Operation FairTax, organized by members of FairTax Nation, is the first national conference for supporters of the FairTax — everyday citizens who are committed to actively promoting HR 25/S 296 and bringing it from an “It’s-a-great-idea-but-it-will-neverhappen” dream to a bill on the President’s desk. The conference promises to bring educational and motivational tools to volunteers who are willing to take the FairTax message to elected officials in Congress while here, and to spread the word to all Americans back home.
Arrive in DC at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City on Wednesday, April 14th and join us for an evening “Meet and Greet” and a briefing for plans to “Storm The Hill” on April 15th. Early sign-in begins.
On Thursday, April 15th, our “Storm the Hill” event promises to be one of the biggest public displays yet to create awareness of the FairTax, educating uncommitted and opposed members of Congress on why our country needs FairTax and why they must support it. We’ll make our presence known, alongside other rally-goers who have chosen this significant day for public awareness. Continued sign-ins throughout the day will facilitate head counts for Friday’ workshops, break-out groups and event seatings.
Friday, April 16th, the “meat” of the conference, will begin with late sign-ins. The day will be filled with inspiring speakers and grassroots workshops designed to provide attendees with new and creative tools to spread the word about FairTax far and wide.
Event registration fee is $45.00. Early registration (prior to February 15) is $35.00, so register early and save! Registration after April 6 is $55.00, but don’t wait! To register, each registrant must have a unique e-mail address. Hotel room reservations are iindependent of event registration, and a 3-day minimum stay is required to obtain the group rate. Go to https://resweb.passkey.com/go/fairtax for prices, details and hotel registration.. Be part of history! Attend the first annual conference of FairTax grassroots supporters!
As the nation drowns in a sea of red ink, more and more and more citizens of all political affiliations are asking “what went wrong with the American dream?”
From coast to American coast and driven by necessity, the American people are awakening to the need to wrest control of our destiny from those who advance their political fortunes at the cost of the genius of the American spirit of innovation, hard work, independence and liberty. There is a dawning realization among a rapidly growing number of citizens that the solution waits in FairTax legislation, HR25, which does more to shift power from government to the citizen than any other single change since the founding of the nation.
More and more experts warn of extended unemployment for what experts also define as the most productive workforce in the world. Once the envy of the world, Bethlehem steel no longer dominates the world, cotton miles across the south no longer ship to the once powerful textile industries in South Carolina, and workers in Detroit see the American automobile industry struggling to regain momentum and take the lead back from foreign manufacturers. From the San Joaquin valley of California to the wheat and corn fields of the Midwest, we grow enough food to feed the world but worry that we don’t have enough food to feed our own children.
In the nation that saw clipper ships ranging the world faster than any competitor, that developed the surgery to replace the human heart, , that brought the personal computer forth from a hometown garage in California, that won world wars and went on to rebuild Europe and Asia and that put man after a ten year effort on the moon, we now actually wonder whether the American people can trump the narrow self-interests of a few in Washington who profit lucratively by trading tax code favors against the best interests of nation and every taxpayer.
Our system of government, we are reminded, was never meant to be handed over to a “political class”. It does not fly right on “automatic pilot”. The Founding Fathers understood the inherent nature of government to gather more and more power unto itself and equipped our citizens with the means to restore the proper role of the people over jealously guarded power concentrated within small circles of influence and profit. It could not be more needed.
The FairTax shifts federal taxes away from what helps the economy—work, saving and investment—to what comes out of the economy—consumption. As significantly, the FairTax shift the power of federal taxation from the backrooms of Congress to the American citizen who then chooses, by personal consumption choices, the timing and size of each family’s tax burden. It exposes the cost of the federal government and makes each consumer a “stakeholder” in the spending habits of government and it frees the American economy to soar to heights not yet seen.
But this needed change waits for the will of the American people. It waits for the great awakening of self-determination that seems to have begun now in TEA parties, in living rooms and at the polls. There are now more Independent voters than either Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians. The FairTax unites all for a new era of American growth, the immediate healing of our economy and millions of needed jobs. It makes the American worker once more in demand and the genius of American productivity and invention again the envy of the world. It waits for the American people to find their voice and their clout to return our great nation to one that is “of, by and for” hometown America. It waits for us.
Operation FairTax, organized by members of FairTax Nation, is the first national conference for supporters of the FairTax — everyday citizens who are committed to actively promoting HR 25/S 296 and bringing it from an “It’s-a-great-idea-but-it-will-neverhappen” dream to a bill on the President’s desk. The conference promises to bring educational and motivational tools to volunteers who are willing to take the FairTax message to elected officials in Congress while here, and to spread the word to all Americans back home.
Arrive in DC at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City on Wednesday, April 14th and join us for an evening “Meet and Greet” and a briefing for plans to “Storm The Hill” on April 15th. Early sign-in begins.
On Thursday, April 15th, our “Storm the Hill” event promises to be one of the biggest public displays yet to create awareness of the FairTax, educating uncommitted and opposed members of Congress on why our country needs FairTax and why they must support it. We’ll make our presence known, alongside other rally-goers who have chosen this significant day for public awareness. Continued sign-ins throughout the day will facilitate head counts for Friday’ workshops, break-out groups and event seatings.
Friday, April 16th, the “meat” of the conference, will begin with late sign-ins. The day will be filled with inspiring speakers and grassroots workshops designed to provide attendees with new and creative tools to spread the word about FairTax far and wide.
To register, each registrant must have a unique e-mail address. You must reserve the hotel room independently of event registration, and a 3-day minimum stay is required to obtain the group rate. Go to the hotel reservation information page for details prior to registering for this event. Be part of history! Attend the first annual conference of FairTax grassroots supporters!
Note: No refunds — your cancelled registration dues will be greatly appreciated as a FairTax donation. Donations to OFT are not deductible on federal income taxes. No registration information will ever be shared or sold to other organizations.
We are speeding toward an economic cliff because our government can’t practice restraint.
We spend so much more than we take in because politicians at every level use the public treasury to win elections. The public mostly accepts lavish promises of more and more federal spending because the cost of government has been so effectively divorced from what actually comes out of our paychecks.
Ask almost anyone how they did on their taxes and you’re likely to hear a happy exclamation that the taxpayer got a little money back! But ask the same person how much they paid the government over the year in withheld income and payroll taxes and you’ll often see a blank look.
When the money that government spends seems so unconnected to the money we earn it is easy for many to see government expenditures as “free money.” It’s not, but the engineered divorce in perception between the fruits of our labors and spending by elected officials has resulted in a national debt that equals more than $500,000 per American household. If not for accounting sleights-of-hand the national debt would be seen as much higher than even the shocking figure of more than $12 trillion.
As my father, Ronald Reagan, once said, “Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust and completely counterproductive, it reeks with injustice and is fundamentally un-American… it has earned a rebellion and it’s time we rebelled.”
I agree and that’s why I am enthusiastically now helping FairTax.org with pending legislation to replace the income tax entirely with a fair, progressive and honest national consumption tax aptly called the FairTax. It ends all federal taxes on income and earnings and replaces every penny now raised with a 23% tax on personal consumption at the point of final retail sale.
In conducting research on the FairTax, I have become convinced of two things: the FairTax is the best way to create a new era of healthy American economic growth, and that my father would have been a strong proponent of the FairTax as a tax reform/replacement model had it existed during his time in government.
Among many virtues, like the effect the FairTax will have on bringing trillions of private, job-producing investment dollars into our economy, the FairTax restores critically needed transparency to government spending. Because the taxpayer sees the cost of government on every receipt, the relationship between personal earnings and government spending becomes crystal clear. This will inevitably lead to public pressure to restrain spending — and not a moment too soon.
Workers take home paychecks free of federal withholding and FICA taxes under the FairTax. This is a stimulus idea that we all need. Congressional corruption of the tax code disappears under the FairTax because there are no exemptions that can be expanded and sold for profit and power by tax writing committees to the favored few. In essence, those who spend more pay higher taxes.
Instead of exemptions that can manipulated by Congress, the FairTax issues a monthly “prebate” check that covers the taxes we will pay on the necessities of life and which wipes out all federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level. In addition, hidden income-tax costs now embedded in the price of products we pay will also be eliminated and brought into the bright light of public scrutiny.
When you consider that fat cats, illegal immigrants and the underground economy all become part of the tax base, as consumers, it is easy to see that we can all pay less of a share for government. It’s just a better, more honest and simple way to collect federal taxes, and one that makes April 15 just another spring day.
It’s time for the second American tax revolt and that’s why I am helping lead the FairTax national movement and encouraging everyone to join the cause by visiting www.fairtax.org.
Mike Reagan, the elder son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on 130 radio stations nationally as part of American Family Radio. Look for Mike’s newest book “Twice Adopted” (Broadman & Holman Publishers) and “The City on a Hill,” other info at www.Reagan.com.
I remember the early days of the FairTax movement where we were greeted with laughter, ridicule, and — well you get the picture. A lot of things have changed since those early days. The political climate has changed and so have we. We have built a grassroots organization ready to take the next step – to lead the national tax reform movement — FairTax movement– in Washington DC.
We need you to join us in Washington DC on April 14, 15, and 16 to let Congress know FairTax is here to stay. Congressman, If you want to keep your job — you need to boldly support the FairTax.
The first step we need each of you to take is to make your best effort to join us in DC. We are asking for a small registration fee of $35 per person during the month of January to cover the basic per person cost of the event. Registration forms to follow next week
We have hotel rooms set aside for FairTaxers — and we need you to book them now!
IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman does not file his own taxes in part because he believes the tax code is complex.
During an interview on C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” program that aired on Sunday, Shulman said he uses a tax preparer for his own returns.
“I’ve used one for years. I find it convenient. I find the tax code complex so I use a preparer,” Shulman said.
Pressed on how he would make the tax code simpler, Shulman responded, “I don’t write the tax laws. Congress writes the tax laws so that’s a whole different discussion.”
The IRS this month announced it will be scrutinizing the tax preparer industry. Shulman said the IRS is looking to set “a minimal level of competence in the preparer community.”
Later in the C-SPAN interview, Shulman downplayed his use of a tax preparer, saying he has used one for 10 years. He noted that he and President Barack Obama are proponents of simplifying the tax code.
Shulman said about 60 percent of Americans use tax preparers and another 20 percent use software to file their returns.
He added, “So you’re over 80 percent of people who aren’t just sitting down and filling out the forms themselves.”
As legislators wrestle with Washington state’s budget shortfall, it’s important that they recognize the effects of tax hikes on job preservation and creation, says Dr. Kriss Sjoblom, an economist with the Washington Research Council.
According to the Council’s new study, “The Economic Impact of Hiking Taxes to Close the Budget Gap”:
Increasing the state Business and Occupation tax (B&O) by $1 billion would eliminate up to 15,072 jobs.
A $2.6 billion B&O tax increase would cost 38,968 Washingtonian’s their jobs.
Raising the B&O tax on businesses, some of which are struggling and are not making a profit, would have serious ramifications not only on businesses but also workers, says Carl Gipson, Small Business Director for the Washington Policy Center (WPC). Thousands of jobs are at stake with this decision. Burdening small businesses with higher taxes today will lead to fewer jobs and lower economic output tomorrow. For example:
A $1 billion sales tax increase would eliminate 14,759 jobs.
A $2.6 billion sales tax increase would eliminate 38,024 jobs.
Washingtonians are already struggling in the worst economy since the 1930s. Lawmakers should not try to make balancing the budget easier by making people’s lives harder, says Paul Guppy, the WPC’s Vice President for Research.
The study shows job losses could be mitigated depending on how lawmakers chose to spend the new tax revenue.
To put Washington state on firm fiscal footing, any budget adopted must not raise taxes during a recession, or result in a projected deficit in the next biennium, says Jason Mercier, Government Reform Director for WPC. This will mean that some of the programs we’ve grown accustomed to during good times must be eliminated. Taking more money from businesses and cutting people’s take-home pay through higher taxes is not the solution.
Source: “Tax Increases Will Cost Even More Washingtonians Their Jobs,” Washington Policy Center, January 11, 2010.
A Maryland nurse accomplished two rare feats in her battle with the Internal Revenue Service: She defended herself against the agency’s lawyers and won, and she got a ruling that could help tens of thousands of students deduct the cost of an M.B.A. degree on their taxes.
The U.S. Tax Court handed Lori Singleton-Clarke her victory last month, saying the 47-year-old Bryantown, Md., woman had properly deducted nearly $15,000 in business school tuition. The Tax Court ruling should make it easier for many other professionals to deduct the expense of a Master in Business Administration degree.
Melissa Golden for The Wall Street JournalLori Singleton-Clarke, at her Maryland home, says she ’still can hardly believe’ her Tax Court victory.
After getting word of the court decision, “I nearly yelled the roof off the house,” Ms. Singleton-Clarke says. “I still can hardly believe it.”
The IRS’s rules on deducting work-related tuition are complicated and onerous, ultimately preventing most students from deducting their tuition. But this case clarifies the rules and will likely lead to more taxpayers taking the deduction, tax experts say.
Few taxpayers decide to go toe to toe with the IRS as Ms. Singleton-Clarke did, arguing her case without a lawyer. For good reason: In 2009, individuals won only about 10% of about 300 such cases, according to data from Tax Analysts. Ms. Singleton-Clarke fought her case in Tax Court, a venue where taxpayers don’t have to pay the contested tax before going to trial. The court has a special procedure for small cases.
Some of the losers, such as several dozen tax protesters who defended the filing of frivolous returns, were tilting at tax windmills. Others were simply on the wrong side of the law, including a horse enthusiast who wanted to deduct his hobby losses, an unsuccessful comedian who tried to classify his expenses as business losses, and an attorney who claimed over $100,000 in medical deductions for his visits to prostitutes.
Of the few who did prevail against the IRS, nearly half came to court on a single issue: requests for “innocent spouse” treatment that decouples a spouse from a partner who is a tax cheat. This provision has been used mostly to protect unknowing wives against their husbands’ tax misdeeds. One of the spouses granted relief last year was formerly married to an investment banker who didn’t pay his taxes after his bonus didn’t come though.
Ms. Singleton-Clarke’s encounter with the tax system shows what it can take for one individual to prevail over the IRS against the long odds: favorable facts, obsessive organization, and fearlessness. She says she didn’t have a lawyer because she couldn’t afford one.
Her odyssey began in 2006, when she filed her 2005 return. It showed just over $50,000 of income, several smaller deductions, and one large one—for $14,787 of expenses for an M.B.A. from the University of Phoenix, an online school. Ms. Singleton-Clarke deducted the tuition because her tax preparer told her she met the law’s narrow definitions.
When the IRS audited the return in late 2006, she conceded all the IRS’s challenges to her deductions but one. She dug in her heels on the tuition deduction because, after looking at a complex diagram in IRS Publication 970, she believed she qualified for it.
The audit process first involved several rounds of confusing IRS correspondence. “At one point I had three requests for the same records, each with a different contact name. I had to spend hours calling to figure out who needed what,” says Ms. Singleton-Clarke, a steely but soft-spoken woman.
After that she was summoned to an IRS office in downtown Washington where she had to provide more copies of her résumé, a job description, and other records. She felt overwhelmed and intimidated.
Melissa Golden for The Wall Street JournalLori Singleton-Clarke, in her battle against the IRS, was lauded for her meticulous record-keeping.
Both the IRS’s actions and her reactions are typical, says Christopher Bergin, president of Tax Analysts, a group that fights for tax-system transparency and since l972 has won a series of freedom-of-information cases against the IRS. “Without doing anything illegal, they muscled her. That’s what they do. The pressure can be terrifying,” he says.
A spokesman for the IRS says that it never comments on issues with specific taxpayers.
As Ms. Singleton-Clarke held fast to her conviction that she deserved the deduction, she drew on skills she developed as a nurse responsible for dealing with doctors who may have infringed hospital rules. That was why she studied for her M.B.A., she says: “I didn’t want to feel outmatched by surgeons who didn’t want to talk to me.”
When the IRS again denied her deduction by mail after her meeting with the agent, Ms. Singleton-Clarke wound up going to Tax Court to set a trial date. But when she came to court in November 2008, it seemed that everyone else had settled their cases: “There was just me by myself at one table and the [IRS] tax team of at another in a big courtroom.”
The tax team consisted of a two attorneys and several assistants or paralegals. Ms. Singleton-Clarke had been told to bring copies of her documents in triplicate, including a time line of her career. Judge Stanley Goldberg questioned her closely and complimented her on her record-keeping during the hour-long trial. “The whole time,” she says: “I was thinking, here is this god-like man who is going to make an important decision for me. But he wasn’t a bully. I had met with the bullies before.”
Reached Friday by phone, Judge Goldberg said: “I remember the case well because Ms. Singleton-Clarke was so articulate and well-prepared. Too many taxpayers are not.”
Ms. Singleton-Clarke’s victory came when the ruling was issued a year later. It is unusual in that it helps not only her but others as well. Decisions in small cases aren’t allowed to be cited as precedent. “But everyone uses them,” says Melissa Labant, a tax expert with the American Institute of CPAs. “This case definitely provides a road map others can use, especially M.B.A. students.”
President will seek modifications to the law that sent billions in bailout money in 2008 and 2009 to a flailing Wall Street that was approaching collapse, an official says.
Updated January 12, 2010
WASHINGTON — Targeting an industry whose political deafness has vexed his administration, President Barack Obama is weighing recovering tax dollars from government-rescued financial institutions with a levy.
The proposed levy could put Obama on the popular side of public opinion that is decidedly against Wall Street and angry over shortfalls in a $700 billion bank bailout fund.
A senior administration official said Monday that Obama would seek modifications to the law that sent billions in bailout money in 2008 and 2009 to a flailing Wall Street that was approaching collapse. The government official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the president’s thinking.
The idea received an early boost from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrat in the House, where there have been calls for a hefty tax on bank bonuses.
“While we have not seen any specific language from the administration, Congress will certainly examine any serious proposals to lower the deficit and recoup even more of the TARP funds for the taxpayers,” said Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Pelosi, D-Calif.
The 2008 law that created the Troubled Asset Relief Program requires the president to seek a way to recoup unrecovered TARP money from financial institutions, but five years after the law was enacted. It does not specify how the money should be recovered.
An industry official said consideration of a levy now would be premature.
“Current law doesn’t trigger this tax proposal for another four years,” said Scott Talbott, chief lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, an industry group for some of the largest financial firms.
“We look forward to seeing the details of the complexity of the formula, of who it’s applied to and what the assessment is based on and when it is applied,” he said.
Government officials have conceded that they don’t expect to recoup billions in TARP money used to rescue insurance conglomerate American International Group Inc. and the auto industry. Banks have been repaying their infusions, in part to get out from under compensation limits imposed on the bailout recipients. Banks have also paid dividends from the government help.
The administration is projecting the losses to the government from the bailout program will be about $120 billion, most of it due to auto and AIG assistance.
According to the law, the status of the TARP fund must be assessed by late 2013, five years after it passed. “In any case where there is a shortfall,” the statute says, “the President shall submit a legislative proposal that recoups from the financial industry an amount equal to the shortfall in order to ensure that the Troubled Asset Relief Program does not add to the deficit or national debt.”
It is unclear how the administration would seek to recoup shortfalls due to TARP infusions into the auto industry or AIG. And any fee could potentially be imposed on banks that have already repaid their TARP infusions in full. Congress would have to approve any fee plan.
Discussion of a bank fee to reduce the federal deficit comes as the administration is preparing to submit its 2011 budget proposal next month and as Wall Street banks this month prepare to hand out near-record compensation for last year’s performance.
Obama has been strident in his criticism of bankers, calling them “fat cats” last month in an interview that aired on the eve of their visit to the White House. With public anger over the bailout still strong, Obama has embraced populist rhetoric in an effort to shame bank executives into paying back the government more quickly and their executives less lavishly.
At the White House on Monday, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs jabbed at the perceived disconnect between Wall Street executives and their customers. The spokesman said the disparity angered his boss.
“I don’t know anybody, save for a few that work for those banks, that don’t get visibly angry … in reading those stories,” Gibbs said. “I think they’re not listening to the American people.”
Funds collected from such a levy would go to pay down the $1.4 trillion deficit amid the Obama-backed stimulus package and aid to Detroit’s automakers.
Washington spent about $245 billion to help banks in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, much less than President George W. Bush’s Treasury Department secured to keep financial firms afloat.
So far, $162 billion of that has been repaid, including $20 billion each from Citigroup and Bank of America under a special targeted program.
Monday, January 11, 2010
By Staff, Associated Press
Washington (AP) – The Obama administration will announce on Monday funding for nine projects designed to significantly increase fuel efficiency in heavy trucks and passenger vehicles, with more than half the money coming from the $787 billion stimulus package.
Energy Secretary Stephen Chu will detail the projects during a ceremony in Columbus, Ind., home of Cummins Inc., which is to receive nearly $40 million to develop a more efficient and cleaner diesel engine, a more aerodynamic long-haul truck cab and trailer, and a fuel cell that would deliver auxiliary power to reduce engine idling while the vehicle was not on the road.
The White House said the nine projects would receive $187 million from the federal government, with more than $100 million coming from stimulus funds and the remainder from DOE appropriations. Recipients are expected to match government funding, creating a total investment of $375 million in the projects.
According to the administration, the nine recipients are expected to create more than 500 research, engineering and management jobs, with 6,000 more positions anticipated when the technologies go into production and assembly.
In detailing the project awards, the administration said the new technologies, when in broad use, “could save more than 100 million gallons of oil per day and reduce carbon emissions from on-road vehicles by 20 percent by 2030.”
Three of the projects, receiving $115 million, are aimed at improving long-haul truck fuel efficiency by 50 percent, with new designs to be ready by 2015.
In additions to Cummins, Daimler Trucks North America LLC, of Portland, Ore., will receive nearly $40 million; Navistar Inc., of Fort Wayne, Ind., is in line for $27.3 million.
The remaining six projects for passenger vehicles will spread more than $71 million among Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Delphi Automotive Systems, Robert Bosch and a second Cummins project.
The money will go to companies based in economically hard-hit Michigan and Indiana, with the exception of Daimler Trucks.
If the complete government takeover of America’s health care system is to be stopped, the battle will be over federal funding for abortion. That important fight could still prove the stumbling block for the Democrats’ socialist health care bill.
The pressure is now back on the House of Representatives. Eleven of the Democrats who voted for the House version of the health care bill have repeatedly stated that they did so only because the bill contained firm language banning use of taxpayer funds to support abortion. Indeed, those 11 signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stating that they “cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan.”
There is also one Republican, Louisiana Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao, who voted for the House health bill but who will now oppose it without a prohibition on government-funded abortions. Every other Republican in the House voted against the massive government expenditure already.
The original House health care bill passed by a slim margin of 220 to 215. But with the 11 Democratic members and Mr. Cao promising to vote against the bill if it includes abortion funding (which is included in the Senate bill), Democrats will have to persuade 10 of the 38 Democratic congressmen who voted against the original bill to change their vote to make up the 12 lost votes. (The original number of Democratic dissenters was 39, but Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith has since crossed the aisle and become a Republican.)
Twenty-two of the 38 House Democrats who voted against the health care bill voted to support the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which banned forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions. With that provision removed, these Democrats should have an even more difficult time voting for the government health care takeover. In a world where consistency matters, the Democratic leadership needs to get 10 of the remaining 16 Democratic congressmen to switch their votes. That will take serious arm twisting or some really expensive payoffs.
Thirty of the 38 Democrats represent congressional districts that voted for Republican John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. Many are freshmen who need to be extra sensitive to the views of their constituents.
There’s a belief in the nation’s capital that so-called “moderate” Democrats only vote against their liberal party line when their votes don’t count. We hope that’s not the case. Either way, constituents for all 38 of these congressmen need to let their voices be heard. These 38 individuals will make the difference. Rasmussen polling finds that Americans by a 14-percentage point margin disapprove of the health care bill passing through Congress. Presumably that opposition is even stronger in the Republican-leaning districts that these congressmen represent. Hopefully, these politicians will listen to their constituents.
Below is a list of the 38 representatives and the districts they represent. The following information indicates which ones voted for the pro-life Stupak-Pitts Amendment, the percentage of the time they have voted for pro-life legislation this year, and the telephone numbers for their Washington and main district offices. In the National Right to Life Voting Rating following the member, a higher percentage indicates a more pro-life voting record.
John Adler (N.J. 3) 0%
Call (202) 225-4765 and (732) 608-7235
Jason Altmire (Pa. 4) 50%
Voted for Stupak-Pitts Amendment
Call (202) 225-2565 and (724) 378-0928
Brian Baird (Wash. 3) 0%
Call (202) 225-3536 and (360) 695-6292
John Barrow (Ga. 12) 25%
Voted for Stupak-Pitts Amendment
Call (202) 225-2823 and (912) 354-7282
John Boccieri (Ohio 16) 50%
Voted for Stupak-Pitts Amendment
Call (202) 225-3876 or (330) 489-4414
Dan Boren (Okla. 2) 100%
Voted for Stupak-Pitts Amendment
Call (202) 225-2701 and (918) 687-2533
Rick Boucher (Va. 9) 0%
Call (202) 225-3861 and (276) 628-1145
Allen Boyd (Fla. 2) 0%
Call (202) 225-5235 and (850) 561-3979
Bobby Bright (Ala. 2) 100%
Voted for Stupak-Pitts Amendment
Call (202) 225-2901 and (334) 794-9680
Ben Chandler (Ky. 6) 25%
Voted for Stupak-Pitts Amendment
Call (202) 225-4706 and (859) 219-1366
Travis Childers (Miss. 1) 100%
Voted for Stupak-Pitts Amendment
Call (202) 225-4306 and (662) 841-8808
Artur Davis (Ala. 7) 50%
Voted for Stupak-Pitts Amendment
Call (202) 225-2665 and (205) 254-1960
Lincoln Davis (Tenn. 4) 100%
Voted for Stupak-Pitts Amendment
Call (202) 225-6831 and (931) 879-2361
Chet Edwards (Texas 17) 0%
Call (202) 225-6105 and (254) 752-9600
Bart Gordon (Tenn. 6) 25%
Voted for Stupak-Pitts Amendment
Call (202) 225-4231 and (615) 896-1986
Tim Holden (Pa. 17) 25%
Voted for Stupak-Pitts Amendment
Call (202) 225-5546 and (717) 234-5904
Larry Kissell (N.C. 0%
Call (202) 225-3715 and (704) 786-1612
Co-host George Stephanopoulos: “Let’s talk about the bonuses you mentioned. Is the President going to tell them [bankers], flatly, ‘Don’t take them?’”
White House advisor David Axelrod: “Well, I think he’s going to talk to them about the implications of those bonuses….But our principal focus is how do we get the economy moving again? How do we create jobs? And that means getting credit to small businesses and medium-sized businesses.”
Stephanopoulos: “David, why not tax the bonuses? Britain last week announced that they’re going to have a big windfall tax, a one-time tax on these big bonuses this year because the banks got so much help. Why not do that?”
Happy New Year. Your tax bill just went way up. When the clock hit midnight on Jan. 1, some 70 new taxes on the middle class and small businesses went into effect, thanks to Congress’s failure to prevent the expiration of popular and economically vital tax breaks on time, says Stephen Moore, a senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal.
For example:
Some 25 million middle class Americans are now slated to get hit with the alternative minimum tax (AMT) this year; the tax that was originally supposed to only hit the richest 100 Americans.
This year, the alternative minimum tax will gather $63 billion from American families with an income of as little as $75,000, according to the Senate Finance Committee.
The AMT may now hit tax filers who are school teachers, construction workers and bus drivers; call them the new rich.
The nation’s employers are none too happy either with Congress’s failure to extend these tax cuts before the New Year:
The research tax credit, which businesses depend on for new innovation and R&D, has been suspended. This will raise R&D costs by more than $7 billion in 2010.
The 50 percent write-off for small businesses for capital purchases — such as expanding their facilities, purchasing new equipment or machinery, or building a new plant — has vanished.
Without those tax incentives, small businesses are likely to put any plans to expand their operations on hold. That means less jobs and fewer pay raises.
A study by the National Center for Policy Analysis found that about 90 percent of the benefits from capital investment goes to workers in the form of higher wages due to increased productivity.
But the biggest debacle is the estate tax, says Moore:
On Jan. 1 it fell to zero for the year, and then in 2011 it goes back up to 55 percent.
Estate tax attorneys are full of stories of wealthy heirs with living wills that ask their dependents to take account of the estate tax when determining when to pull the plug on the life support system.
Don’t be surprised if death rates of wealthy Americans rises substantially this year.
Source: Stephen Moore, “The New Year Brings Tax Chaos; At least 2010 is a good year to die,” Wall Street Journal, January 8, 2010.
Democrats Cut Back-Room Deals Benefiting AARP
“There’s an inherent conflict of interest….They’re ending up becoming very dependent on sources of income.” — Former AARP Executive Marilyn Moon, quoted in Bloomberg article ARRA News Service - Speaker Pelosi recently called insurance companies “immoral villains,” and Sen. Jay Rockefeller derided their tactics as “rapacious,” yet the majority has simultaneously relied on an organization that has received billions of dollars in windfall profits from those same insurers as an “independent” source to support their government takeover of health care — AARP. An analysis of Democrats’ rhetoric and actions reveals that in exchange for its support of a government takeover of health care, AARP has received special considerations regarding several provisions in health “reform” legislation that could benefit the organization quite handsomely:
• While the AARP website claims that the organization supports “guaranteeing that all individuals and groups wishing to purchase or renew coverage can do so regardless of age or pre-existing conditions,” a review of the New York State Insurance Commissioner’s website finds that AARP – branded Medigap coverage imposes a six-month waiting period for individuals with pre-existing conditions. Yet Section 111 of H.R. 3200 would exempt Medigap policies from new limits on pre-existing condition restrictions — thus allowing AARP to continue to deny Medigap claims of individuals with serious health conditions.
• The health “reform” bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee would eliminate the tax deductibility for all insurance company executive salaries over $500,000. However, as drafted by the Committee, the legislation would exempt AARP from this requirement, even though fully 38% of its $1.1 billion in 2008 revenue came directly from “royalty fees” paid by United Healthcare — more than AARP received in membership dues, grant revenue, and private contributions combined. But for Chairman Baucus’ exemption, AARP salaries would in fact be subject to the penalties in the Finance bill — in 2008, then – CEO William Novelli received total compensation of $1,005,830—more than 78 times the average annual Social Security benefit of $12,738.
• Speaker Pelosi has recently discussed the imposition of a new “windfall profits” tax on insurance companies as a potential addition to the House’s health “reform” bill. However, she has made no comments indicating that she would apply a similar tax to AARP — even though the organization by its own admission has received nearly $3.4 billion in profits from selling health insurance and other similar products. Thus it is entirely possible that Democrats could exempt AARP from the insurance windfall profits tax, in the same way that Chairman Baucus created a loophole to allow AARP to continue paying its CEO more than $1 million per year without penalty.
• White House senior advisor David Axelrod recently offered Administration support for price control provisions included in H.R. 3200 that would require insurance companies to pay out a minimum percentage of their premiums in medical claims. However, while H.R. 3200 would place strict price controls on Medicare Advantage plans — requiring them to pay out 85% of premium revenues in medical claims — Medigap policies face a far less strict 65% requirement. In other words, under the Democrat bill, seniors could pay as much as 20 cents more out of every premium dollar to fund “kickbacks” to AARP – sponsored Medigap plans.
• A Bloomberg news analysis published in December highlighted what one observer called AARP’s “dirty little secret”—overcharging its senior members, many of whom who felt betrayed after paying hundreds of dollars above market price for AARP-branded coverage. One noted that “AARP has great buying power, and people should be able to get the best deal….This is unconscionable, what AARP has allowed to happen.” Another disillusioned senior wrote to the organization’s leadership asking whether AARP had a “‘special relationship’ with [insurance carriers] by which it receives commissions, incentives, rebates, or dare I say ‘kickbacks?’”
• In November, news sources reported that AARP suspended the sale of “limited-benefit” health insurance policies, largely as a result of pressure from Republicans in Congress concerned that the organization was selling policies advertised as a “smart option for the health care insurance you need,” even though the policies would only pay up to $10,000 for surgery costs. However, the fate of the more than 1 million policy-holders who purchased limited-benefit coverage from AARP remains unclear—and the organization has made no public offers to return the “royalty fees” on the “bare bones” policies it sold under questionable pretenses.
The special deals provided to AARP in the House and Senate health care bills raise questions about whether and why the Democrats are ignoring a de facto insurance conglomerate in their midst:
• Why did Finance Committee Chairman Baucus exempt AARP from the salary requirements imposed on all other insurance carriers in his health “reform” legislation? Did Chairman Baucus cut another “rock-solid deal” with AARP behind closed doors so that its executives’ ability to earn million-dollar compensation packages would not be impaired?
• Will Speaker Pelosi exempt an organization that earns more than 60 percent of its revenue from “royalty fees” — and obtains more of its revenue from United Health Group than from membership dues, grants, and private contributions combined—from the windfall profits tax she proposes to levy on insurance companies?
• If Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Waxman wants to investigate the compensation levels and corporate practices of insurance companies, why did he not submit requests for information to AARP, which makes 60 percent of its income by selling health insurance and related products to seniors? More to the point, why has the Committee not focused any of its investigative efforts on the widely-reported instances of abuses related to AARP – branded products to ensure executives are held to account and seniors adequately protected?
• Do the Administration and Democrats in Congress support exempting AARP and its Medigap policies from the same regulations they propose to place on other insurance companies? In other words, do Democrats want seniors to be less protected from inflated profits and denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions than the rest of the American population?
Beneath these questions lie two broader issues: Is AARP a seniors’ advocacy group, or a billion-dollar insurance company masquerading as a “charity” organization? And are Democrats so intent on enacting a government takeover of health care that they would knowingly ignore seniors being exploited in “unconscionable” ways to maintain the support of an organization who will lobby for their efforts?
Sign up for our email newsletter and stay up to date with all FairTaxSOWEGA activities and events.
Welcome
Welcome to FairTaxSOWEGA (which stands for SouthWest Georgia for the non-natives). This is the site we will use to communicate and support the FairTax movement in Southwest Georgia. The state of Georgia is the biggest supporter of the FairTax and until now has been virtually nonexistent in our area. We intend to change that! We need the FairTax and the FairTax movement needs us to spread the word! Please feel free to look around and learn about the FairTax and how YOU can make a difference. Thanks for visiting!
If we didn’t see this before- How we wish this was today
Words of Widsom
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ...
The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." Thomas Jefferson
"The largest source of compliance burdens for taxpayers, and the IRS, is the overwhelming complexity of the tax code. The only meaningful way to reduce these burdens is to simplify the tax code enormously. Nina Olson, National Taxpayer Advocate at the IRS, January 8, 2009
""It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather, a tireless, irate minority keen to set brush-fires of freedom in the minds of men." Samuel Adams
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Margaret Mead
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” Thomas Jefferson
"Those who can not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." American Philosopher, George Santayana
"Please remember that under the sixteenth Amendment, Congress can take 100% of our income anytime it wants to. As a matter of fact, now it imposes a tax as high as 91%. This is downright confiscation and cannot be defended on any grounds." T. Coleman Andrews, Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, 1953-1955
I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do. Helen Keller
Our present tax system...exerts too heavy a drag on growth...It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking...and the present tax load...distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities. John F. Kennedy, November 20, 1962
“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” Dr. Adrian Rogers
"Our Constitution gave us the rights for
Under God
The freedom of life, with liberty and justice for all and to the Republic which we stand the right to pursue happiness
For ownership of any individuals to own the rights to their property.
This property includes the ownership of their time as they work for their wages to own as they see fit
for the pursuit of happiness
Personal wages not to be given to OUR government to be taken by taxation against the will of the people
In doing so this is an individual's right and property taken by force from our government in which shall not stand for against it's people
That the Constitution was written for
We the People of United States of America"
Charlie Prochaska 4-2009
"Would it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than to spread it over such a variety of subjects and pass through so many new hands." Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, 1784
At the conclusion of the Constitutionl Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked, "What have you wrought?"
He answered, "...a Republic, if you can keep it."
"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world." Daniel Webster
The few who look forward, while always knocking on new doors, no matter how futile it may seem or how insignificant their progress, will carry the many who just keep waiting for things to get better. Mike Dooley
Join our Online Group!
![[tax2]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MI-BA738_tax2_D_20100108173515.jpg)
Melissa Golden for The Wall Street JournalLori Singleton-Clarke, in her battle against the IRS, was lauded for her meticulous record-keeping.
0%
