Here's a REAL economic stimulus package ... and just in time for Tax Day!

Please sign up, pass it on, and join in your support of the FairTax ... something needs to be done, and fast, to counteract the horrendous "stimulus package" being rammed down our throats by our President and the United States Congress!

The FairTax plan is by far the most workable solution, if not the *only* solution, to what our economy is facing today, and it has been endorsed by a long list of highly respected American economists.

The principles of the FairTax plan are sound, time-tested economic principles that transcend ideology and party lines, so the plan is something most of us can get behind, no matter which side of the political fence we're on.

If you don't know a lot about it, take the time to read up on it at the website. I am sure you, too, will be convinced that it is the only way out of the heinous mess our "leaders" in Washington have put us in!!!!

Un-effing-believable! The corporate bailout feeding frenzy intensifies

Um, let me see here: Amex has obtained bank status so that it, too, can get in line for bailout money, the Fed is refusing disclosure and insisting we don't need to know where our taxpayer money is going, and AIG is getting another $38 billion on top of the $85 bil they've just gotten.

At first I was so mad I couldn't even think straight, but at this point I am beyond enraged, beyond sick, beyond disgusted.

I happen to be an AMEX cardholder, so upon hearing this unconscionable news about AMEX, part of me was tempted to stop paying my American Express bill (which for the past two months HAS BEEN MORE THAN MY MORTGAGE!) so as to keep from paying them twice: once through my bill and a second time through my taxes. (As one dismayed Michelle Malkin reader noted: "I've been paying them money for years. Now I have to pay them twice?") But alas, defaulting on my AMEX bill would affect my credit. And if I chose to go the tax evasion route instead, I'd have the IRS after me.

So, really, there's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. These corporations WILL have your money whether you like it or not, and guess what, neither they nor the federal government believe that you have the right to know where it's going. It's taxpayer robbery at gunpoint.

And as if that weren't enough to make you sick, here's why pork projects thrive in the Democratic Congress's spending scam. Turns out the "paygo" principle that helped them take back the majority in 2006 has been quietly dropped from their central platform and has been wantonly trampled upon ever since by both spend-happy Democrats and Republicans alike (e.g., Ted Stevens). Nice, huh?!

The only thing we can do at this point is to take note, and REMEMBER the Senators and Congressional representatives who have gone hog wild and then vote every last one of those spend-happy a-holes out in 2010. And give your local Congressional representative no peace, no rest until he or she agrees to support the Fair Tax. We MUST do these things to ensure that our country and its citizens survive this economic crisis.

Obama Claus

A great article by ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper.

"Once you get past the soaring oratory, to experience a speech by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is to be hit with an astoundingly lengthy list of promises.

"I don't know how any reasonable person" could think he'd really be able to accomplish everything he's pledging to do, said the mother-in-law of a colleague, a Missouri woman who intends to vote for Obama.

Just today in Sarasota, Fla., the Democratic presidential nominee said that he'd: ..." Click here to read more.

Below Tapper's article was a compelling argument posted by a reader, Dr_Applebreath, that got my attention:

"How Reason Works

What if Obama had the strongest record of bipartisanship in the Senate, with major bills to his credit like the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign reform, the 2003 McCain-Lieberman climate stewardship and the 2007 McCain-Kennedy immigration reform acts.
What if McCain had the most extreme partisan voting record in the Senate?

What if Obama offered a broad, sensible energy policy that embraced both emerging and current resources, including building the greenest power plants possible with nukes?

What if McCain declared that the nuclear waste technology we've invested hundreds of billions in over the last three decades is unacceptable, and refused to build nukes until we invent something better than Yucca Mountain?

What if Obama offered sensible tax policies that have historically led to healthy business growth and financial freedom for more Americans?

What if McCain promised to cut taxes for 95% of us while proposing almost a trillion dollars in new spending?

What if Obama had called for reform and oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2006 that could have prevented the current financial collapse, only to have his efforts squashed by the opposition party?

What if McCain was the second highest recipient of political donations from Fannie and Freddie in his short Senate career, and had the former head of Freddie heading up his VP-vetting team, and the WaPo published the fact that the disgraced former head of Fannie was a financial advisor to his campaign?

What if Obama had been the leading supporter of the surge strategy that has won the war in Iraq?

What if McCain's primary claim to fame was his leading the charge to lose the war by withdrawing all our forces in Iraq where Al Qaeda declared their new caliphate?

What if Michelle Obama devoted her time and wealth to charitable organizations over the last couple of decades, and she adopted a Bangladeshi girl with a cleft palate on a visit to one of Mother Teresa's orphanages?

What if Cindy McCain got a $200,000 raise in her job as a Community Relations Director in a hospital when her husband became a Senator, and once in the Senate her husband put in a $1M earmark for her employer U of Chi Hospital, and she declared that when her husband won the nomination for Presidency was the first time she was really proud of her country?

What if Joe Biden had a proven record of opposing his own party and winning, and confronting Big Oil and winning, and sharing the revenues he levied on Big Oil with the citizens of his state?

What if Sarah Palin imagined we and the French "kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon" and said President Roosevelt "went on TV in 1929" (before TV existed) to talk to Americans about the Depression (before FDR became President in 1933)?

Well, hell, I'd vote for Obama. There's nothing racist about it."

Heh, heh. Things are getting even more interesting than I thought!

Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250K

A very good article by Ned Barnett in The American Thinker that pinpoints four major discrepancies/lies in Obama's "No Tax Increase for People Earning Under $250K" tax plan.

"I worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.

"The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't 'count' allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a 'tax increase.' It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.

"See the difference?

"Neither do I."

Click here to read the full article.

New York Post and WSJ: The Truth About Obama's Tax Plan

New York Post: "OBAMA TELLS THE TAX TRUTH"

"An unscripted moment with an Ohio plumber produced a startling confession from Barack Obama Sunday: The Democrat's 'middle-class tax cut' is in fact a scheme to 'spread the wealth around.' Obama dropped the mask long enough to tell the truth to Toledo plumber Joe Wurzelbacher - who had asked the Democratic nominee why he wanted to jack up his taxes just for 'fulfilling the American dream.' 'I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year,'
Wurzelbacher had told Obama. 'Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?' 'It's not that I want to punish your success,' Obama replied. 'I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too . . . When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.' At last! The truth is out!"

Click here to read the New York Post article

New York Post: "Lessons from the Plumber"

Who was the winner in last night's Presidential debate? Joe Wurzelbacher, a/k/a "Joe the Plumber," that's who.

Click here to read the New York Post article

Wall Street Journal: "Obama's 95% Illusion"

Obama's 'tax cut' for 95% of Americans? Depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.

Click here to read the WSJ article

Tax cuts for the rich (the eeevil rich)

I've always said it's impossible for individuals who have taken at least 1 course in economics and have at least a rudimentary knowledge of macroecon and microecon to be Democrats/liberals/progressives/what-have-you, and that those with economic credentials who spread agit-prop peddling socialism, government programs, increased taxation and the like as viable solutions to the nation's ills are flat-out lying to their audience.

For the edutainment of those in need of the basics, as well as those who could use a refresher, here is a great exposé of the truth about tax cuts, attributed (incorrectly) to an economist at UGA. See the Snopes scoop on this article. While I have no information on its true authorship, having taken a few courses in econ I can confirm that the content itself is solid.
* * * * * * * * * *

Sometimes politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help.

Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics

This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man: "But he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Distinguished Professor of Economics
536 Brooks Hall University of Georgia