ONE WEEK TO GO

We're one week away from the election, so here's my prediction.  As much as it pains me to say this, I'm still predicting a Kerry win.  The left is simply going to do a better job at voter turnout than the right.  A huge part of the Democratic party base doesn't have to worry about such inconveniences as jobs to prevent them from voting.  They have all the time in the world, and these early voting locations give the unions and other leftist activists all the time they need to get out there, pick up their myrmidons, and get them to the polls.  The productive class, on the other hand, has distractions .. distractions that may prevent them from getting to the polls.  Besides, it's difficult to herd individuals.  Liberals don't have to try to herd individuals ... their followers gave up their individuality decades ago.

Then, of course, there's the problem with stupid voters.   It is beyond understand that we actually allow decisions like this to be made by millions of people who have no understanding of government or of the candidates.  They decide which candidate is going to give them the most stuff ... and that's how they vote.

Hopefully I'll have a brighter outlook by the end of the week.

OK .. I GET A BIT "I TOLD YOU SO TODAY"

Yesterday the news  broke about 380 tons of explosives that disappeared in Iraq.  The International Atomic Energy Agency was raising quite a fuss over this, as was the American mainstream media.  Boy oh boy, did the media love this story.  After all, it really looked bad for Bush, didn't it?  ABC and CBS hammered the story, as did MSNBC.  But CNN?  Wow!  Did CNN love this story.  They covered it at least 50 times yesterday. 

Then, of course, we had the Kerry campaign jumping on the story.  The Poodle called it one of the greatest blunders of Iraq.  He slammed Bush for, as he put it, "failing to guard" the stockpile of explosives. 

In yesterday's Nealz Nuze I wrote the following:

The IAEA says that they were monitoring the explosives prior to the war.  Now they're gone.  The IAEA doesn't know when they disappeared.  They can't say that Saddam didn't remove them before the American invasion.  They can't say that Saddam's soldiers didn't move them to another location after the invasion began.  They just don't know. 

Oh, you should have seen the email.  I was a Bush crony.  I was making weak excuses for Bush's failures in Iraq.  I didn't do my homework.  I was lying.  Blah blah blah.

Well ... here's your  "I told you so."

Last night we get a report on NBC news that the explosives were already missing when U.S. troops arrived at the storage location on April 10, 2003.  The last time the IAEA saw the explosives was three months earlier in January of 2003.  There is no way to know just when the explosives were removed.  Sometime after the IAEA saw them in January and before American troops got there in April.  Obviously this isn't a case of Bush failing to "guard" the explosives.  By the time our troops got there they weren't there to guard.  In other words, nobody failed to guard anything and there was nothing we could have done about it.  They were gone when we got there.

Well .. .hold on.  There is something we could have done about it.  We could have invaded earlier!  Get in there before the Iraqis had a chance to hide the explosives!  Is that what the Kerry supporters are saying we should have done?

This was a "get Bush" story from the beginning.  There have been some problems between the Bush White House and the head of the IAEA.  This was supposed to be the "October Surprise."   Drudge is reporting this morning that CBS was hoping to run with this story on Sunday's 60 Minutes ... two days before the election.  The New York Times beat them to the punch ... and, unfortunately for the designs of the leftist press, in time for the truth to come out.

AND WHAT ABOUT OTHER MISSING WEAPONS?

The Democrats and the media sure seem awfully concerned about this missing 380 tons of conventional explosives.  While that's a lot of bombs, it pales in comparison when you're talking about nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.  The WMD could kill millions of people.  And those weapons are also missing.

Yet for some reason, the media and the left don't want those weapons to ever be found.  They know it advances their anti-Bush agenda for it to continue to look like "Bush lied" when he said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.  Just as always, the safety and security of the United States comes in dead last when liberals want to win elections.  We're told that 380 tons of missing explosives is the biggest disaster of the entire Iraq war.  Missing chemical and biological weapons aren't that troubling, at least not to the left.  According to the Democrats, they don't exist.  Bush lied, you know.  Never mind the fact that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, used weapons of mass destruction and we found weapons of mass destruction.  It's also important to note that Iraq never accounted for missing quantities of biological and chemical agents.

But that 380 tons of explosives that's been missing for over a year and half.....that's the end of civilization as we know it.

THE SUPREME COURT QUESTION

One of the issues in this election that is getting very little coverage until now is the probability that at least two, maybe three vacancies will open up on the United States Supreme Court in the next four years.  The recent cancer surgery of William Rehnquist has brought this issue back up in the media.

Rehnquist is 80, John Paul Stevens is 84 and Sandra Day O'Connor is 74.  The idea of John Kerry being the one to nominate three justices to the Supreme Court should be enough to send shivers down the spine of anyone who cares about the United States Constitution.  Aside from the War on Terror, no decision by the next president is more important. 

Both candidates will spend taxpayer money into oblivion and both will have to run all of their proposals through the same Congress.  The federal government is not going to change that much under Kerry or Bush, but the Supreme Court appointments will last for decades.

George Bush will nominate judges that actually believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  John Kerry has already said that he will appoint justices who will interpret the Constitution according to our laws, not interpret the laws according to the Constitution.  He has it exactly backwards, and that is unspeakably dangerous to our Republic. .  The Poodle's appointments will last 20, maybe 30 years.  Who do you want making those choices?  That's what I thought.

LET'S DEMAGOGUE THE FAIR TAX

Perhaps you noticed that in quite a few congressional races around the country Democratic candidates have been attempting to frighten voters into believing that the evil Republican candidate is going to burden them with a horrible new tax.  More specifically, the wicked Republican is going to add a 23% federal retail sales tax on everything they buy .. and this is in addition to all the other taxes they're already paying! 

Effective politics?  You bet!  Can you imagine how frightened some middle or lower income American would be at the prospect of paying another 23 cents on the dollar for everything they bought?  If I believed that a Republican was going to do such a thing ... hell, I"D vote for the Democrat.  And there aren't many things that could cause me to vote for a Democrat.  A threatened beheading might do it, but I'm not even sure about that.

The big problem with this particular Democratic campaign charge is that it is simply not true.  It's a lie.  Not only is it a lie, but every single Democrat who has made this charge against their Republican opponent knows it to be a lie.  In the Boortz book, that makes these Democratic candidates, and that includes Congresswoman Denise Majette running for the U.S. Senate in Georgia, and Inez Tenenbaum who is running against Republican Jim DeMint in South Carolina, bold, intentional, premeditated liars.

I've been studying the Fair Tax proposal in its various forms for 20 years.  I am convinced that this plan to replace virtually all personal and corporate taxes with a national retail sales tax would bring a period of transformation and economic growth to America such as has never been seen before.  On top of that, it would be a financial boon to the poor and the middle class.

 First ... A Brief Overview

You can learn all of the details of the Fair Tax play by clicking on this link.   In case you don't have the time, here's your brief overview.

The Fair Tax (HR-25) would eliminate all personal corporate and personal federal income taxes.  It would eliminate all federal payroll taxes, including Social Security and Medicare.  The Death Tax ... gone.  Capital gains taxes ... gone.  Gift taxes ... gone.  Excise taxes .. gone.   In the place of all of those taxes we would have one national retail sales tax on all purchase at the retail level.  This means you would get 100% of your paycheck.  The amount you place into an investment .. not taxed.  The amount you put into a savings account .. not taxes.  Money you give to your kids ... not taxed, neither to you nor to them.  You make a consumer purchase, you pay the federal sales tax. 

One more thing.  The Fair Tax plan calls for the repeal of the 16^th Amendment.  That's the Amendment that brought us the federal income tax.

 When the Fair Tax plan was first being developed it was believed that in order to be revenue neutral ... that is, to make sure that there is no decrease or interruption in the flow of tax revenue ... the national sales tax would be around 23%.  I'm led to understand that soon-to-be-released research will show that the actual tax would be around 20% or slightly less.  Since I've already run the numbers, we'll stick to the 23% figure for the purpose of this essay.  Call me lazy.

So ... let's get on to the Democrat's charges that these evil, wicked, mean and nasty Republicans are plotting a financial Armageddon for poor and middle income Americans. 

What Happens to Poor and Middle Income Americans?

OK ... let's put on our sensitivity hats for a few minutes here and think of the consequences of the Fair Tax Act on our nation's poor, poor, pitiful poor.  After all, they can hardly afford a 23% sales tax when they're living paycheck-to-paycheck in the first place, right? 

Remember ... right now, for the most part, those whom we define as "poor" aren't paying any income tax anyway.  In fact, many of them are getting checks from the government.  The absurdly-named Earned Income Tax Credit, for example.  So, how can these people survive if suddenly they're paying a 23% retail sales tax?

There's no doubt that any implementation of the Fair Tax would fail in short order if nothing were to change except that the poor would be paying today's prices for a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread, plus a 23% sales tax.  But ... that would be far from the reality under the Fair Tax.  Under the Fair Tax the poor won't only survive, they'll positively thrive!  The Fair Tax could turn out to be the best poverty-fighting tool devised in this country since the concept of hard work.    

Let's begin by considering two realities.

First, remember, please, that the poor, along with everybody else, will no longer have Social Security taxes or Medicare taxes withheld from their paychecks.  Whatever they earn, they get on payday.  For most of them this means an immediate 10 to 15% increase in their earnings.

Second.  There's that 22%  in imbedded taxes buried in the cost of all consumer goods.  This isn't my figure; it comes from respected economists.    That 22% is sitting there in virtually everything Americans have to buy.. and that includes poor Americans.  As soon as the competitive forces of the free market work their magic, and they always do, consumers, including the poor, will be paying at least 20% less for virtually everything they buy, including the basics of food, clothing, shelter and transportation.  Yes .. they'll have to pay the new national sales tax, but when you factor in the lower prices caused by the disappearance of the embedded taxes you'll see that the total price paid for consumer goods will remain very nearly the same.

So ... just considering these factors, the Fair Tax delivers a winning hand to people living in or near to what we call poverty.  They get every penny they earn on payday, and when you factor in the Fair Tax and the lower prices, they're actually spending less of their money for a retail purchase than before.

A practical example:  Let's pull out the calculators.  Let's say that a single mother with two children spends $45 a week on groceries.  The removal of the 22% embedded tax would bring the price of those groceries down to $35.10.  The sales tax would be $8.07.  This brings the total price to $43.17.  That's less than our poor mother would have paid under today's tax system.  This single mother, whom we'll consider "poor," has just received a 10% to 15% increase in her weekly paychecks, and she's paying less at the grocery story for her basic necessities!  Does that sound like such a rotten deal to you?

At this point you should be thoroughly convinced that the Fair Tax would actually benefit, rather than harm the poor.  But, then again, maybe not.  Perhaps you were educated in government schools, or you're just hard to convince.  Sit down.  Here's where I close the sale.

The Rebate

The folks who wrote the Fair Tax plan knew that burdening the poor with a 23% retail sales tax would doom the plan from the outset.  They decided to devise a way were nobody, rich or poor, would ever have to pay the sales tax on the basic necessities of life.  So, under the Fair Tax plan every consumer will receive a credit to their checking account or to a debit card equal to the sales tax that person would be expected to pay on the purchase of the basic necessities of life for that month.  The size of the monthly payment will be based on the government's published poverty levels for various sized households.  Considering the number of checks and financial transactions of this type the feds undertake every single month, this is entirely "doable." 

Here's an example of how the rebate payments would have worked in 2003. 

You are now a married couple with two children.   The Fair Tax Act sets forth a formula for computing the poverty level, based on government figures, which negates any marriage penalty.  Under the Fair Tax Act in 2003 you would have been granted an annual consumption allowance of $24,240.  This is what the government would assume you would have to spend during that one year to buy the basic necessities of life for your family.  The sales tax on this amount would equal $5,575.  The government will rebate this amount to you in 12 equal monthly installments of $465.  It's clear .. you're better off, MUCH better off, under the fair tax plan.

But what about a single woman with one child?  Her monthly rebate in 2003 would have been $232.  The lowest rebate payment would be to a single person with no dependents.  That person would receive $172 per month.

Now ... bear in mind, this rebate isn't only paid to the poor.  It is paid to everyone, rich and poor alike.  The purpose here is to make sure that no American has to pay the Fair Tax sales tax on the basic necessities of life.  Unlike the present income tax system, the Fair Tax treats each and every person in this country exactly the same.  This, of course, presents somewhat of a problem to politicians who like to use the tax code to foment class distrust or outright warfare.

OK ... let's add it up for America's lower income citizens:

1. They get their entire paycheck.
2. Even with the sales tax, and considering the drop in prices, they'll be paying essentially the same for everything they buy.
3. They get a check from the federal government every month to rebate any sales taxes they had to pay.

Though their tax returns aren't that complex, let's also include the time these the poor (all of us, really) will save by not having to keep tax records or file tax returns.

If you're looking for some reason to oppose the Fair Tax plan, you're going to have to find a better excuse than its effect on the poor.

The Democrats who are using sponsorship of the Fair Tax proposal against their Republican opponents know the real story.  They also know that for the most part the media doesn't understand the plan and will make no effort to learn the truth.  Print this, copy it, spread it among your friends.  Expose the lies of Denise Majette and Inez Tennenbaum and other like them.  This tax reform idea is simply too good to allow it to be destroyed by desperate campaign lies.

READING ASSIGNMENTS

Good news here.  The Georgia Supreme Court has overturned Georgia's so-called "Hate Crime" law.

The media and the left have been clamoring for George Bush to apologize for his supposed mistakes in the war on terror.  Noemie Emery says he has nothing to apologize for, because no mistake was made.

Bill Clinton is riding to The Poodle's rescue, but Dick Morris says it may not be enough.  He also says the former president is likely more motivated by getting back in the game than he is in electing Kerry.

There is a focus on what Kerry did during his Vietnam years, but Bill Bennett is more concerned with what The Poodle has done lately, including  his record in the Senate, which he doesn't seem to want to talk about.

President Bush is being endorsed by a number of newspapers, including this excellent editorial from the Manchester Union-Leader.

Two new polls are showing that President Bush's support in the black community has doubled.  Star Parker analyzes why this is, and looks at the Republican challenge to the vote Democrats had been taking for granted.

A student wrote Professor Mike Adams asking why his college professor was a socialist and in his latest column, Dr. Adams delivers the response.

The Poodle is running around accusing President Bush of letting Osama Bin Laden escape.  Thomas Sowell says it was Bill Clinton that let Osama escape.

If you're looking for a reason why liberals should never be trusted with our national security, David Limbaugh has a big one.  He says you should look no further than all of The Poodle's newspaper endorsements.

We're in the home stretch, and the left's desperate tactics are beginning to show themselves.  Jack Kemp says the Democrats have some new weapons to go along with the usual arsenal.

Kerry says he's going to put the same effort into hunting and killing terrorists that he did in hunting down the Viet Cong.  Larry Kudlow reminds us that this is a serious rewrite of history that doesn't square with the facts.
 

WHAT THE HECK ARE THOSE POINTY HAND THINGS?
These are links to each individual story on the Nuze, p-links for the geeks out there. Plus, they work today and they'll work tomorrow. Now you can easily discuss/debate/rip apart the Nuze without worrying about the links going bad. Enjoy!

BOORTZ BLAST NEWSLETTER
Everyone is talking about the Boortz Blast newsletter. Do you want yours? Sign up here and we'll deliver it directly to your inbox every 2 weeks. If you signed up but aren't receiving it, either your company or your spam filter could be keeping it from you. Try using a personal email address and check your spam filter's junk folder for wayward newsletters.

NEAL'S FANS GET TOGETHER
If you like Neal and are looking for like minded people to hang out with online or off, check out these places:

• Talkmaster Yahoo Group
• Meet Boortz fans in your area
• alt.fan.neal.boortz newsgroup (note, you're going to have to figure out newsgroups all on your own)

NEALZ LINKS FOR NUZE The Atlanta Journal-Constitution World Net Daily NewsMax Wall Street Journal opinions Washington Times Washington Post Real Clear Politics Media Research Center Naples Daily News The Drudge Report The Associated Press SF Gate townhall.com

NEALZ AUDIO ARCHIVES Interview with Peter Jennings 1/26 Howard Dean Alarm System Neal talks with Ludacris Boo Got Shot CARTOON INDEX Check here for a list of cartoons that have appeared on Nealz Nuze.

Belinda Skelton, Ken Rogers, Laura Nunemaker and Brian Ganey assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!