Alternative Minimum Tax Hike?

Shortly after the mid term elections last year the newly elected Democratic leadership promised the American taxpayers to “fix” the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is a little known tax that was created almost 40 years ago to force 150 or so wealthy families to pay taxes. These families had not broken any law by not paying taxes, they simply used the tax code to avoid paying any income taxes. The AMT has grown over the 3 plus decades that it has been in existence to include over 3.8 million taxpayers in 2006. The major flaw with the AMT is that it does not take into account inflation or any tax cuts that have been implemented over the years.

I know what many are thinking right now. “This tax does not affect me. I am not in the top 1% or even the top 10% of wage earners.” The sad news is that within the next 3 years at least 26 million more taxpayers will be paying the AMT. The AMT does not take the place of your existing tax rate, it is an additional tax on top of your income tax. Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, show that nearly every family with a total income of $100,000 will be paying $2000 more in taxes next year. Worse yet, many families with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 will see a $1000 increase in taxes.

Some Senate Democrats have proposed a plan that would eliminate the AMT but raise taxes on those with more than $500,000 in income. Many politicians up for reelection next year are afraid to back such a plan, because of being seen as proponents of tax increases. Another plan is to simply postpone the effect of the AMT for 2 years, conveniently after the next election, and then work on tax increases to offset any loss of tax revenue from the AMT. Why does the government always expect the taxpayers to do with less money, but never even consider that they should do with less money?

Let’s not forget that the Republicans were in control of Congress for 12 years and failed to do anything about the AMT. They also failed to act on making Bush’s tax cuts, which by the way have caused an increase in tax revenues over the past 6 years. Whatever happened to Republicans being the party of tax cuts and fiscal responsibility? I am not saying the Democrats have been any better about spending since they have been in power. The political promises of last election season that earmark spending would be transparent, has yet to be accomplished. Both political parties have been severely lacking when it comes to tightening the purse strings in Washington. Isn’t any wonder why congressional approval ratings are at historic lows?

Quote of the Day and Some Thoughts About Shamnesty

"At this point, the people supporting this bill might as well be supporting putting crack in elementary school vending machines because quite frankly, it probably couldn't do much more damage to their political careers than this bill." John Hawkins -- rightwingnews.com

John lists a group of polls on his site this morning once again demonstrating a vile hatred of the Senate's Immigration Bill. But it is not only by Hawkins, nor just by conservatives, but also by liberals.

A Democracy Corps poll shows that democrats are evenly split over the issue. Voters said that they were more likely to support the bill if it tightened border security and stopped illegal aliens from getting government benefits. SFGate.com has info on that poll. Rasmussen polls show that only 20% of American voters support the bill, while almost 70% want an approach that focuses "exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration."

This has got to be the strangest paradox in political history. If you look at most polls, you will find that the splits are partisan. Example, look at a poll regarding George Bush and the economy. About 40% of voters give him high marks on the economy. If you break in down by party, 77% of Republicans give him high marks while only 10% of Democrats agree. On this issue those who would normally support a Republican president praise him, while those who would not support a Republican president do not.

Immigration is a different animal. This bill, and the president who is pushing it, is opposed by the left and the right. On this issue, the President gets high marks from 24% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats.

But despite this uniform opposition from the left and the right, the Senate and the President are on television daily explaining to us that they are pushing this reform because that's what American voters want them to do. And there was much confusion in the land.

Look, I'm not one to trust polls because I know that they can be skewed by biased pollsters. I also know that 90% of the people responding to these polls have done not one bit of research into the subject matter. But this is more overwhelming than most. There is no support for Immigration Reform, but we have morons in DC who swear to us that it has vast support and that it is absolutely necessary. How is this even possible? Have Bush and Cheney stopped watching Fox News?

Completely left out of the debate in DC is the fact that there is no support for this bill. Completely left out of why there is no support for this bill is the fact that Congress was not given permission to create new laws in an effort to cover up the fact that it refused to enforce laws that have been on the books for decades.

Take a look at what Hawkins has to say. If I keep typing, I'm going to get angry and punch my monitor.

Maybe We Should Draft This Guy

As all of my loyal readers are aware (both of you), I recently awarded Jim DeMint "Coolest Person In Congress At The Moment." This is a very prestigious award in certain ranks. It just happens that those ranks are very secretive, so chances are you have never heard of them.

I did a little investigation, which means I looked at Senator DeMint's website. I discovered that his push to stop shamnesty isn't the only thing that makes this man a patriot and a great American who should be placed upon a pedestal and have his praises sung to him. Ok, maybe I'm a little overboard.

Senator DeMint also supports a version of the Consumption Tax, or Fair Tax. He calls it the "8.5% Tax Reform Plan." The specifics are on his website. Here are the highlights:

Replace all individual federal income taxes with a flat 8.5% national retail sales tax on new goods and services.

Provide a universal rebate to all Americans so that the poor are not taxed on basic consumption. The rebate is applied through the reduction in payroll taxes.

Replace all corporate income taxes with a flat 8.5% business transfer tax.

He claims that this is revenue neutral. This is a matter of debate. The estimates for a needed consumption tax rate have been between 23% and 35% to ensure that the federal revenues continue to rise to pay for all of the very necessary earmarks for Congressional pet projects that mean nothing to the average taxpayer. However, the argument remains that if we had such bold tax reform, it would increase economical investment in the U.S. to such an extent that tax revenues could possibly increase substantially. Companies and individuals would no longer spend untold billions on tax preparations and the prices of goods and services would decrease. Fewer jobs would be sent overseas. This may or may not be tax neutral, the problem is that we just don't know until we try it. It is all economical theory. Of course, if you added this bold reform to spending reform, it increases your chances of tax neutrality.

Because this is so debatable an issue, we will instead stick to the 45,000 page long IRS tax code that no one understands and which currently allows an estimated 400 billion dollars in tax cheats each year. That is an interesting estimate because if the IRS were collecting it, there would be no federal deficit at the moment. I just thought I would mention that part.

Senator DeMint seems to have a strong position on two very important issues, borders and taxes. This is why I would like to see him have more of a leadership roll in the Republican Party in D.C. right now. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing this guy as a Presidential candidate. I like his stance on both of these very important issues, and he demonstrated an ability last week to play the political game when it was necessary to help stall the horrible shamnesty bill, I mean the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" bill. No, I mean shamnesty. He was able to gain enough support from a handful of Republicans and Democrats to force a vote the stalled the bill. He will now be judged on his ability to finish killing this thing. If he can get it done, it would certainly help him gain popularity with the American public.

Of course there are already ten men running for the GOP nomination. The two most liberal are the front runners because they are popular. Senator DeMint is not popular like McCain and Giuliani, and he isn't an actor. If he jumped into the race, he would lose. And we would probably lose too because he would be focusing on his campaign and his help in defeating shamnesty would be missed.

I do have a compromise however. Maybe DeMint should be Fred Thompson's running mate.

Message to the GOP -- We Are Not Democrats

This is one reason why my voter card has an "I" for "Independent"
by The New Pundit

To quote John Hawkins, "The GOP seems to be under the impression that conservatives have a duty to support their policies and decisions in office. This is exactly backwards and is the sort of thinking you'd expect from Feudal lords, not from American politicians. Conservatives put these Republicans into office to represent our views and the reason they're not getting a lot of support from the base is because they're doing a very poor job of showing us that they're listening and responding to what we want them to do."

It seems that the Republicans in Congress have mistaken us. They seem to believe that we are in fact Democrats. I can understand the kind of thinking that Hawkins describes above in the circles of people like Pelosi and Reid, but not in the circles of people like McCain and Graham. Let's take a good look at the thought process of the average Democrat. I'll give some examples.

Many Democrats are of the belief that Clinton was the greatest president ever. Ask them why and they spout off things about the economy and that our country was at peace with the rest of the world. They of course don't talk about the fact that Clinton was handed an economy that was already booming, and gave it to Bush Jr. on the brink of recession. They also fail to discuss the fact that Clinton sent out more force deployments than any president since WW2, most of which were abject failures. They also gloss over the fact that much of the strife today took hold while he was in office and was in fact made worse because of the failures of his deployments. That isn't peace.

Democrats believe that Carter was a great president. They forget that he installed the current government in Iran. They forget about the horrible economy that he made worse.

There are numerous examples of democrats holding up their own, while shouting in protest when the other side actually agrees with them. Clinton was the one who suggested putting Social Security funds into the stock market. Clinton was the one who signed the Iraq Liberation Act. When Bush tries to move both of these forward, he is called an oil loving Hitler by the same people who applauded Clinton.

There are many other examples I could give, (Sandy Berger, William Jefferson) but I want to get to the point. Democrats have a history of doing exactly as they are told. They rarely hold their politicians accountable for their actions, such as a homosexual relationship with an underage page. We have all come to expect this.

But for some reason, it seems that Republicans believe that their supporters are just that, supporters. Hawkins nails them down pretty well. They are under the impression that we are here to give them a rubber stamp. There is no better example than in the current debate over immigration.

Conservatives have been screaming about the problem at the southern border for a long time. As this issue has cost taxpayers more and more, we have become more and more vocal about our displeasure. Illegal aliens, despite the lie about them doing jobs Americans won't do, are a net loss to our economy. As the number of illegal aliens increases, so increases the unemployment rate and the crime rate within the black community as the illegal aliens take jobs from that community by accepting lower wages. And now we know that they are bringing terrorists with them. We now know that Hugo Chavez is aligned with Iran to bring down the U.S. We know that Al-Qaeda has set up training camps in South American countries to send people through the border. Our voices have become louder and louder as we have more and more reasons to show concern.

Given all of this, how does D.C. decide to handle the lack of law enforcement at our borders? They decide to make new laws. Legislation for legislation's sake. They decided that we need "Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Not only did Republicans jump on board this bandwagon, but it is in fact the Republican President who has led the charge.

I'm going to be frank here. Let me clear my throat. Every single person in Congress who is showing any support whatsoever for the half dead immigration bill that Ted Kennedy and his cohorts put together is in blatant violation of the United States Constitution and needs to be impeached. It is that simple.

Here is my message to the Republicans in Congress. We are not Democrats. We do not support you when you do not support us. When you lie and cheat, we hold you accountable. Apparently you didn't figure this out last year when you made Nancy Pelosi 2nd in line to the President. I know that the Democrats had to lie and cheat to take the majority, but you allowed it to happen when you acted like them. You acted like the Democratic Party and then expected conservative voters to act like Democratic voters. I don't know how it is that you didn't realize how badly you pissed us off. You pissed us off then and you are pissing us off now. STOP PISSING US OFF!!!!! Is this clear yet? If it is not clear yet, we are going to have a Democratic majority for a long while. We are also going to have a Democratic president in a couple of years. Most of the people I know can't afford the taxes and jacked up health care that this will surely bring.

If this does not stop, the Democrats will take over. The really bad news is that when they take over, they will take these same problems and make them worse. That is what they are good at. And the Republican Party politicians will have only themselves to blame.

We are not Democrats.

2008 Primary GOP Straw Poll

Who Will Be Fred Thompson’s VP?

Now that Thompson has wrapped up the GOP nomination, the question on everyone's mind is who he will pick to be his running mate. I know we are still months away from the primaries. I am also aware that Fred hasn't actually announced his bid. But let's be honest, he is going to run and he is going to win. He is the most popular Republican in the race, despite the fact he isn't officially in the race.

The Presidential race is more about popularity than politics. Why do you think the two current front-runners are also the most liberal? Rudy and McCain are popular because of their past. The other candidates don't have the same history. Romney is doing well because he knows marketing, or someone on his team knows marketing. But the rest of the candidates, despite their conservative values, have very low poll numbers. Just don't tell the Ron Paul "truthers" that I said that. Internet polls that allow you to vote 100 times don't count, ok.

Fred is popular, mostly because of his time on the television, which interestingly enough started when he played himself. This led to some great movie rolls, and of course his current roll as a conservative prosecutor. All of this has increased his popularity amongst conservatives and has made him a favorite with conservative pundits and blogs. Some trivia for you, part of his inspiration to run was Dick Wolf, the guy who put together the many Law and Order shows.

So, again, now that he has this thing wrapped up, who will he pick as his running mate? We have seen in the past where the candidate picks a former foe from the primaries. There is some speculation that Fred will pick one of the current candidates. Steve Elliott of grassfire.org is expecting a younger governor, thinking that two senators won't play well in the fight against Barack O'Clinton. This is a very good point, especially given the recent record for senators against governors in the presidential race.

I won't speculate myself, but I will tell you what to look for. Look for polls, transformed into pairing people up with running mates. An example: Would you vote for Hillary/Obama or Thompson/Romney or Thompson/Tancredo?

Fred is running because fictional polls that included himself and Newt put the both of them well above other candidates. Fred played this so that he would know whether or not to actually run. He wanted to be certain that the people were tired of the front-running RINOs. And we are tired of them. Fred will find out who makes the best ticket, and he will start this process very soon.

I'm not sure that he can win it all right now. Republicans are very angry, mostly about amnesty, I mean "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"; I mean amnesty. I don't know if this can be saved, but with his popularity, maybe he is the guy who can do it. The pick for VP will play a very important factor here. The democrats will do the same, we could even see another Clinton/Gore ticket believe it or not. My guess is that it will be Clinton/Obama.

Don't screw it up Fred, the country can't afford it right now.

Sold to the Highest Bidder!! Mexico

In case you haven't yet seen it, here are some links to the all new United States of Mexico.

Here is Malkin with some links and commentary from National Review and NumbersUSA. "It's here: The Bush-Kennedy amnestyReport: Potential cost = $2.5 trillionUpdated with GOP reax"

Brietbart gives some of the details of the sale.

Senator DeMint calls it what it is. "But the little we do know about the bill is troubling. According to reports, the bill contains a new 'Z Visa' that allows those who entered our country illegally to stay here permanently without ever returning home. This rewards people who broke the law with permanent legal status, and puts them ahead of millions of law-abiding immigrants waiting to come to America. I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty."

And here is Mitt, who won some points from me today. "I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new 'Z-Visa' does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S. Today's Senate agreement falls short of the actions needed to both solve our country's illegal immigration problem and also strengthen our legal immigration system. Border security and a reliable employment verification system must be our first priority."

Rep. Steve King: "Each one of these Senators should wear a scarlet letter 'A' for amnesty." Thank you Mr. King.

I also found a good post at digg from poster ritad. Does anyone see the irony that we lost 2 pretty good Kennedy boys, now we are left with fat old windbag brother Teddy, who along with El president Bush, and the rest of the scum bags on both the left and the right have just sold our country down the river by voting to reward bad behavior by illegal immigrants with amnesty. We will now for all intents and purposes be a one party country as the stupid Republicans cannot see the fact that all these new illegal citizens will most assuredly vote democratic, and since they will be the majority now, shows the republicans have just effectively shot their own balls off and don't even realize it, oh well if they are that stupendously ignorant, they don't deserve to have a party anyway. I have one question for anyone out here who might be able to answer it, why in the world do we feel we owe amnesty to people invading our country, disrespecting our laws and our sovereignty, the way they are doing? I am sorry, I just don't get it and will never will, if the house reps, are unable to squelch this bill, our country is doomed. Gone our beautiful country, trashed as Mexico is, wonder when there are not enough original Americans left to pay for welfare, food stamps, medicaid and whatever other entitlements these people feel they should be entitled to, what will they do then? Will they "migrate" on up to Canada? God, we could be so lucky! Our, we might just join Iraq, and have our own little civil war, due to the fact that most of our American citizens are strongly against this amnesty!

And let us not forget who it is we are letting into our country.
U.S. soccer team faces chants of 'Osama'
Illegal Immigration And Terrorism

Illegal Immigration And Terrorism

On Monday, six men were arrested by Federal officers for plotting to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey and slaughter as many soldiers as possible. Law enforcement was tipped off in January of last year when the men took a videotape of themselves in training for a Jihadist attack to a local Circuit City to have it transferred onto a DVD. The store employee notified the police who in turn notified the FBI. The men were then put under surveillance and watched until the arrest early this week.

Three of the six men were in the United States illegally. Two of the men had permanent residency status, and the final man was a citizen. Agron Abdullahu was brought to the U.S. as a refugee from Kosovo in 1999. In just 8 years Abdullahu has gone from refugee that was saved from certain death in his homeland, to Jihad seeking terrorist.

What should be a wake up call to all members of Congress, and the administration, is that three of these terrorists have no record of legal entry into our country. The illegal immigration debate has taken a new turn and can no longer be ignored. Yes, there are millions of illegal immigrants in our country that have come here to work and live peaceful lives. There are others that have come to wreak havoc and kill as many of us as they possibly can.

There are an increasing number of “sanctuary” cities throughout our country, where illegal immigrants are not reported by law enforcement for traffic violations and other minor offenses. In some states the Governors and legislatures have passed or are considering laws that allow illegal immigrants to obtain legal drivers licenses. Maryland has even gone as far to grant illegal immigrants residency status for university admission. These “safe havens” for illegal immigrants do not just attract the peaceful, hard working people; they undoubtedly attract those like the six arrested Monday.

I find it appalling that “well-intentioned” politicians overlook the overwhelming threat against our country in order to placate to a voting block of people. This is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. This is a homeland security issue. Both Republicans and Democrats have their fair share of the blame on this issue. Both sides love the rhetoric of protecting the masses from the terrorists, but neither side has done nearly enough on illegal immigration.

Will this be a wakeup call for Congress and the administration to do more to protect our borders? Will the proponents of open borders continue to preach to us tolerance and multiculturalism? We have laws concerning immigration and they need to be enforced. We need to force our local and state governments to enforce immigration laws. We need to hold our Congressman and the administration responsible for not protecting our borders properly. The administration needs to know that the American people want the illegal immigration criminals punished instead of the border patrol agents guarding our borders.

Did Romney win the Debate of Stupid Questions? -- The Sequel

According to Drudge, Romney took it with 37% of the vote followed by Giuliani with 20%.

Pollster.com gives it to The Mayor with 30% followed by McCain with 17%.

Prisonplanet.com says that Ron Paul had 47% of the vote on MSNBC's poll. I can't find an active link to the MSNBC poll, but yahoo has a US Newswire story with Paul taking 43% of the MSNBC vote.

Interestingly, FoxNews says that McCain won. But the article claiming this was written by Dick Morris. Morris runs vote.com. Vote.com shows the winner to be Ron Paul with 30% followed by Romney with 29%. McCain took only 7%.

With the exception of pollster, these are all online polls, so no one knows how many people voted multiple times. Pollster's survey was limited to California adults, so the fact that the more liberal candidate won probably doesn't reflect the entire country.

More strict Constitutional conservatives now know the name Ron Paul. More conservatives got to compare Giuliani and McCain to Romney. So my question is how long before Romney and Paul are the frontrunners in a field that is currently led by a pro-abortion candidate and a candidate lax on border security? Paul answered a number of questions by saying that something was or was not authorized by the Constitution. He did it so many times that it almost seemed monotonous. But few conservatives will argue with his logic. Romney had some good answers, and I thought his explanation of his abortion views made sense. He said he has always been against it, but believed that it was a choice. After debating the issue, he believes the federal government should pass it to the states. He stood tall and looked good, which won him a lot of points. He looked like a President.

Of course, everyone is still asking about Fred and Newt. If they enter the field, do some of the others drop out? Could Fred and Newt take the frontrunner spots? People like them. Fred is mostly marketing, and Newt has that skeleton out of the closet thing. But people see a lot of comparisons in Fred and Reagan, and not just the acting thing. Newt is probably the smartest of them all when it comes to actually fixing problem. His book Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America is about as good as it gets. If they enter, it changes everything. They may not win, but they certainly make the race more interesting.

What Do The Candidates Really Believe?

As we watch the political season heat up earlier each election cycle, we are treated to the video and audio clips of the candidates making speeches in a variety of locations, before a variety of audiences. One aspect of every speech seems to be the same, no matter where the speech takes place or who it is in front of. Most candidates seem to not only adjust their views, but, in some cases, even their accents.

On March 4 of this year, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both made appearances at churches in Selma, Al. to commemorate the 42nd anniversary of the march for voting rights that led to “Bloody Sunday”. In our politically charged world, we have come to expect politicians to show up at any event to exploit the occasion for their political benefit. Hillary Clinton adopted a southern drawl in her speech that sounded like a bad comedy skit. Barack Obama also adopted a new “dialect” in his speech patterns that gave the impression of a fiery African-American evangelical preacher. Clinton also adopted her “accent” during a speech before Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network on April 20. I realize that she lived in Arkansas for about 20 years, but why would she only speak with southern accent in front of African-American audiences? Why does Obama need to change his speaking style when before African-Americans?

Politicians routinely appear in churches throughout the country to speak to the congregations before elections. You are almost guaranteed to hear the candidates quoting from the Bible as though they just read the scripture that morning during their devotions. I have no doubt that some of these politicians may actually be sincere, but too many times it is all too clear that a speech writer added the scriptural references to try to appeal to the congregation.

John Edwards constantly points out the two Americas that he sees today. Pointing out that there are two distinct classes in our country, the “haves” and the “have nots”. This is almost laughable when you see the pictures of his 28,000 square foot house, complete with an indoor pool, basketball and squash courts. Edwards has every right to have a house this large, but it seems a bit hypocritical. Edward’s wife was quoted as saying their neighbor’s property was “slummy”. That is an odd way to describe a neighbor who definitely would not be considered a member of the “haves”.

Rudy Giulani has emerged as the front runner in many polls for the Republican nomination. He has taken some criticism for his views on abortion and gun control while mayor of New York City. His reaction to the criticism has been to try to explain away his stands on these issues. If he believes in gun control than stand up and say you do and why you support it. Explain to us your reasons for your views on abortion. He is not the only candidate on either side to use this tactic to try to curry favor with the voters, but he is a good example. Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic candidate with whom I disagree on almost every issue, stands behind every view and decision. I believe he is wrong about everything, but I have to respect that he has the courage of his convictions. John Kerry during the 2004 campaign uttered the now famous statement, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.” This one statement epitomizes what most politicians will say or do to win your vote.

Politicians will say or do whatever their audience wants to hear or see, just to get their approval. In every campaign there are instances where a candidate will directly contradict themselves from an earlier speech. The campaign staff will scramble to come up with a “logical” explanation of what their candidate actually meant to say, and we all nod our heads in agreement. Why do we accept politicians that talk out of both sides of their mouths just to get votes? It is a forgone conclusion that a politician will promise you the world, but will never, ever deliver; but yet the voting public sheepishly follows along and hopes that this time it will be different.

I believe it is time we demand more of our candidates. We must realize that their will never be the perfect candidate that we agree with on every issue. We are going to disagree on some issues, we deserve an explanation of their view, and then it is up to us to make an informed decision. We should be calling the candidates on their obvious attempts of patronization. I believe we deserve candidates that have the courage of their convictions, who are willing to take a stand and accept the consequences or rewards for that stand. It is up to everyone of us on both sides of the political spectrum to hold the politicians accountable for the views and opinions.