -- who are always after other people to live austerely if they don't have to (I keep my heat at 65, Obama. Buy a sweater).

Reject the Fair Tax
An otherwise good blog,except for support of Fair Tax. That is a consumption tax or use tax. In Europe it is the VAT or Value Added Tax which adds a tax to every stage of production: the wheat is taxed to the baker; the bread is taxed to the distributor; it is taxed again into the retailer and again to the buyer. I am retired. I have already paid taxes on my retirement funds. I don't want to be taxed again on my purchases. Let's go for the FLAT TAX, instead.

FeedFwd,
There's no amount of shortage of used goods that will make up a 30% difference in price due to that "Fair Tax".

If the producers of new goods can't sell enough to make it worth their while they'll stop making things -- legally at least, there would CERTAINLY be a large and thriving black market of new, tax-free goods to be sold underground.


sorry...
at 2:09 I meant to say DON'T rely on me. Ask Linder. His office will reply to any reasonable question or request. Or ask Boortz. He may not answer if he decides you are an idiot or an @$$ or don't do much to promote his radio show, but he often answers skeptics on air.

I will grant that the 23% vs 30 % is...
...a gimmick. But there is a reason for stating it that way. When you add up the cost of everything (aggregate, obviously there will be variation among goods), then you find that "hidden taxes" make up 23% of the cost of everything you buy on average. So the tax rate is set to be 23% of everything you spend in order to be revenue neutral. (No guarantee that buying patterns will remain and it will be revenue neutral, but best first approximation.) Now if I spend $100 inclusive of tax, then 23% would be $23 in tax. The math gimmick is if I spend $77 and pay $23 in tax, I have spent $100. But 23 is 30% of 77. So the retail tax you calculate at the store will be 30%. There are some trying to use this trick to make it seem more consumer friendly, but nobody is trying to make it a secret.

cowalker
There was a Real Conservative to vote for...His name was Bob Barr and he ran on the Libertarian ticket.

Couple points.
Pure and simple the Flat Tax is an income tax where as the Government still has the right to part of my paycheck. The Fair Tax moves the collections of taxes, at the Federal level, from my paycheck to the items I purchase. The Fair Tax replaces the embedded taxes that are in every good or service we purchase today instead of adding on top of these taxes like the Flat Tax does. While both plans succeed in getting to a better means of taxation in this country, only the Fair Tax reduces the power of politicians by not giving them direct access to my paycheck for their Robin Hood like schemes. BTW, I don't believe the IRS will be dissolved by the Fair Tax, however I do believe that it will shrink them down to an government accounting group and not the tax collection police.

Go for it, conservatives
In November the majority of Americans conclusively proved that they'd rather go it alone than get government help as the economy tanks. They showed that illegal immigration gnaws at their souls more deeply than the problem of not being able to afford health care. They demonstrated that they place the availability of abortion at the top of their list of America's problems. They showed that they approved of corporate greed that is willing to destroy the environment and send jobs overseas for the sake of short term gain. Americans proved that they value ideological purity over competence.

So yes, by all means, run harder to the right and shoot for a lean and mean party that is very, very distinguishable from the Democratic party. Deep, deep down, the U.S. is REALLY conservative, yes it is. And McCain lost because he was TOO LIBERAL. If all those people who voted for Obama and Democrats had had a real conservative to vote for, they wouldn't have voted for Obama.

How low can the flat tax be...
... and still be revenue neutral? The Fair Tax could be lower as well. But they picked a level that would be revenue neutral, even after the prebates.

n,
That was simply an example. All kinds of things are taxed differently. All manner of social engineering is achieved by setting tax rates. We have tobacco taxes, luxury taxes, AMT taxes, capital gains taxes, unearned income taxes, gasoline taxes, and necessities may not even be taxed at all, although the definition of necessity varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Within taxes, there are even varying rates, as in progressive income taxes. If a tax discourages something, then applying it across everything uniformly will discourage everything equally.

The Biggest Change
We need CHANGE - in the Republican Party. As a conservative, I've been appalled at the "important" people in the Republican Party. Who wants another liberal running for President who is very similar to the person the Democrats are running?

First and foremost, the GOP needs to return to its conservative roots. And I am NOT talking about being pro-big business. I'm talking conservatisim in things like small government, no pork, capitalism, judges who believe in their vows to honor the Constitution, etc. If the GOP were to go that way, they wouldn't have to hunt voters. The voters would flock to them.

MO4...
Yes, I freely admit there will be a cost of tax collection. I wonder what the IRS budget is these days? I wonder how much less it would be, even with a flat tax? There is always cost for collection and compliance. I don't think the Fair Tax collection will be higher than flat tax, but I'll give you that one.

Income taxes are collected on labor throughout the manufacturing process. If there was no income tax, workers could receive the same net pay and producers could lower their price, not having to send payroll taxes off to the IRS. Or, prices of goods could remain the same, but workers would receive their entire check, with no taxes removed. Either way, we are all better off, assuming we work to earn a living. I won't argue that it will make things perfectly fair or that it is the same magnitude as shipping costs. But it also isn't 0.

In any divorce I have heard of, one of the parents get custody with the other perhaps getting visitation. I'm not arguing about trying to split it up. I'm just saying as part of the settlement, whoever gets custody gets the prebate. If there is some kind of split custody, the courts are best able to decide who owes whom, even if they can't enforce it. But mailing the prebate out seems trivial.

Again, rely on me. Ask Linder. BTW, I do count my blessings to have had an excellent family life as both a child and an adult. This is clearly unfamiliar territory for me.

Democracy ends when
Democracy ends when the majority of the voting population uses the vote to vote itself an income that it doesn't earn.

FeedFwd
Your base/tennis ball example does not make sense. The UNEVEN application of taxes distorts the free market NOT taxes. Applying a tax to BOTH would have the same impact on each.

Obama's Economic Plan

President Obama believes that 'Borrowing More Money and Spending More Money' will help America reduce debt and bring financial health to America.

If you can't pay your Credit Card debt, just follow the Obama Economic Plan and charge more on those credit card and apply for more credit cards to charge on.

It may take sometime as Obama explains, but soon you will be debt free and in good financial health.

Obama says don't delay, do it now, do it today, time is wasting.

Hal
Hal, YOU and your ilk are the problem. This election won you nothing. As I have said, you are the dog that caught the car that they have been chasing. Now what?

Daschle is a tax cheat, Geithner is a tax cheat, Rangle is a tax cheat. They are all worth millions and have stashed loot and property offshore for when their kooky ideas implode.

You will have been cheering them on while some of us will have been among those warning everyone that the ONE party system is killing us all.

When the DMV runs the health care and you can't get a liver, many here will be LTFAO

Joycey,
There is a website http://www.fairtax.org and they have a book http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Tax-Book-Saying-Goodbye/dp/0060 875496/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233600829&sr=8- 2

In short, its a national sales tax with a punitively high rate of about 30% (proponents claim 23% but that's calculated by doing a trick of mathmatics instead of using the customary cost + tax you're used to with state sales taxes).

The proposal includes a "pre-bate" -- a monthly, government check intended to represent the tax paid on a set, minimum standard of living lest people dismiss the idea outright as too hard on the working poor. After all, people are going to be pretty upset if the price of everything they buy suddenly jumps 30%.

Proponents make a lot of noise about getting rid of "hidden costs" and "hidden taxes" but ignore the fact that this increase would come on top of all state and local taxes rather than instead of them.

They also pretend that this would "get rid of the IRS" as if the money would appear in the US treasury by magic.

And there is a strong component of social engineering in the self-righteousness of discouraging consumption (some proponents will admit this when pressed while others deny it no matter what, but there's no hiding what happens when you raise the price on something).

A flat tax is simply one tax rate for all with no breakdown of "income brackets" for different rates. The type of flat tax I advocate is low and universally applied without exceptions.

FeedFwd,
...

D. If you have no grasp of the way that a monthly check will motivate divorced parents to use that check as another weapon in their bitter fights against their ex's -- clogging the courts with increased caseloads and requiring additional personnel and larger facilities to keep up -- then I can only congratulate your on having lived a life of such harmonious tranquility in your home, your family, and your circle of friends.

They can write whatever they like in the terms of the divorce. It won't make people actually abide by those terms. SOMEBODY is going to have to ensure that the check ACTUALLY gets to the kid whose name is on it.

There will be a continual stream of complaints that John didn't shoved the kids off on me to go skiing with his girlfriend instead of taking the kids over the holidays like he promised so give me the money you sent to him or Jane bought booze and jewelry instead of new clothes for the kids. I had to buy the stuff because they were in rags so give me the money you sent to her.

Just solving custody and visitation issues is bad enough. Add child support money and you get a NIGHTMARE (my nephews are in their 20's and their father still owes my SIL 10 years of unpaid child support). Add a monthly, government check and the court costs will probably go so high that it would be cheaper to send a full "pre-bate" for each kid to both parents than to cope with all the disputes.

FeedFwd,
A. I don't pay my state workers to collect federal money. Shoving it off on the states is, once again, just hand waving rather than actually addressing the core of the issue. Moving government workers from one place to another is not shrinking government any more than a magician's ability to palm small objects actually makes them vanish.

B. In states that have no income taxes that goes double. There is NO justification whatsoever for making state employees do the federal government's job -- especially if it means setting up whole new departments of state employees to handle it.

C. You said: "And by taking the income tax component out of goods and taxing them all equally, it puts domestic production on a more competitive and fairer footing with imports."

This is complete gobbledygook. The cost of goods does not have an "income tax component". The cost of goods is materials plus labor plus shipping plus overhead plus any direct taxes on those items plus enough profit to make it worthwhile to go through the trouble of providing it or as much profit as the market will bear, whichever is larger.

The chief advantage of imported goods is not our income tax but rather labor costs so low that they more than make up for the cost of shipping things halfway around the world.

...

richd
"The government is far more into social engineering than actual governing."

How's the 100 year social engineering project going in Iraq?

To Retired Geek
The typical response from Retired Geek, "Homosexual Tax would be fair".

Why don't you just identify the gay teenagers at an early age and make life so hard on them that they commit suicide at an early age. Thereby saving the country billions. We could adopt the laws of Nigeria that makes it a crime to have meetings of gays and lesbians..........or the laws of Iran where they just hang them from cranes by their necks until dead.

I agree with Mike Adams on some of his article this time. 1)Reject the bailouts 2)Enforce our immigration laws 3)Adoption of a Fair Tax

Feedfwd
Thank you. I do believe the only way a person should be able to vote is if they have paid taxes. How can you honorably vote for a candidate that promises to raise taxes on the rich and increase your own personal income. That is using your vote to steal from your neighbor.
I'm sure there is no perfect way to tax.
But like Mother of 4 states it should be the least harmful and most ethical. Fair to me means everyone pays the same percentage on all goods and services. Better still is stripping our government down to just the basic necessities. Get rid of all beaurocrats. Beaurocrats are evil.

Lolo1
"The government is far more into social engineering than actual governing."

Here's why: suppose that your local, state, or federal government did a good job with just the things that they were charged with doing. The roads, bridges, sewers were always in good repair, and the "public" utilities were delivered reliably and at a fair price, imports were safe and so were the people. How could you as a politician challenge those in office? What more could you promise? Why would any voter care who was in office?

The only way to campaign is to promise "social" benefits to the dissaffected, so you need to encourage and maintain a class of misfits by appealing to greed and human frailities and set them agains the others who just want to be left alone and take care of themselves. The misfits now outnumber the producers, and so we are dead.


Poorgrandchildren.com,
1. A low, flat tax would have even lower costs because of its simplicity.

Instead of both having to collect taxes AND distribute the "pre-bates", there would only be a short form to fill out.

I don't know the current policy anymore, but when I lived in and paid taxes in PA as a teen and young adult they had a flat, 2.2% tax (though they did have a couple exceptions -- union dues and work uniforms). The tax form was only half a sheet of paper and the discrepancy between what I paid and what I owed was always less than $1 one way or the other.

Sensibly, they would neither collect nor return amounts less than $1 because administration costs would be too high (though you did have the option of donating that small change to wildlife and game conservation).

It never took me more than 10 minutes to do my PA taxes under those circumstances.

So I have practical experience with how smoothly a flat tax runs.

2. You are entirely right about the social engineering. It was ridiculous for the government to mandate that banks make loans to people who couldn't afford them. When we bought this house we were offered some of those loans for amounts we knew we couldn't possibly make the monthly payments on and really wondered what on earth they were thinking. We ended up taking a traditional loan for a far more modest amount from a local bank.

However, the "Fair Tax" is also a piece of social engineering since it punishes people for daring to desire greater than approved comfort in their lives by applying high taxes on the purchase of greater than approved amounts of material goods.

FeedFwd
Make sense...i quit smoking due to the high (unfair) taxes that have been imposed on tobacco at the state and federal levels. Nothing to do with my health (although i feel better), and everything to do with my wallet.

Our heroes
Our heroes throughout our history that have given their lives for our country did not die for socialism. They did not die so that some beaurocrats could put their nose in your business and control our everyday lives. They did not die for an unlimited government. They did not die for a planned economy.


THEY DIED FOR LIBERTY. THEY DIED FOR THE CAUSE OF FREEDOM.

If we are not free to earn our keep and spend it in the way we please we are not free.

If the money is in their hands rather than ours than the power is in their hands and not in ours.

Tax anything...
...and you will get less of it. Tax things unequally and you have just distorted the market. If I decide to tax baseballs, but not tennis balls, at the margin, some people who would have played baseball will switch to tennis. If I tax income from labor and not from investment, then I will get more investment at the margin. I'm not saying any of these are better or worse, only that taxes do affect prices and purchasing decisions. This is so well known, that it is the major tool of legislatures to affect behavior. Give tax breaks to companies and they will locate in your community. Tax gasoline and people will drive less. Example after example, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Homosexual Tax would be fair

The Homosexual tax would help defray the costs the rest of us have to pay because of their 'Chosen Lifestyle'.

This money should be escrowed to help poor families buy health insurance and life insurance which has skyroceted because of the poor decisions made by those 'Choosing a Homosexual' lifestyle.

Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population. Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs. In addition to diseases that may be transmitted during lesbian sex, a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV.

It is well established that there are high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among gays and lesbians. This is true even in the Netherlands, where gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) relationships are far more socially acceptable than in the U.S. Depression and drug abuse are strongly associated with risky sexual practices that lead to serious medical problems.

The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy.

A tax on Homosexuals would be a 'Fair Tax'.

Retired Geek
"Obama has made accountability a key thrust of his approach since his election on a platform vowing sweeping change in the way Washington operates."

He is...by replacing the Republican crooks with Democrat crooks...Now that is change we can believe in. The USA is going to Hades in a hand basket

Joycey...
See http://WWW.FairTax.org. It is a modified national sales tax. The flat tax is an income tax. The name is pure marketing. But you can call it fair because anything and everything purchased new is taxed the same rate. It doesn't have anything to do with or concern for your wealth or income, only what you buy new. It replaces all payroll taxes and eliminates the income tax by repealing the 16th amendment. There are 2 good books out on it and numerous discussions and forums. I encourage you to do your research. You may not be convinced, but a lot of thought has gone into it, the issue of prebates to divorced families notwithstanding.

That is a valid issue that MO4 brings up. I have some ideas, but I'm not the one who wrote the legislation and I don't recall anybody addressing that specific issue. That is why I encouraged MO4 to contact Rep Linder. She might also get an answer from the website or by calling in on the Boortz radio show, as he is a leading proponent and co-author of at least 2 books on the subject.

As for a flat tax, look at the original income tax and see what it has morphed into. Are we prepared to pass a flat tax and prevent it from morphing again? Do we know what the flat tax rate would be? Is there agreement on what is or isn't income and on if there will remain any exemptions/deductions/etc, like on housing, necessities, foreign derived income, etc?

Sir Mallard
Welcome to the party...Here is a site you may want to check out http://mylibertyspace.ning.com/

Long Live Liberty and the Libertarian Party

http://www.lp.org

FeedFwd
Please explain how taxes distort the free market.

Obama Stays the Course with 'Tax Cheats'

WASHINGTON (Reuters) 1-31-09

"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's nomination was held up earlier by criticism over late payment of $34,000 in taxes."

"Tom Daschle, picked to spearhead U.S. health care reform, failed to pay more than $128,000 in taxes."

"The president has confidence that Senator Daschle is the right person to lead the fight for health care reform," Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said when the news broke. The White House reiterated that position on Saturday.

"Obama has made accountability a key thrust of his approach since his election on a platform vowing sweeping change in the way Washington operates."


M.O. 4
I am all for NO exceptions!!!! Pay the tax on EVERYTHING you buy but alas I dont think even THAT would stop people from wailing about how "essentilas" should not be taxed. Problem is we will always have politicians wo are sympathetic to those wailings. They seek a political advantage from it.

Obama 'Dealing with the Real Issues'


In a pre-Super Bowl interview with Matt Lauer on NBC Sunday, Barack Obama stated about Jessica Simpson:
"Yeah, who’s losing a weight battle apparently. (LAUGHTER) Yeah. Oh, well."

Barack Obama apparently doesn't like Jessica Simpson because she replaced him and Michelle Obama on the cover of 'US Weekly' and is pursuing a career in 'Country Music'.

People are freezing all over the Mid West and Kentucky - without power - and the President is calling an Entertainer "Fat".

The Obama Doctrine: Anyone like Limbaugh or Simpson, who takes the 'Spotlight' off Obama will be attacked or derided.


gestell
So you believe that the Republican party SHOULD discriminate on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, and a belief in science. That will not help the republican party. You are a sad person.

MO4...
Why does anybody buy used goods today? Because they cost less and still have life in them. But they are still subject to the economic lawy of supply and demand. Price is only a reflection. If there is more demand for used goods, then they will become more expensive and people will elect to buy new goods, because the differential is no longer sufficient to motivate as many to buy used goods. You can't look at the market as a static thing. It is dynamic, always seeking, but never reaching equilibrium. Taxes only distort the free market. So the more uniform taxes are and the lower they are, the less they distort the market. So if we must tax something, then lets tax citizenship (head tax), wealth (property tax), spending (sales tax), but not wealth creation (income tax).

Libertarian Party
Mike, I love your columns, and agree with almost all you say. However, I think your problem is in trying to fix the Republican Party. I heard Rush say the Republican Party is destroyed, yet he keeps trying to fix it. The real party for conservatives is the Libertarian Party. After 36 years as a registered Republican, I realized it was hopelessly lost. It is time for true conservatives to embrace the truly conservative party, the party of freedom, the party of capitalism, the party of constitutional law, the Libertarian Party.

Will, you prove that gays are more than just great florists. You have a great sense of humor too.

Obama is appeasing these people

I think I saw some of the 'Trolls' that post here at Town Hall; last night, was that Hal Donahue leading the service?

They were having a 'Funeral for a Tree' that had fallen in the forest.

You DO NOT want to miss this.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ed0_1220618296

"Ignorance is the mothers milk of Liberalism" Retired Geek

Mother of 4.
I am also a mother of 4.
The Fair tax and the flat tax are not the same thing? What does fair mean in this title? I am always suspicious when the word "fair" is used. Reminds me of toddlers looking for more than their share of cookies.

FeedFwd,
Considering that perhaps as many as 40% of American children are from broken homes that's an awfully big number to be considered a "special case" rather than an ordinary circumstance.

I thought of the broken homes case from personal experience -- being a child of divorce though if a divorce can be considered optimal at all my parents handled it in the optimal fashion, having a sister who has been through a far more difficult divorce, and having a friend in college whose parents put him through one of the hell on earth types before he landed in his grandmother's custody.

Others, with different personal experiences may find similar practical application issues as it would apply to situations they have experienced.

A well-formed policy, worthy of support, should have considered an issue as common as acrimonious divorce. If such a COMMON AND PREDICTABLE situation was not taken into account in the formation of the proposal I have to wonder what else was also not taken into account.

and more...
As I mentioned, I am opposed to the prebate. It is unnecessarily progressive. But if it sells the plan, OK. What is unfair about paying taxes on your purchases, especially when you can avoid them if you want by buying used goods or saving and investing rather than spending? What is unfair, is giving back money on spending. But they have made it as fair as possible by making it the same for everybody, regardless of income, cost of living, or any other factor. US citizen? Then you get the prebate. Everybody still pays the same tax on everything they buy new. I don't see how it punishes those who choose to earn more. If you earn more, you can spend more.

MO4...
I'm open to discussion on this. I don't have all the answers. But I think I can answer some of your arguments.

Most states already collect sales tax. Obviously splitting taxes off to the feds will require some additional staff. So will implementing a sales tax in states where there is none. And the higher rate will definitely make it more worthwhile to find ways to avoid it. So there will be some govt equivalent to the IRS. But they will deal with companies selling stuff. You already need a license to sell stuff in most locales. It isn't that hard to track. It doesn't affect garage sales. If there was a previous bill of sale (sales receipt), then it isn't new anymore. The seller would be obligated to collect the tax as they do now in states with a sales tax. It is no skin off a business's back, as long as all businesses collect the tax. So businesses will even be likely to help self-police.

And by taking the income tax component out of goods and taxing them all equally, it puts domestic production on a more competitive and fairer footing with imports. It also makes exports more competitive in the world market, at least compared with the current system.

The courts already handle custody cases and divorce settlements. This will simply be another line item. Who gets the prebate check.


Dumbed Down Electorate.
From reading some of the left-wing posts,it is easy to see how B.Hussein conned them into supporting him. Look at the list of crooks they have kept in office.

Tom Daschle is a prime example of how voters have been so dumbed down,they will vote for anyone who offers them a bag of goodies. Never mind that he is cheating the very people who voted for him. Amazing.

Fair Tax
Two reasons for it.

1. The huge costs of complying with the tax code will be vastly reduced (not eliminated).

2. Social engineering by politicians will be vastly reduced (not eliminated).

As a commercial real estate broker with 20-20 hindsight, I can predict that social engineering by politicians can destroy the S & L's. First, you pass laws giving tax incentives in the 1970s and 1980s to those who invest in certain types of real estate, thus increasing real estate prices. Then, you eliminate those benefits and inflated values with the Tax Law of 1986. The instantaneous reduction in the value of the collateral held by S & L's will bankrupt them.

And, don't tell me that the S & L's were destroyed by greedy individuals. There are not enough crooks in the country to destroy an entire industry. Government was the Mafia and some individuals were street thugs.

Mother of 4
Glad to see that someone else sees what I see in regards to the Fair Tax. I take issue with it's name for starters. We are a nation based upon equality, not fairness. It seems fairness means a wallet scan in this country.

I also see a plan so full of loop holes that future politicians would love to exploit it in the name of re-election. "If you give a mouse a cookie...."

I will say though, that the Fair Tax, even with all of it's flaws, is still better than the current mess.

Chuck (ME) asks:
"How does one really drive those like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins back to the Democrat Party where they belong?"

Easy - do what I do. Don't give money to the Republican party - I stopped a few years ago. I include a note why when they solicit me for membership. Give money intead to the individual candidates or PACs that support true conservatives.

Adams
is both right and wrong. Elections are won on majorities so before you go booting people to the curb my suggestion is to win them over with points and logic, not passion. Who knows, maybe in a fair debate they just might win you over.

However there is some value to kicking people to the curb. Now is the time to watch and see who the true RINO's are and where their loyalty lies. If they signed up to be a Republican, knowing full well what the platform of the party is, and do not adhere to it, boot them. They are dragging the party down and poisoning the well.

As to the social issues, it was liberals that brought that into the political arena. There was as time in this country that people simply minded their own business, but the minute we started legislating from the bench that changed. The minute we started with every single whim becoming a 'right', that changed. The government is far more into social engineering than actual governing.

n,
"The easiest answer round the pre-bate is not apply the national sales tax to food and I am sure others will want to debate other "essential" items that should be exempt."

Which is, I believe, exactly how we got into the current swamp with lobbyists continually carving out new exceptions to favor the people whose "needs" they are paid to advocate. :D

That's why when I say I favor a low, flat tax I am careful to include the point that there must be NO exemptions, exceptions, loopholes, or other ways to evade it.

The moment you allow even the smallest, most well-meant exception to the rule of everyone paying the exact, same rate you open up the whole can of worms again. *shakes head*

I think that one of the major distinctions between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that mankind can be perfected if only they get the right laws in place while conservatives accept that the best we can do short of the Second Coming is a least of evils. LOL

There's Will right away bringing up his
"condition". Mike didn't say anything about interior decorating or hanging curtains, neother of which have a serious effect on property values as potential owners consider that changeable fluff.

BTW, ...
BTW, ...

If, under the "Fair Tax", people can easily decide to pay no taxes by only buying used goods then where will the goods come from?

If no one is buying new goods because of the punitive tax rate on them (remember, people cross state lines and put up with the delays of shopping online to avoid paying a "mere" 6% state sales tax), then the market will respond with a reduced supply.

This will, result in the prices of new good climbing even higher, resulting in even fewer purchases, resulting in an even further reduced supply.

No new goods will shortly mean no used goods either -- people won't get rid of things if they can't replace them.

People will end up standing in lines to buy their minimal needs because of shortages -- unable to obtain a t-shirt and a pair of jeans at any price without resorting to the black market.

Hmmm, I'm reminded of someplace I heard a lot about while growing up.

It almost makes you think that the originator of this idea learned his economics at Party meetings in Moscow.

Right but not Right enough
Finally, one of Mike's columns I can agree with. If the Republican party is to play any role in American politics, it must develop and enforce its own doctrinal purity. There should be no room for non-conservatives of any sort, no matter how they label themselves. Membership should be based on express, stated agreement with a list of principles developed by conservatives.

Those principles should include criteria for membership such as:
1. heterosexuality; no gays in the Republican party. Period.
2. Religion. A religious test should be part of party membership. While Judaism is acceptable, Christianity is to be preferred.
3. Anti-abortion. There should be no prochoice Republicans. Period.
4. Creationist