Friday, October 20, 2006
 THE NORKS' MEA CULPA
 North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il now says he's sorry about his nation's first nuclear test. Why the sudden change of heart? Because North Korea's biggest neighbor, China, has turned up the heat. Essentially China sent a delegation to meet with The Gargoyle and told him to come back to the six-party talks and stop testing nuclear weapons. The result was Kim Jong-Il caved. China is his enabler. He had no real choice. So we probably won't see anymore nuclear tests north of the DMZ for awhile.
All of this proves one thing......the Bush administration's way of dealing with North Korea actually works, whereas the Clinton administration's policy of appeasement and bilateral negotiations does not. If Clinton had been in office --- or if the Democrat Appeasement Party had its way, we would have rushed in there with money and promises, and the Gargoyle would be sitting fat and happy, the toast of America-haters everywhere.
All The Gargoyle did with his agreement with the Clinton White House was violate it immediately. It wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Requiring Kim Jong-Il to negotiate with his neighbors in the six-party talks is proving much more effective. What's The Gargoyle going to say to China? No? I don't think so...especially since China could squash North Korea like a bug.
Of course, the mainstream media won't report the story this way. They'll project Kim Jong-Il in a positive light for his reversal, and never mention that it is the result of the Bush policy and Bush administration diplomatic efforts with China, South Korea and Japan. And they won't go solicit comment from people like The Poodle, who think we should be negotiating with North Korea directly. THE LATEST POLL NUMBERS
 Since people seem obsessed with polls and the Election Day horse race, let's update the races for the Senate. It's bad news for the Republicans when it comes to all of the polls for the House, so how about the other side of the Capitol? Things aren't so bad.
First up...Joe Lieberman. After he was defeated in the Democratic primary by Ned Lamont, Joe has been leading in the general election by several points...at one point up to 12. At present, the latest polls show him ahead of Lamont by 6 points. And this is a pro-Iraq war Democrat. Now we see Democrat Senators making overtures to Lieberman ... since they think they may have to deal with him for another six or so years. Makes you wonder how much the war will matter in the rest of the races across the country.
In Tennessee, Democrat Harold Ford is behind....with somebody named Bob Corker ahead by 7 points. In Ohio, where Republican Mike DeWine has been behind the Democrat for awhile...he's showing signs of life as well, now behind by only 4 points. George Allen in Virginia? Still ahead. The Republican incumbent in Missouri? Ahead.
The only casualty thus far seems to be Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania. It looks like the folks in that state have had it with him...he was not helped by his meddling in the Terri Schiavo case. There's also his "It's OK to be gay as long as you don't have sex" nonsense. It may just be that his views are out of step with the state he represents, because he's trailing badly. Time to find another career.
So it looks like the GOP will keep the Senate, since Democrats are unlikely to pick up the 6 seats they need. At least not all at once. HOW THE REPUBLICANS COULD HAVE WON This is by-far the most interesting mid-term election I've witnessed since I began my talk radio career 36 years ago. Oh, to be sure, 1994 was interesting --- but this one takes the cake. The voters are going to send the ruling party packing in just over two weeks, and they're going to do this while this country is in the middle of incredible economic growth and a war! These voters know that their actions in 18 days are going to be construed by Islamic fascists as a sign of immense weakness, but they don't care. They've had the Republicans up to here .. and they're going to kick them out. Am I happy about the situation? No, I'm not. Do I blame the voters? Well, what can you say for someone who would vote Democrat. Democrat voters believe that American is great because of government. People who vote Democrat have generally abandoned their adult responsibilities to manage their own lives and to live without having to plunder the pockets of others. The Democrats are going to win because the conservative base is going to stay home on election day. The conservative base is going to stay home because they don't have a conservative, small-government party to vote for. Would there have been a way to get the conservative base fired up? Was there a way to get them to the polls? I think the answer is that there was such a way, and I believe that the way would have been to embrace and run on the FairTax. The FairTax was on the ballot in three Georgia counties during the primary elections a few months ago. The question was generally whether people favored a flat tax, the FairTax, or to just stick with the present system. In every one of those counties the FairTax won by over 85% of the vote. How in the hell could the Republicans not see this and wonder what the FairTax could do for them on the national election agenda? There was an even bigger surprise during those primaries. Many people took the trouble to vote in the primaries simply because the FairTax was on the ballot. No other reason. I got a letter from a man who took his wife to have oral surgery on the morning of the primary. When the surgery was over she wasn't exactly feeling all that well. They were listening to the radio on the way home when she heard me say that the FairTax was on the ballot in her county. She told her husband to take her to the precinct so she could vote before she went home. Now how's that for a determination to vote? It was right there for the Republicans to take. They discussed it, and they passed. Too complicated? To easy for the other side to Demagogue? Who knows? But they passed. Every single Congressman in this country was getting questions at town hall meetings and campaign appearances about the FairTax .... but still they passed. Now they're running on a three-point platform. - We aren't Democrats.
- Democrats will raise your taxes.
- We can protect you better.
Sorry .. the voters have heard all that before .. and they're staying home. SO ... IS THE FAIRTAX STILL KICKING OUT THERE? The answer is yes. Here .. let me share some research with you. Consider this column by Scott Burns that appeared in the Houston Chronicle and other newspapers nationwide. But first .. just who is Scott Burns? He is one of the five most widely read personal finance writers in the country. He co-authored "The Coming Generational Storm" that was published in 2004. This book was endorsed by 5 Nobel laureates and listed as one of the 25 best books of 2004. Here's the column. Burns is responding to a letter from one of his readers. Please note that at the end of his column Scott Burns is asking for you to vote for or against the Fair Tax. Oct. 18, 2006, 10:06PM
ADVICE: PERSONAL FINANCE
Single flat sales tax is fair, and it solves some problems By SCOTT BURNS
Universal Press Syndicate C.C. in Houston writes to say there is nothing fair about the Fair Tax plan for a single flat sales tax. He quotes a letter from another concerned citizen to the editor of the Houston Chronicle. "The so-called Fair Tax scheme is a blatant attempt by the wealthy to reduce their tax payments. I call it the 'unfair tax,' as it will tax consumption rather than income. Those in the lower- to middle-income brackets usually spend most all of their income on necessities and can't save. They would be taxed on practically 100 percent of their income. Retirees, whose income may require them to pay no taxes, would end up paying taxes on all of the money they spend, which would greatly reduce their purchasing power. 'What's fair about that?' "On the other hand, those who make more than they spend, and indeed those whose incomes greatly exceed their expenditures, would pay taxes on significantly less of their incomes, proportionally. What's fair about that? In fact it is a total reversal of the graduated tax system that we now have where we pay taxes based on our ability to pay. Our current system is certainly flawed and needs major overhauling, but it is still the fairest method of taxation. "Let's fix the system we have rather than shifting the tax burden to lower-income Americans."
I've heard this argument before. It doesn't hold water. I believe that junking the current tax system — in its entirety — would create a modestly graduated tax system with a very broad base, consumption. By replacing both the income tax and the employment tax (among others) with a single sales tax, we would accomplish these good things: - Eliminate the fastest-growing and most regressive tax in our lifetime, the employment tax.
- Massively broaden the tax base from only some income to all consumption.
- Eliminate the corporate income tax and the entrenched corrupting lobbies that it has engendered.
- Make visible, for the first time, the size of our collective tax burden.
- Save the incredible amount of time and money wasted on tax planning and scheming.
- Create a path for dealing with the unfunded liabilities of Social Security by increasing the tax base that supports it.
- End the biannual festival of finger-pointing and envy that has become the hallmark of every election cycle.
- Remove the embedded expense wedge that reduces the competitive position of American-made goods.
The Fair Tax proposal calls for giving all households a "pre-bate" of what they would pay in sales taxes for the necessities of life. The pre-bate would be paid to households monthly, eliminating the burden of taxes on our poorest families. Because of the pre-bate, the new tax would amount to a graduated tax.
The argument that poor people save little and rich people save much is a red herring because it ignores two realities. First, the only benefit from having money is what we can consume with it. If you earn money that is not spent, you are deriving no immediate benefit from the money and shouldn't pay taxes on it. As long as the money not spent is used in our economy, it is providing benefits to everyone in the form of new investment, new jobs and working capital. Second, many people who are rich or well-off spend more than their income on consumption because they are spending a portion of their capital. Some of that capital would not be taxed at all in the current system. The portion that was capital gain would be taxed at only 15 percent. With the Fair Tax, the very rich would pay taxes on all consumption. This includes mega yachts, wine cellars, and much other consumption that is taxed lightly or not at all. Instead, they would pay at the higher sales tax rate. Right now our entire tax system is stacked against the young. The burden is getting worse, not better. It is possible that some older people would pay more in taxes than they do under the current system. That would only happen, however, if they had significant assets that they spent on consumption. In that case, the sales tax would be highly progressive. It would tax those with assets that were used for consumption. It would not tax those who had no assets to use for consumption. The only people who should fear the Fair Tax are the politicians, of both parties, who would lose their tools for extortion. Most public polls show that more than 50 percent of the voting public — left, right and middle — favor a radical reform of our tax system. So let's take a poll. Send me an e-mail at scott@scottburns.com. Put "Keep it the way it is" in the subject line if you like our current tax system. Put "Go for the Fair Tax" if you'd like to see broad reform. I'll report the results in a future column. ON THE WEB
The Fair Tax Web site |
As Congressman John Linder and I mentioned in The FairTax Book, Dear Mr. Burns, I could not have been more pleased to open my Houston Chronicle this morning and read your column about the FairTax. We have struggled over the years to win a fair debate on this extensively researched replacement for the income tax system. I wanted you to know that our campaign has been undergoing fundamental reform itself in recent months with a redesigned website (FairTax.org), a national media campaign (440 FairTax guest on talk shows in the last six months), stepped up grassroots activities (two major rallies in Atlanta and Orlando recently), dozens of local training sessions across the nation and the near-completion of more than $20 million dollars of economic research by an outstanding team of independent economists from universities across the country. This has been greeted, unfortunately, by a spate of political ads distorting the FairTax primarily by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee. It is, indeed, unfortunate that any proposal that is so good for the nation and taxpayers across the income spectrum and the political spectrum would be subject to renewed efforts to pit voters against each other. Please know that although almost all of the co-sponsors to HR 25 and S25 are Republicans we very strongly believe that this issue has the potential to unite Republicans, Democrats and those who have given up on either political party against the self-dealing of both Republican and Democratic Members of Congress with respect to the income tax. Because overcoming Congress' clear self-interest in further manipulation of the tax code will dauntlessly require tremendous pressure from citizens, I wanted to ask you to consider directing readers to our website: FairTax.org Not only is this website the primary locus for organized grassroots communications to Congress and the Executive Branch but it carries a wealth of research information for those curious--and perhaps skeptical--about the FairTax. Thank you Mr. Burns for your attention to the dysfunctional income tax system and for your belief that we can do better with the FairTax. If I can provide you with any information about our research products, our work in Washington or the state and philosophy of our national campaign please call or e-mail me using the contact information I am providing below. Leo Linbeck, Chairman
FairTax.Org |
NOW WE'RE STARTING TO GET THE STORY HERE Listen to my show for any amount of time and you'll learn that I am adamantly opposed to the idea of allowing 16-year-olds to drive. Too young, too immature, too cocky ... and no judgment. Seventeen is too early, but you take what you can get. Work for 17 now, 18 later. Sixteen-year-olds drive for a number of reasons --- none of them compelling. They need a car so they'll be popular! They need a car for their after-school job, though the cost of acquiring, operating and insuring the car eats up everything they earn. More often than not they get a car because their mommies and daddies have decided that they're tired of having to schlep them around to their after-school functions or appointments. As I said, none of the reasons are compelling. Twelve days ago I was engaged in one of my characteristic rants on the air about 16-year-old drivers. The previous night one of these hideous 16-year-old drivers crossed the centerline on an Atlanta street and smacked a small car head-on. In the other car was a 33-year-old mother of three. One of her children was strapped into the child seat behind her. When the dust cleared the mother of three was dead. The 16-year-old was injured, as was the child.  You might have heard me ranting about this accident again yesterday. Something was odd about this case. The police weren't talking. It seemed to have been shoved into a dark corner. Within hours of my comments on-air the story was out. Now we learned that the 16-year-old's name is Louise Egan Brunstad. We also learned that the prosecutors believe she was trying to commit suicide. The story is that Louise Brunstad had made some romantic advances to another girl at her school. The other girl decided she wasn't into the LUG lifestyle and said No. Brunstad then told other students she was going to kill herself. Just before she hit the gas Brunstad sent a text message to the girl she had a crush on: "Nine, eight, seven, six ... I'm going to do it" The she hit the gas, crossed into the other lane, took dead aim at Nancy Salado-Mayo's car, and never let off the gas.
Right now the word is that Louise Brunstad will be prosecuted as an adult. The charges will be felony murder and assault with a motor vehicle. A guilty verdict means an automatic life sentence. I have no problem in the world with that. But .... hold on a minute. A high-profile defense attorney has been hired, and we're getting the usual stuff about how Louise Brunstad is oh so very sorry for what she did and is praying for the family of the woman she murdered. Georgia doesn't have a good track record when it comes to prosecuting 16-year-old drivers who kill others on the road. This will be one to watch. SMALL AIRPLANES AND WEALTH ENVY There has been much discussion of general aviation -- small airplanes and their pilots -- since Cory Lidle slammed his Cirrus into that apartment building in New York City. The FAA has now placed restrictions on VFR flights up and down the East River in NYC. Frankly, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the manufactured hysteria that follows an incident such as this. Journalists with no clue and individuals with an anti-private airplane or anti-airport agenda rush to exploit the situation with rants against small airplanes and the people who fly them. Last week I told you that much of this anti-general aviation rhetoric is actually based in wealth envy. I shared some the emails I received, like the one that said that private airplanes are used by rich people just so they wouldn't have to deal with airport security like everybody else. Well .. here's more on the "wealth envy" front. I bring you an article from something called "American Chronicle." The title of the article is "Time to Restrict Where Small Planes Can Fly." The author of this article, Robert Paul Reyes, wants severe restrictions placed on where private airplanes can fly throughout the country. Never mind that the restrictions are already in place .. and are updated daily as needs demand .. he wants more. Here are a few lines from Reyes' article: - "The FAA has failed to act because it doesn't want to cramp the style of wealthy small plane owners who like to fly over the Statue of Liberty."
- "The status quo is unacceptable, New Yorkers must be protected from inexperienced millionaires accidentally flying into buildings"
- "Small planes should be permanently banned from flying through that corridor at all. Let the millionaires find another pastime -- one that doesn't place of life of New Yorkers in danger."
Do you see my point? In just one short article Reyes manages to squeeze in "wealth small plane owners," "inexperienced millionaires," and "the millionaires." A rather intense focus on the financial status of those who fly private airplanes, don't you think? Once again: The average value of a piston-powered, single-engine private airplane in this country is less than the value of a new bass rig. Some millionaires. When these people start to worry as much about rental trucks that are easily acquired, can be driven by anyone, and have many, many times the payload, as they do about small airplanes then I might start listening to what they have to say. REDNECK SCRAP BOOK In case of emergency, break glass. More in the Redneck Scrap Book. READING ASSIGNMENTS
| Meet Boortz In Tulsa News/Talk 740 KRMG is hosting Boortz Live Saturday, October 28 at the Tulsa Performing Arts Center. Tulsa's chance to see Neal live and get that FairTax Book signed. |
The latest polling continues to be a nightmare for the Republican Party. According to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, approval of Republicans is at record lows. And now we're hearing the GOP could be ready to concede 23 to 27 House seats. We'll know for sure two weeks from Tuesday.
Remember awhile back Mark Foley made excuses for his behavior by saying he was molested by a priest? Well now that priest says it wasn't abuse. He "just fondled" Foley. O.K......is there supposed to be a difference? Evidently the priest in question thinks so, because he says the whole thing is being blown out of proportion.
Let the global warming scares begin....the hole in the ozone in Antarctica is the biggest on record....the Greenland ice sheet is shrinking fast....we're all going to die! The environmentalist extremists push these theories, but they can never explain the fact that the Earth hasn't warmed all that much.
Dick Morris says Hillary Clinton has now taken four different positions when it comes to parental notification for abortions, always a hot issue in any election. He says it's just like her position on Iraq, which changes constantly.
So if the Democrats win the House as expected, will Nancy Pelosi automatically become the Speaker? Not so fast, it turns out there are several Democrats who aren't too keen on the idea...due to the fact that Pelosi is a big leftist.
Charles Krauthammer says one of the ways to keep North Korea in line might be to allow Japan to have nuclear weapons. It turns out that despite their public statements to the contrary, the Japanese are very much considering it.
Jonah Goldberg has now decided that invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein was a mistake. But is he ready to run right out and join the anti-war Left? Not at all...and he isn't calling for the U.S. to cut and run, either.
So what would happen if the United States were to follow the Democrats' solution to Iraq and just cut and run? Ed Feulner says it would be a disaster that would end in total civil war. Definitely a much worse situation than we have now.
One of the predictions for November 7th is that all of the conservatives, particularly evangelicals...are going to stay at home. David Limbaugh says Christian conservatives should head to the polls like they normally do.
It was recently announced that there are 300 million people in the United States. Why has the number grown so large so fast? Because the United States government refuses to do its job and stop illegal immigration, says Pat Buchanan. | 
Search Boortz.com
