Observations from the Tea Party and Lessons Learned

Crowd Control
First and foremost, I have never seen Police Officers so relaxed during a large scale protest of between 5000-10,000 individuals. From my location, which was along Broadway, State Troopers and other officers were largely smiling, happily discussing issues with protesters, and generally at ease. At no time did I notice that police were on edge, even during the peak of the protest when the crowd swelled and there was a lot of movement of a large amount of people. Namely, this can be attributed to the fact that conservative protesters were angry, but carried a gentile disposition. The left has labelled us as right-wing nuts for our protests - but reality would indicate that we were a group of intelligent, level headed citizens, wishing only to carry a clear message: Individual Responsibility is NOT Dead!

Our message
Signs present were vast, but there was one major message - stop government growth and spending. Signs were present that expressed individuals being "tea'd off" at both Dems and Rep politicians, which was an underlying theme of these parties - non-partisan with a common message of government accountability. Some protesters related government spending to government sponsored abortion, as Obama's funding for pro-abortion programs is just that - federally funded murder. Some protesters went satirical, some were serious - stating that "we will fight you for it" referring to resisting Socialist America. My sign read: Hope, Change, Obey with pictures of Hitler, Stalin, and Obama - with a supporting document on hand - the DHS briefing targeting "right wing extremists". It was my intention not to distract from the tea theme, but to draw attention to the specific targeting of political dissent as enemies of the state. This melded with the ultimate theme of government growth and encroachment - which includes spending - on state and individual rights. About 400 pictures were taken of me and my sign - some from media - and some with video cameras. The intent of the video camera was clearly to catch a "right wing nut" compare Obama to Hitler, but my level headed response was such: "What Bush did in growing government and government spending, Obama is perfecting. I am here in support of states and individual rights protected by the 9th and 10th amendment to the Constitution. Many others are here in protest of the growth in spending and the encroachment of government beyond constitutional bounds." Needless to say, I doubt my response will actually make the cut - opting instead to use footage from less-articulate protesters.

Media and Leftist Reporting/Blogging
Media coverage on site was minimal, and national coverage by news organizations other than Fox was mocking or non-existent. In fact, Local Denver 9 o'clock news on Fox 13 (after American Idol) led with a story about a transgender murder, and after the first five minutes no mention, not even in the introduction highlight of stories for the day, did they mention the protests. Fox Cable News, this morning, ran a story which I was unable to watch, but the headline was "Media Mockery" with aerial footage of some of the events of the day. Leftist Blogs are calling the tea parties failures, indicating that the gathering of 200,000+ protesters, each easily representing 10 who couldn't attend because they had jobs, was little more than right wing extremists - twisting messages on signs to fit an agenda of perceived racism, etc. In Denver, how could you consider one of the largest protests ever at the state capital a failure? Media bias bent on talking down to angry citizens, marginalizing our message and purpose, and deterring individuals from joining the angry majority. In short, the left and the liberal media are attempting to dismiss the meaning, seriousness, and potential impact of these protests. In fact, the most stunning sign in Denver read "I hate that you have made me a protester"... the general feeling of many who were in attendance as well as those not able to make it... How dare our government radicalize core conservative values - and how dare the media marginalize our protest! Hugh Hewitt played a clip on his radio show during the protests in which a CNN or MSNBC reporter began yelling at a protester in the middle of an attempted interview - indicating my next topic - the left just don't get it

The Left Just Didn't Get It
Obama made a speech in regard to the tax day protests, admitting that he didn't fully understand why folks were protesting, as he had just cut taxes for certain individuals. Some counter-protesters (all four of them) held signs saying "Just Shut Up and Pay Your Taxes". General Liberal Media rejected the protests as simple partisan venting with no major implications on American Politics - going so far as attempting to back up their case with a "poll" from their website which indicates that "most Americans support the stimulus packages". On every level it is very clear - the Left just don't understand why Conservatives and Libertarians are enraged.

As such, let me spell it out for our, ahem, slower friends...

1. A majority of us on the right didn't support Bush's stimulus spending. Bailouts, entitlements, etc - these are all failed economic programs that do nothing more than stagnate economies - take special note of Japan's economy during the 90's, where bail-outs and entitlements to the citizens increased debt and did nothing to stimulate their economy - we are in the same trap. The left claims that free market killed the economy, but they are lying... it is the encroachment of these failed socialist economic principles that killed the economy, but they on the left used a wool blanket lie that "Bush was in Charge, he is a conservative, so therefore conservative free markets failed". In philosophy 101, this is clearly identified as a false logical argument... also known as an attempt to make something appear true when it is, in fact, not... Bush was a social conservative, NOT an economic conservative... These are two very different and distinct issues that the left want to confuse, but it must be our role to tell the truth.

2. The right don't mind paying taxes - we just want to eliminate unnecessary taxes. We pay more than our fair share. We want an overhaul of the tax system - to a flat or fair tax. Make those in the lower tax bracket buy a stake in America - make them pay a flat rate of 18%... the same rate that the wealthy should have to pay... This rate is proven to promote maximum economic growth - anything less and there is not enough for "social balance", anything more and there is incentive to cheat taxation (and less incentive to succeed).

3. We want the government to curb spending. We want the government to eliminate debt owned to foreign nations.

4. We want the government to return to the Constitutional Republic structure on which it was founded... with smaller federal government, and more control at the local and state levels... re-enact the 9th and the 10th amendment, returning powers to the states, and reducing the role of the federal government to within the boundaries of the constitution.

5. We want the government out of businesses, out of banks (including the Federal Reserve - which is a private bank), out of mortgages, etc. Reduce your size and your role to the powers given to you by the people in the founding document - the Constitution. You have taken an oath to support and defend it - now do so!

6. And we want you and the government to leave our f-ing guns alone! We have a right to arm ourselves for personal, property, and civil defense as an unorganized militia. This is not a right from the government, but a natural right of existence.

To our friends on the left who still don't get it... You want equal outcome for all, we want equal opportunity for all... there is a difference. We should all have the opportunity for success without interference from other forces - least of all the government! We should not ensure that, regardless of level of effort or level of personal contribution, we all get the same product. This is the mindset that de-motivates and de-incentivizes a population, and as such removes or reduces the amount of individuals able or willing to strive for success. We want a reward system for success... you want a reward system for status-quo.

In closing - we will not be marginalized, we will not be cast aside. We will accept that you are radicalizing us, and we thank you for the motivation. We are stronger, smarter, and proven ideals that all free men strive toward. You are weaker, more easily duped, and support ideology that has failed throughout human history.

We will win - you will lose!

Fair Tax or Flat Tax? How Will Americans Benefit Most?

There is an old saying: Two things are certain, Death and Taxes.

Scientists are working hard every day to work on the Death predicament... but what are we doing about taxes?

Currently in the US, every dollar that we make is taxed on the order of +60% over four levels of government and by many means of taxation. We have Federal Income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax, State income tax, state sales tax, property tax, stamp tax, gas tax, gift tax, real estate tax, car tab tax, recreational vehicle tax, estate tax, luxury tax, capital gains tax, etc, etc, etc... I think the point is well made in that list...

So the general question that I would like to discuss is: With all these taxes on our achievements and wellness, not only how do we succeed, but why do we try?

It is very well known, and even discussed by Karl Marx, that the best way to stimulate economic growth is by reducing the taxation of the people. Imagine that... even the brainchild of the Communist Manifesto went forward understanding that communism stifled economic prosperity. But it seems that his followers today fail to grasp the fundamentals of economics, and have instead focused on his dreams of a Utopian communist society (aka Pipe Dream!)

Our infinitely complicated tax code in the United States is currently set up to stifle non-government controlled economic growth. There are penalties on savings, penalties on success, penalties on achieving breakthroughs in business that may bump you into a "higher tax bracket". So the harder you work, the harder you are taxed... Therefore, it is better to achieve the minimum and settle for modest results.

Let's look at an example. Imagine that you make $100 in a month in your business. The government says that if you make $100 in your business, you will be taxed $15. Your after tax earnings are $85. Now, suppose you had a boost in business, and the next month you made $101. The tax code is set up in a way that you are now in a new tax bracket, being taxed at a higher rate, and you will be taxed $20 for the month. So your second month after tax income, though you had more business, was $81. This is how our tax system currently works...

So where is the incentive to work harder?

It is in a new tax code system.

Currently, our tax code is 16,845 pages long... it is a mess of varying taxes, tax exemptions, blah blah blah... So how do we fix it?

Two solutions have been suggested: Fair Tax and Flat tax. Which one is better?

The Fair Tax is a plan that would eliminate income tax, and move the entirety of the Federal Tax to a consumption based tax rate of around 23%. What this means is that of the $101 made in the month, you get $101 in your pocket (or bank). Then the tax is applied when you go to purchase, say, a ream of paper for $5. The price after tax would be $6.15. Supposing that the ream of paper is the only purchase you needed to make in that month, your $101 will have been taxed only the one time, leaving you with an after tax amount of $99.85. Food is exempt from the consumption tax... so it is voluntary tax based on the level of your consumption. Assuming consumption rates stay the same, the net income to the government will be revenue neutral. However, there will be a boom to the economy because there is more money on the front side of the consumer process, so consumption rates would likely increase (though one would hope that SAVINGS rates increased!). There are a few down sides to the Fair Tax. The first glaring one is that to protect the citizens from a consumption tax AND an income tax, there will need to be a constitutional amendment. Repeal the 16th and rewrite to ensure that the Congress does not impose an income tax. The second is the uncertainty in tax revenue. You can predict trends in income, but if those trends do not pan out, the revenue will be short (which is fine by me... the US government does not need a 3 Trillion dollar budget!)

The Flat Tax is a flat, one rate, income tax. No matter what tax bracket you are in, you pay one tax one time. CATO institute suggests that maximum economic growth occurs with a total tax rate around 18%. That means if you make $100 you pay $18. If you make $101, you pay $18.18 and so on. There are no tax brackets, no penalties for success... just a one sentence IRS tax code that says: If you live and work in the US, You pay 18% income tax.

Of course neither tax fix deals with state and local taxes... so the flat tax rate would have to consider state and local tax rates to achieve the maximum economic growth. The logic behind the 18% is that all of the taxes listed above must add up to 18%.

Is one better than the other? I think they are equally effective in limiting government control on personal success and economic progress.

Is one easier to implement than the other? Yes. The flat tax would be the first step in halting the out of control government, and making a proactive change in our economy and society. The fair tax is a radical idea that would take much time and money to implement... though once implemented, it could be a great way to leverage power from the government back to the people (imagine consumption strikes to limit income to the government!).

The idea is economic freedom. The medium for freedom is through a people smart tax code. The rest is up to us.

Taxes, and tax code changes

With Mike Huckabee forcing the GOP contenders to no longer be considered "top tier", rather "top-five" contenders, it is also bring more discussion about the Fair Tax. Now, I must admit that I am a bit of a fan of the Fair Tax, which is why it upsets me when I hear folks like Romney insist time and again that the Fair Tax would mean a 33% national sales tax, and how it would hurt the retired folks who no longer pay income taxes... Let's stop the political dribble, and discuss real tax reform.

For starters, the Fair Tax will require no more than a 22% National Sales tax. This will be stand alone, no income tax at a national level. The lower rates will still fund the federal government for a few simple reasons:

1. Elimination of defunct government programs/departments/programs


2. The hidden taxes currently built into the current price system will go away - the prices will have to drop as consumers will be outraged to see a corporate profit increase of unreasonable amounts


3. We no longer will have to subsidise those failing to pay income tax. This is a system where more people will be paying into it, so the rates are lower with the same results

The tax code is currently so complicated, with loopholes, tax breaks, multiple taxes... for instance, if you overpay your taxes and your tax write-offs exceed $10,000, the money that was taxed once and then returned to you is taxed a second time the following year as income. There is a tax on savings, tax on dying, even a tax on selling your home too soon... Every aspect of our current tax code suggests that the government wants to penalize growth and innovation.

Imagine a tax system that would either eliminate the entire tax system, levying a one-time tax of 20-30% on income, or a tax system that has a 0% income tax and 22% sales tax. No loopholes, no tricks, no special deductions. Everyone pays tax one time on the same dollar.

The CATO institute suggest a flat income tax, eliminating all other tax loopholes. They suggest a maximum tax rate of 20% for maximum economic advantage. In time, this tax rate will provide economic growth rates upwards of 7-10%. Similar results would be seen with a Fair Tax, but the Fair tax has one HUGE obstacle: the Constitution.

During the era of the new deal, there was a tricky little amendment to the constitution that allowed the federal government to collect an income tax. The Fair Tax will never succeed unless we have a constitutional amendment to repeal the federal income tax, and replace it with a sales tax... furthermore, it would be almost necessary to constitutionally ban a federal income tax to ensure that the government does not hit us with BOTH! This is the reason that the CATO institute has chosen not to endorse the Fair Tax... the means to achieve the intended purpose are too great.

So as we move forward with the Presidential nomination process, we need to listen very closely to those with the biggest ideas on taxes. Senators Obama and Clinton have promised to increase tax rates to those of the 1990's... That is upwards of 40% plus multiple taxes. The only effect of taxes this high are stifled economic growth, higher unemployment rates, and lower disposable income in the hands of the citizens (and thus a lower quality of life).

Who is your candidate of choice when it comes to taxes? How will they best spend my money? And how will they ensure that my money stays in my pockets, not their coffers?

Huckabee - discussing the issues

Mike Huckabee is growing in popularity, not only due to grassroots efforts alone, but because once his views on the issues are heard, citizens realize that he is the right man (person) for the job of the next US President.

Take a minute, visit the YouTube site, Explore Huckabee, and listen to his views on the issues. Everything from Arts and education to eliminating the IRS. I am sure that once you hear what he has to say, you will support Huckabee too!

Get up to date on the issues, and get the word out! Let everyone know that You Like Mike!