September 25, 2010

What is there to do to help our Republic to succeed in Liberty & individual Democracy?

You know the truth, a 200 yr old Democracy is it's life span due to the people voting in more then they can afford. This moral failure has never been stopped to save the given Charter, to my knowledge. Founders mapped us out a Republic to try and stop this demise from killing the Liberty found under the Constitution. The seventeenth Amendment weakended the Constitution GREATLY. What is there to do to help our Republic to succeed in Liberty & individual Democracy?
Fairtax is Providential. Fairtax offers a finite progressive value for each Citizen, making all happy as all get the same, true General Welfare.
The result is the opposite of the path our nation is on, with same scence of value all centered on becoming Constitutional once again to fix the Washington mess. Fairtax is our Harmony for Liberty and Freedom for all, with jobs of prosperity abound, not just a few like where we are headed.
When Law is fundamental, honest, trustworthy and Honorable once again, righteousness will flourish~

September 24, 2010

Fairtax Friday | FAST grassroots team, new roles filled! 'Fairtax America Support Team'


Do not miss a single issue of FairTax Friday, add to your buddy list, contact list or safe list.

Weekly Feature
FAST Service Comes to the Grassroots
The FairTax America Support Team, FAST, was formed after a three – day meeting in Houston last week and became official upon approval from the Americans For Fair Taxation board. "FAST is a grassroots leadership group charged with organizing, managing and executing the grassroots effort and working with the FairTax board to develop a strategic plan," said FAST's elected Chairman, John Collet of Kansas.
The FAST group set a goal of passage of the FairTax by 2013 and repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution by 2018. These goals will be attainable if the supporter base can grow tenfold in 12-18 months, and the donor base can grow by 500% and become more sustainable. Grassroots representatives now will be taking the lead and playing a far greater role than before.
While those numbers may sound daunting, new resources will become available in the coming weeks and months and there will be new capability for the grassroots to manage them. FairTax Chief Operating Officer, Terry Stockham, spoke of a new "attract and capture" approach towards growth made possible by new technology platforms. "Volunteers will change from hunter-gatherers to cultivators," Stockham said. "Fundraising and developing the rollout mechanics are ongoing but this is a fundamental change from our past efforts. Now we have the right people and the right technology at the right time."
The new FAST board members are John Collet of Kansas, Chairman, Jim Bennett of New Jersey, Secretary, David Adams, Kentucky, Kristina Bouterse, Florida, Roger Buchholtz, Michigan, Steve Curtis, Ohio, Danny Higgins, Indiana, Marilyn Rickert, Illinois and Jamie Wheeler, Washington State.
Other grassroots members who attended the meeting were Gene Key, Bill Harrington, Bob Frenzel, Bill Phelps, John Pierce, Mike Warlick and Phil Hinson. Attending from the FairTax Houston office were Terry Stockham, Chief Operating Officer, Aaron Schutte, Grassroots Special Projects Coordinator, Janie Davis, Comptroller and Jason McKinley, National Media Coordinator.
Special Feature: Grassroots Supporter Spotlight
Gene Key has been a FairTax volunteer leader for over five years. He formerly served as a State Director of Georgia and has remained active and involved since relinquishing that title about two years ago.
Gene has noted, as we all have, that the attack ads launched against the FairTax have had an intimidating effect on many legislators and congressional candidates and have impaired our progress in getting co-sponsors for the FairTax bill. Gene also understood that we do not have the financial resources to combat these ads on a "tit for tat" basis. That is, while the ideal method of responding would be to run paid media ads rebutting the deceptive ads we were being hit with, that is simply not financially feasible at this time.  Gene created a plan for mounting a multi pronged response.
He assembled a package of information for FairTax supporting legislators and aspiring legislators, advising them how to combat these ads even before they are run. He also developed short videos that can be posted on YouTube and linked from other internet social media,  which supporters of FairTax supporting candidates can spread virally. Longtime FairTax supporter Herman Cain recorded the first of these videos. Another element involves Houston staffer, Jason McKinley, who books radio interviews for our national spokespersons in the areas attack ads are broadcast.
Gene deserves a lot of credit for his initiative and creativity in getting this project off the ground. This strategy is being refined and honed for future election cycles so that we can make it very risky to demagogue the FairTax in the future. Hopefully, we can get the message out that the FairTax is no longer a piƱata for partisan politics.
Phil Hinson of Georgia has agreed to take the position of Director of the new, national FairTax Speakers Bureau.  His role as a spokesman and his grassroots expertise will be invaluable while he recruits and trains speakers who can effectively deliver the transformational message of fundamental tax reform with the FairTax.
Phil has been a dedicated volunteer with Americans For Fair Taxation for more than eight years. During that time he has written and spoken on the proposal, as well as being actively involved in the campaigns of political candidates who have made the FairTax part of their platforms.  He currently serves as the South East Volunteer Regional Director for Americans For Fair Taxation. As a current spokesperson for, with a Bachelor of Sciences and a Masters degree in accounting, Phil can address a variety of subjects but specializes in international trade issues.
Peter Moorman has joined our staff team and we're thrilled to announce his addition! "I'm excited to come on board as the new IT Director for the FairTax," Peter said. "In the coming months we'll be launching several new online platforms to further the FairTax. I'm grateful for the opportunity to join the cause at a critical time in the organization's fight for a more sensible tax policy."
Before joining AFFT, Peter worked for the Virginia based Leadership Institute as a field representative where he started political clubs on college campuses. He also is an internet marketing consultant for small business around Houston. He's excited to combine his passion for grassroots activism and technology in his new role at as IT Director.
FairTax In the News

Pantano supporters start viral email campaign against McIntyre ad -

WILMINGTON, NC -- Democratic Congressman Mike McIntyre's latest political ad is drawing some vocal criticism from his opponent's supporters. In the ad, McIntyre claims Republican Ilario Pantano wants to raise taxes 23 percent. What the ad does not say is that the increase would be part of a Fair Tax plan that would abolish the IRS and eliminate all income taxes, payroll taxes and deductions.
Pantano supporters are fighting back with a viral email campaign, encouraging people to e-mail local TV stations and demand they pull the ad due to "factual inaccuracies." Here's an example of one email: "Hello everyone, This is a call for immediate action. Mike McIntyre has began airing ads claiming Ilario Pantano wants to raise our taxes by 23% without any further explanation of the Fair Tax. Obviously we know McIntyre is referring to the fair tax and spreading inaccurate and false statements... Please call and write to WWAY TV3 and WECT asking them to pull the ad due to factual inaccuracies. Tweet about it, change your Facebook status, do everything you can to help derail this ad!!!! This is an important issue and we can't let Mike McIntyre distort the Fair Tax for his own political gain."

Fair Tax lies –

To The Editor: It's election season again, which means it's time for citizens to beware of politicians' lies. A subject that will be ripe for distorting this political season is the Fair Tax.
The truth about the Fair Tax is that it replaces the federal income tax, gift tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, alternative minimum tax, Social Security and Medicare taxes and self-employment taxes with a 23 percent national consumption tax. Any politician or political group who claims or implies that the Fair Tax adds a 23 percent national consumption tax on top of all the other taxes listed above is either lying to you or is ignorant of the facts. This lie is already being told in ads by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union on behalf of Democratic Rep. John Boccieri in Ohio's 16th Congressional District.
Whether this false claim is due to ignorance or outright lying, the politician on whose behalf these claims are made is not worthy of your vote.
Learn more about the Fair Tax and the lies being told about it at
Dale Johnson
Take Action
Watch the FairTax TV special: Click here to see the 30-minute show
Did You Know?
How does the FairTax affect U.S. competitiveness in foreign trade?
Because the FairTax is automatically border adjustable the percent competitive advantage of foreign producers is eliminated, immediately boosting U.S. competitiveness overseas. American companies doing business internationally are able to sell their goods at lower prices but at similar margins, and this brings jobs to America.

In addition, U.S. companies with investments or plants abroad bring home overseas profits without the penalty of paying income taxes, thus resulting in more U.S. capital investment. 

And at last, imports and domestic production are on a level playing field. Exported goods are not subject to the FairTax, since they are not consumed in the U.S.; but imported goods sold in the U.S. are subject to the FairTax because these products are consumed domestically. 

Powered By Convio

Update email preferences | Unsubscribe | Contact Us

Americans for Fair Taxation, PO Box 27487, Houston, Texas 77227-7487
1-800-FAIRTAX (324-7829)

Paid for by Americans for Fair Taxation

Americans For Fair Taxation is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization. One provision in the 65,000+ pages of the federal tax code makes investments in your non-profit FairTax organization non-deductible. If you would like to send a check or credit card contribution by mail please download and print our contribution form here.

Tell A Friendfairtax.orgUpdate

September 19, 2010

I like Unions. It is what created the Constitution. Make Super Majority for mandatory Union dues

I like Unions. It is what created the Constitution. It is what keeps Tyrance at bay. What lost is not the value of the Union, but the value of jobs has caused Unions have become a mediator with much corruption. We need more jobs then workers, then we will find we don't need unions, unless a Company becomes unfair in sharing the wealth.
With more jobs then workers, employers will suddenly find great need of you. They will bid for your service or skill. All those people working are consumers and consumption will demand product and services.
Then comes the question of mandatory dues. The course of the Congress to overrule is 67%. So should union dues be controlled for and ending mandatory dues, not voluntary, with PACT politics only. will give us those jobs~

September 12, 2010

#Delaware Independents are breaking 3 to 1 for O'Donnell at this time making Christine the Winner in #RedNov.~Bill Smith #FB #DE

Bill Smith September 12 at 5:45pm Reply
For those not in Delaware share with your Delaware friends.

From the The Conservative Caucus of Delaware "BlueHen Conservatives"

There has been some suggestion that "even if [Christine] O'Donnell wins the primary on Tuesday, she can't win November 2nd and Coons will be out next Senator". Well, why do we think that? The message from those who have so far controlled the dialouge is staggering. Here is their proof:

47% of the state is registered as Democrats

Barack Obama won DE in 2008, Joe Biden spend more than 30 years in office and Jack Markell was elected Governor

Ray Clatworthy and Charlie Copeland were not able to win seats as "conservatives"

Compelling evidence in these cases. There are of course, problems with the theories. If you delve into them, you will find a much different story than the narrative that local talk show hosts and political guru's might let on.

Registration Totals in Delaware are:
R - 182,796
D - 292,738
I - 146,212

Independents are breaking 3 to 1 for O'Donnell at this time but let's live under the assumption that she will only recieve 65% of the Independent vote (this would be a Progressive MIRACLE in 2010). You must also note another statistic often ignored by the pundits. Despite Delaware's Democrat leaning registration totals, in 2004 12% of Delaware Democrats went for Bush over Kerry and in 2008, despite the annointed one being at the top of the ticket, 9% of Democrats went for McCain. Historically, at least 9%-10% of Democrats vote for the Republican candidate regardless of ideological position.

In fact, when Joe Biden, Tom Carper and Mike Castle are out of the race, the edge goes to Republicans in Delaware. The 2010 election would be between Chris Coons, a Progresive Far-Left Democrat and O'Donnell who is a Conservative Republican. Over the years, Conservative Republicans (Bill Roth, Ronald Reagan, Pete DuPont) have won the day when they have run against those who are not one of the "Big Three".

So what would the numbers say if 65% of Independents and 10% of Democrats voted for O'Donnell? Assuming that every registered voter turned out (which won't happen) the numbers would be as follows:
307, 107 O'Donnell vs 300,017 Coons - O'Donnell wins

So what would the numbers say if 75% of Independents and 10% of Democrats voted for O'Donnell? Assuming that every registered voter turned out (which won't happen) the numbers would be as follows:
322,179 O'Donnell vs 300,017 Coons - O'Donnell wins

The key here is turnout. Which side will control the turnout? In 2008 the Democrats did. In 2010 Conservatives and Republicans control the day.

September 09, 2010

'Huckabee Proves a Potent Ally for Conservative Candidates' @GovMikeHuckabee #Huck12

Huckabee Proves a Potent Ally for Conservative Candidates

By Scott Conroy - August 13, 2010

Is it possible that an Iowa Caucus winner who currently hosts two prominent television shows and a nationally syndicated radio program is flying under the radar?
For a politician who carried eight states in the 2008 Republican primaries and has the top-rated weekend cable news show, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee still has an uncanny ability to sneak up on people.
Though Sarah Palin's primary endorsements have been highlighted and analyzed to no end, Tuesday's closely watched gubernatorial runoff in Georgia served as a reminder that Huckabee can make his mark on 2010 races, too.
In Georgia, Huckabee held off on endorsing Rep. Nathan Deal until just five days before the election, which Deal won by fewer than 2,500 votes over the Palin-backed candidate, Karen Handel.
In a margin so tight, Huckabee's Sunday rally with Deal and the phone banking his political action committee conducted in Georgia may have been just enough to put Deal over the edge. Reached by email on Wednesday, Huckabee alluded to the impact his visit seems to have made.
"Check the poll numbers before I went and compare them to the election," Huckabee wrote in an email to RealClearPolitics. "You can draw your own conclusions."
Polls taken just before Huckabee's visit showed the two candidates either in a statistical tie or with Handel maintaining a slight lead.
HuckPAC executive director Hogan Gidley pointed to the approximately 1,000 calls that Huck PAC made to voters in suburban Gwinnett County, which was considered part of Handel's home turf, but where Deal ended up winning by 740 votes.
"We do a lot of the things that fly under the D.C. radar like robocalls, get-out-the-vote messages, e-blasts, and things like that," Gidley said. "And while they're not something that excites members on the press, the people on the ground who receive the votes and the benefits of the governor's trust do ...
full article
...Indeed, perhaps his most unexpected 2010 endorsement to date came when he followed Palin in lending his support to longshot candidate Joe Miller in his race to unseat Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska.
In a nod to the idiosyncrasies of Alaska Republican politics and Palin's declining popularity in her home state, it is Huckabee's image and endorsement text, not Palin's, which greets visitors on the home page of Miller's campaign web site. Palin's name is not even listed among the four prominent conservatives whom Miller touts on the top of his campaign site for having backed him.
If Miller were able to pull off a shocking upset in the Aug. 24 primary, he may well have Huckabee to thank even more heartily than his fellow Alaskan.
Joe Miller has won his primary bid in Alaska and Governor Huckabee and his army of activist supporters helped push Joe to victory by an approximate 1,700 votes. Join the Legions of Hucks Army by going to and then find your State site too~

#mi- VOTE JOBS~ MICHIGAN FAIRTAX ~ want a 4.35% raise Michigan?


Drummers and MFTA Logo
MI FAIRTAX CLARION SENTINEL official newsletter vol. 15
 Why the FairTax Prebate? OUCH!



JAN. 1, 2011





One feature of a tsunami is that many times no one saw it coming.  Well here's the preparation, the warning if you will, on Jan 1, 2011 a tax tsunami will hit Michigan and the U.S.A. This combination of tax increases will cause the average family budget to be destroyed. I invite you to view the tsunami's makeup so you can plan ahead. I know one thing; my budget can not afford this onslaught. The price of everything I buy is going up big time. My disposable income will be slashed by inflated prices, and my standard of living is going down. Big government is on its way to becoming huge government, and We The People have no one to blame but ourselves. If we can not muster the courage and fortitude to demand a FairTax and vote out of office incumbents who rob and pillage the treasury for their own gain, then we deserve exactly what we will get, the reality of being financial slaves to a government that is out of control.

Editor: Donald S "Doby" Dobrosky Sr.

MIFairTax, the solution providing Michigan a bright future!

        Remove hidden taxes from goods and services.
Create Michigan JOBS, a magnet for business growth.

Protect everyone from taxation on necessities.
Untax everyone's consumption up to poverty level.

       Guarantee citizens a larger share of their earnings.
        By Working, By Saving, By Investing.

Eliminate the buying and selling of tax favors.
        The cancer which is destroying our state government.

        ONLINETAXREVOLT  277,243 and growing!
        Our goal 1 million strong.
With the elimination of the Michigan Personal Income Tax, workers, as provided in the MI FairTax Proposal, could look forward to take home pay that would be up to 4.35% greater than is taken home today. This chart illustrates what that 4.35% pay increase would look like for various hourly pay rates. To place this in another prospective, if all people worked for a minimum wage, their 4.35% weekly increase of $12.91 times the 2009 estimated 3,925,089 Michigan households, would equal a weekly stimulus to the Michigan economy of $51 million, $203 million a month, or $2.6 billion a year. Wouldn't you really rather have a MI FairTax?

YOUR Michigan FairTax
Hourly Rate: @ 40 hours   Weekly      Monthly          Yearly
                                      Increase    Increase         Increase
$  7.42/hr Min wage          $12.91         $51.64         $671.32
$  8.00                            $13.92         $55.68          $723.84
$  9.00                            $15.66         $62.64          $814.32
$10.00                            $17.40         $69.60          $904.80
$11.00                            $19.14         $76.56          $995.28
$12.00                            $20.88         $83.52       $1,085.26 $13.00                            $22.62         $90.48       $1,176.24 $14.00                            $24.36         $97.44       $1,266.72 $15.00                            $26.10       $104.40       $1,357.20 $16.00                            $27.84       $111.36       $1,447.68 $17.00                            $29.58       $118.32       $1,538.16 $18.00                            $31.32       $125.28       $1,628..64 $19.00                            $33.06       $132.24       $1,719.12 $20.00                            $34.80       $139.20       $1,809.60 $24.00 Median Wage       $41.76       $167.04       $2,171.52 $25.00                            $43.50       $174.00       $2,262.00 $30.00                            $52.20       $208.80       $2,730.00


Roger BuchholtzOur Founders had to deal with taxation without representation.  Today we have to deal with taxation with misrepresentation. The politcians say they are going to tax businesses, but taxing businesses is just a deceptive way of taxing citizens!" :Roger Buchholtz

One of the oldest military strategies in the world is with us again in 2010. Many political parties disquised as PACs and Special Interest Groups will spend millions of dollars this election season to derail and destroy the growing FairTax movement. Their commitment of massive resources is testament that the political elite in Michigan and the United States are running scared of FairTax proposals. Fear drives them to defend their grip on power, to confuse and cause doubt about the FairTax issue on both a state and federal level. Their advertising statements seem straight forward enough; "Candidate X wants to increase your state taxes 62%, or supports a new tax on the federal level of 23%.Neither statement is true is these advertisements labeled by Fact are misleading, fail to say anything about the many taxes eliminated, and that all wage earners would take home their full paycheck. When was the last time everyone who made $20 dollars took home $20 dollars?  Why would political leadership and special interests resort to such a tactic? The answer is simple; a FairTax takes away power from the political elite, and returns that power to the electorate. The FairTax: the greatest shift of power from the government to the people since the founding of our country. Do we have the resolve to move Michigan and the United States forward?   The question will be; did voters allow those running for office to divide and conquer, or did voters stand shoulder to shoulder against those trying to tax freedom to death. The battle is money against votes, and votes always win!
Editor in Chief:
Donald S. 'Doby' Dobrosky, Sr.
Michigan is DIEING! Michigan needs a JOBS transfusion! Our representatives offer the same ole same ole! They

Find your
Michigan House Representative here!

Find your
Michigan Senate Representative here!

Flood Lansing with emails and phone calls until they LISTEN!
In This Issue
FairTax Facts
What's Happening!
Notable and Quotable
Out and About
Featured Article
Did You Know?
Current Events
No Time to Waste!
Contribute to JOBS

 Nov. 2, 2010


Will your candidate
vote "yes"
in Lansing

Did You Know?

The prebate represents the significant difference that today's consumption tax (FairTax) proposal has over previous attempts to implement such a tax.
This version, the FairTax, would totally untax every legal resident against having to pay tax on the necessities of life.  Bringing back the idea of Constitutional fairness and equality for all, a right our forefathers fought so bravely to obtain. The prebate guarantees that no Michigan resident would be taxed below the poverty level. The FairTax is about equality for all - and JOBS too!

Current Events!

MI Dental Assn. -P..H. Sept. 14, 6:30pm

Locate an event or see what's going on at our website

Schedule an event!

A FairTax speaker can be be obtained for any group in Michigan who requests such a program. Contact:

No Time to Waste!

The Michigan FairTax Clarion Sentinel sounds a bugle call to action!
The Michigan FairTax needs ambassadors. When people understand the Michigan FairTax proposal they become passionate about it.
Passionate people will contact their representatives in Lansing, and it is their action which builds support for the Michigan FairTax.  Become a FairTax Patriot, bring justice and equality back to our tax system. Help us bring prosperity back to Michigan. We will welcome your help, commitment, and leadership...
Contribute to JOBS, JOBS, and more JOBS! 
To bring JOBS we must win the information battle against those who benefit from the status quo. We can't do it without your help!


Your contribution helps bring JOBS to Michigan!


Michigan FairTax Association | PO Box 703 | Sterling Heights | MI | 48311

#Michigan- Center Right Agendas for September 16 & 17


Core Principles Logo

Center Right Meetings Scheduled
September 16 and 17
Please save the following dates for Center Right/Town Hall Meetings:
  • September 16, 9:30-11:00 a.m. Ingham Building, 116 W Ottawa, Lansing, Michigan, 48933 map
  • September 16, 7:00-8:30 p.m. Best Western Suites, 2575 S. 11th St. Kalamazoo 49009 map
  • September 17, 12:00-1:30 p.m. Public Library, 32737 12 Mile Rd. Farmington Hills 48334 map
Vinnie VernuccioJoining us at all three meetings will be Vinnie Vernuccio, Labor Policy Counsel with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, located in Washington, D.C. The CEI is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty. Their mission is to promote both freedom and fairness by making good policy good politics. Vinnie will be speaking on the topic: "Big Labor's Politics: How Forced Unionization Drives Away Business and Harms the Economy."
Jerry ZandstraWe will also be joined by Jerry Zandstra, Vice-President, American Saga Productions, who will be talking about his recently released film "The Genesis Code."

In addition, we will be hearing from leaders of the local Tea Party - 912 groups who will update us on the progress of the movement across the state.. You don't want to miss these meetings!
Are you interested in limiting government? Have an issue you would like to discuss?
Let me know, we will be happy to add you to the agenda.

Gadsden Flag
Center Right Coalition of Michigan | 8607 W R Ave | Kalamazoo | MI | 49009

September 05, 2010

Down With Big Government, Big Business, Big Labor, Benishek on Social Security, The 97% Fallacy, Dr Dan asks for your help, Boskin on Economy, Rove on Obama


To: ;
Subject: Down With Big Government, Big Business, Big Labor, Benishek on Social Security, The 97% Fallacy, Dr Dan asks for your help, Boskin on Economy, Rove on Obama
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 08:08:23 -0400

September 2, 2010

Down With Big Government, Big Business, Big Labor

Some of the most important things in history are things that didn't happen -- even though just about everyone thought they would.
Recent example: Scads of liberals gleefully predicted that the financial crisis and deep recession would destroy Americans' faith in markets and increase their confidence in big government. Many conservatives gloomily feared they were right.
Hasn't happened. If anything, public opinion has moved in the other direction, with most Americans rejecting the stimulus package and the health care bill, denying that government action is needed to address global warming, expressing negative feelings about labor unions.
How to explain this? One way is to see the public's reaction as opposition to governance by an alliance of Big Units -- Big Government, Big Business and Big Labor.
In the 1930s, Americans supposedly lost faith in markets and rallied to government. But if you go back and look at public opinion polling then, you find something rather different. You find majorities grumbling about Big Government, scorning Big Business and opposing Big Labor.
The 1940s were different. Facing the threat of total war, Franklin Roosevelt transformed himself from "Dr. New Deal" to "Dr. Win the War." He fostered cooperation between Big Government, Big Business and Big Labor. Roosevelt was brilliant at selecting, from all these sources, the best men (and women) for jobs he considered important.
The result was a war effort that was brilliantly successful. America was the arsenal of democracy, vanquishing its enemies and inventing the atomic bomb. Big Unit governance gained enormous prestige and held onto it for a generation after the war.
The result was prosperity but also stasis. The Big Government of 1970 looked a lot like the Big Government of the 1940s. The same Big Businesses that dominated the Fortune 500 list in 1940 did so in 1970. The list of Big Labor unions remained pretty much the same.
Around 1970, these Big Units lost their edge. Big Government got mired in wars on poverty and in Vietnam. Big Business got hidebound and bureaucratic. Big Labor started to shrink.
Starting around 1980, the country began to revive. Big Government lowered taxes and deregulated transportation and communications. Entrepreneurs and investors replaced stodgy corporate managements with new companies and new products.
The conformist "organization man" Americans of the 1950s were replaced by non-conformist innovators, risk-takers and creators who made a new economy that central planners could never have envisioned. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't wait for those at the top of Big Units to tell them what to do.
Big Business changed: The Fortune 500 list of 2010 doesn't look anything like that of 1970. Big Labor almost vanished: Most union members today are public employees.
The Obama Democrats, faced with a grave economic crisis, responded with policies appropriate to the Big Unit America that was disappearing during the president's childhood.
Their financial policy has been to freeze the big banks into place. Their industrial policy was to preserve as much as they could of General Motors and Chrysler for the benefit of the United Auto Workers. Their health care policy was designed to benefit Big Pharma and other big players. Their housing policy has been to try to maintain existing prices. Their macroeconomic policy was to increase the size and scope of existing government agencies to what looks to be the bursting point.
What we see is Big Government colluding with Big Business and trying to breathe life into Big Labor.
Some of this can be defended. The Obama Democrats are right in pointing out that the TARP financial bailout was the product of the George W. Bush administration, and they may well be right that it would have been disastrous to allow Citibank to fail.
But Big Unit policies are not a good fit for a country that has grown out of the wreckage the Big Units made of things in the 1970s. They freeze poorly performing incumbents in place, and they don't provide the breathing room for small units to start up and grow.
In the meantime, the Big Units are not performing as well as they did for Dr. Win the War. The visibly flagging economy and the slapdash stimulus and health care bills have left most voters ready to take a chance on the still reviled Republicans. The unanswered question is, will the Republicans have an effective alternative to Big Unit governance?
Page Printed from: at September 03, 2010 - 04:28:31 AM PDT
Dr. Dan Benishek Pledges Benefits Promise to Seniors
2 Sep, 2010
For Immediate Release
Contact: Trent Benishek
Phone: (906) 282-5755

Nation Needs "Forward thinking"; Bipartisan Plan to Preserve Social Security

IRON MOUNTAIN, MI – Dr. Dan Benishek, the Republican nominee for Congress in Michigan's 1st District, today issued what he described as the "first of many" position papers, outlining in detail his views on Social Security.
In a statement released to all the district's newspapers, Dr. Benishek said, "I do not favor any reduction, freeze, or changes in the benefits provided existing retirees.  This is a promise made to those over the age of 62 by their government, and it must be honored 100 percent.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  Period."
The Iron Mountain surgeon's statement went on to say, "[I]t is unfortunate that Washington's political professionals have used the Social Security issue for political gain and — worse — have engaged in scare tactics with our elderly during elections.  Given the projections on shortfalls in the Social Security system over the next few decades, the most irresponsible position is to turn a blind eye to strengthening the system for future retirees — especially those under age 55 — who will be entering the system. Congress needs to look honestly at solutions to preserve and defend this vital program."
"My sincere hope is that, after 27 years in public office, Gary McDowell has learned that distortions on Social Security do not serve the citizenry whose support we candidates seek to earn," Dr. Benishek observed.
"When I think about this issue, I think about my mother and father-in-law who, like so many of our elder citizens, depend greatly on Social Security for economic survival.  I would not support any efforts to reduce their benefits or undermine the government's promise to retirees," Dr. Benishek concluded.
  • SEPTEMBER 3, 201
  • The 97% Fallacy

    The president's plan to raise top marginal rates is holding back the very people who should be leading the economic recovery.


    When Congress returns from its summer recess, members will face a pivotal decision about the expiring Bush tax cuts. President Barack Obama has called for their permanent extension for singles with incomes below $200,000 and married couples with incomes below $250,000, but has proposed that most of the tax cuts for households with higher incomes be allowed to expire.
    To buttress this position, the president and his supporters have repeatedly asserted that the expiration of these cuts will have little impact, because they affect only a tiny fraction of the wealthiest Americans, people who "can afford it."
    Recently, for example, Vice President Joe Biden harshly rejected House Minority Leader John Boehner's assertion that the hikes would harm small businesses, saying that "he has created this myth that a tax cut for millionaires is actually a tax cut for small business. There aren't 3% of small businesses in America that would qualify for that tax cut." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi flipped the number around, saying that the planned tax increases would exempt "98% of American families and about 97% of small businesses."
    The impact is far more severe than Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Biden suggest. In fact, the sound bite about 3% of small businesses, which has been picked up by numerous pundits, is one of the more misleading statements in the long history of economic propaganda.
    The 3% figure, which is computed from IRS data, is based on simply counting the number of returns with any pass-through business income. So, if somebody makes a little money selling products on eBay and reports that income on Schedule C of their tax return, they are counted as a small business. The fact that there are millions of people in the lower tax brackets with small amounts of business income may be interesting for some purposes, but it is irrelevant for the assessment of the economic impact of the tax hikes.
    The numbers are clear. According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007. That's the number to look at, not the 3%. Would Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Biden deny that the more successful firms owned by individuals in the top income-tax bracket are disproportionately responsible for investment and job creation?
    It's clear that business income for large and small firms will be hit by the higher tax rates. And in point of fact, firms of all sizes contribute to the nation's prosperity. So it's a mistake to focus only on the impact of increased tax rates on small business. But will the higher rates actually cause a significant reduction in business activity?
    Economic research supports a large impact. A pair of papers by economists Robert Carroll, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Harvey Rosen and Mark Rider that were published in 1998 and 2000 by the National Bureau of Economic Research analyzed tax return data and uncovered high responsiveness of sole proprietors' business activity to tax rates. Their estimates imply that increasing the top rate to 40.8% from 35% (an official rate of 39.6% plus another 1.2 percentage points from the restoration of a stealth provision that phases out deductions), as in Mr. Obama's plan, would reduce gross receipts by more than 7% for sole proprietors subject to the higher rate.
    These results imply a similar effect on proprietors' investment expenditures. A paper published by R. Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University and William M. Gentry of Williams College in the American Economic Review in 2000 also found that increasing progressivity of the tax code discourages entrepreneurs from starting new businesses.
    Because marginal tax rate increases impede long-run growth, they should be avoided in good times and bad. But now is a particularly inopportune time to raise rates, as small businesses are still struggling from the recession. According to the ADP National Employment Report for July, goods-producing small businesses have reduced their total payroll employment by 117,000 jobs since January of this year, and they were still posting declines in July.
    Taxes appear to be part of the story. When the National Federation of Independent Business asked small business owners in June to list the most important problem they faced, 20% named taxes, making that the second most cited concern after weak sales. The expectation of tax increases, such as those in Mr. Obama's plan, is on the minds of the people who should be leading the recovery.
    The administration defends its desire to increase taxes by citing concerns about the deficit. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recently asserted that "borrowing to finance tax cuts for the top 2% would be a $700 billion fiscal mistake."
    The administration is right to view the deficit as a serious issue, but this sudden commitment to fiscal responsibility is bizarrely inconsistent. The administration professes deep concern about the $700 billion revenue loss from extending the tax cuts at the top, but apparently views the revenue loss of nearly $2 trillion from extending the tax cuts for the middle class as too inconsequential to mention. Nor has the administration's concern about the deficit driven it to reduce federal spending.
    For those who are determined to tax the rich at all costs, and are therefore willing to accept the claims of the Obama administration without scrutiny, the tax hikes may well make sense. But the evidence is clear that lifting the top rates will hamper the business investment upon which our nation's prosperity depends. That affects all Americans, not just 3%.
    Mr. Hassett is director of economic policy studies and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where Mr. Viard is a resident scholar.
  • John

    While campaigning all over Michigan's First Congressional District, I have seen so much energy and passion from people who have had enough of Washington's taxing and spending.

    With your help, I can win.

    Here are five ways you can connect with my campaign:

    • Email List - Forward this email to your friends and tell them to sign up to get campaign news.
    • Google Groups - Do you live in Michigan's First Congressional District and want to get in touch with other supporters in your area? Join a Google Group to talk with other volunteers and campaign staff to organize door knocking, phone banks, and events.
    • Benishek Brigade - Join other supporters to stay up to date with the latest campaign news, campaign events, and organizing activities.
    • Facebook - Join other fans on the world's largest social network to stay up to date with news and events.
    • Twitter - Catch my thoughts on the latest news and what is happening on the campaign trail by following me on Twitter.

    By connecting to the campaign and with each other, you will help me win in November and tell Washington you have had enough.


    Dan Benishek

    Paid for and authorized by Benishek for Congress
    415 S. StEPHenson, Iron Mountain, MI 49801
  • Summer of Economic Discontent

    The administration's 'summer of recovery' has fizzled in almost every way imaginable. The growth rate is less than half what it was at this stage after the 1974-75 and 1981-82 recessions

    The Obama administration's "summer of recovery" has morphed into a summer of economic discontent amid anxiety over the weakening economy. The greater than 4% growth and less than 8% unemployment envisioned by the president's economic team are nowhere to be seen. Almost everything that is supposed to be up—the economic growth rate, the stock market, bond yields—is down. And almost everything that is supposed to be down—unemployment-insurance claims, new mortgage delinquencies—is up.
    Sometimes a weak early recovery gathers strength after a year or so, as in 2003 when the second round of the Bush tax cuts helped double growth to 3.8% from 1.9%. But there are serious headwinds to stronger growth: household deleveraging, unresolved toxic assets, and most government economic policies headed in the wrong direction. While the base case outlook is still slow recovery, a double-dip recession or a Japanese-style lost decade is more plausible than a few months ago. This explains why Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke felt compelled last week to reiterate that the Fed will use more of its (in my view, weak) ammunition should the economy falter further.
    How bad is it? In the data for the last few weeks and months, real personal disposable income was flat; core capital goods orders, a precursor of business capital spending, declined 8%; new home sales fell 12.4%, existing sales 27%, despite record low mortgage rates; single-family housing starts declined 4.2%; building permits, foreshadowing future construction, fell 1.2%; initial jobless claims spiked to over 500,000, leading forecasters to expect at best meager short-term private-sector job growth; the Kansas City, Philadelphia and New York Fed manufacturing indexes fell; and the trade deficit increased, as exports fell and imports rose.
    These weak backward-looking data were accompanied by big downdrafts in forward-looking financial markets. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost over 4% and the tech-heavy Nasdaq over 6% in August—partly retraced yesterday—and the 10-year U.S. bond yield, at 2.47%, was back to its lows of March 2009. Real GDP growth slowed from 3.7% in the first quarter to just 1.6% last quarter.
    Worse yet, much of the growth in the first half of 2010 was due to inventory-rebuilding; real final sales grew at only about 1%. Consumers are cautious, saving and paying down debt. The surge in government spending is abating. Global trade, dependent on growth abroad, is slowing: Japan is stalled, China slowing, and despite Germany's strong quarter, eurozone growth is projected to be only half America's modest rate through 2011.
    The one bright spot has been the rebound in business capital spending. Businesses are flush with cash and profits have been solid. But the weak core durable goods report, the manufacturing downshift, and continued uncertainty about the economy and the Obama administration's economic policy have many forecasters reducing capital expenditure projections.
    The sluggish growth is particularly disconcerting compared to the usual strong growth following deep recessions. The chart nearby shows the average real growth that occurred in the first four and first 12 quarters following the severe recessions of 1974-75 and 1981-82. Compared to the 6.2% first-year Ford recovery and 7.7% Reagan recovery, the Obama recovery at 3% is less than half speed. The unemployment rate would now be 8% or lower at those higher growth rates. If the Obama recovery continues at 3%, the president will be running for election in mid-2012 with a cumulative GDP recovery shortfall of 4.5% (relative to Ford) to 8.4% (relative to Reagan).
    President Reagan won re-election with 49 states. President Ford came from 30 points back to lose narrowly to Jimmy Carter, and would have won easily were the election a few months later. What does this say about an Obama second term? With little discernible improvement in the economy from the president's $862 billion in fiscal stimulus, citizens are revolting against the explosion of spending, deficits, higher taxes, government bailouts and economic micromanagement, and seem poised to put an exclamation mark on it in the November elections.
    Not surprisingly, the left is frantically calling for a second "stimulus" and demanding tax hikes for the "rich"—a.k.a. our most productive citizens and small businesses. The rehashed ideas include such nonsense as massive infrastructure spending financed by a national infrastructure bank, an old Carter idea; yet more aid to the states; and even that worst of ideas, "general revenue sharing," which would force citizens to pay future federal taxes to fund the debt used just to send revenue back to their states.
    These ideas would do a lot more harm than good. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, we have the best economic system among the advanced economies, "if we can keep it." That will require fundamental policy changes, not doubling down on the failed big government experiment of recent years.
    The president and Congress would have to implement serious spending reductions, real entitlement reform focused on substantially slowing the growth of benefits per recipient, and no tax hikes. President Clinton made a major move back to the political center—to his own and the nation's benefit—when Republicans won control of Congress in 1994. In partnership, they balanced the budget and reformed welfare. But recall, President Clinton's major big-government initiative—HillaryCare—was defeated. For President Obama to get to a similar place after the midterm elections, he would have to partner in "repealing and replacing" his signature initiatives.
    Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.
  • SEPTEMBER 2, 2010

    Obama's 'Come Home America' Speech

    A dangerous world needs stronger U.S. leadership.


    At times Tuesday night, it sounded as if President Barack Obama didn't know what kind of speech he wanted to give. Was it a foreign policy address aimed at assuring a world-wide audience of America's resolve in the war against militant Islam? Or was it an election stump speech to confirm to voters that the economy is job No. 1 for this president and his party?
    The speech's best moments were those praising the commitment, courage and sacrifice of America's military. The president powerfully said that "our troops are the steel in our ship of state," and all who serve join "an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar."
    For someone who had been such a vocal war opponent, he was generous in acknowledging what our troops accomplished—defeating "a regime that had terrorized its people" and helping "Iraq seize the chance for a better future." Because of our troops, he said, "Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain."
    As a foreign policy address, however, the speech missed the mark. While Mr. Obama did acknowledge that the U.S. "intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership" in the world, most foreign observers will probably remember the president's tone of haste, withdrawal and even retreat. His phrase, "It is time to turn the page," caught many an ear around the world—and not to America's advantage.
    Mr. Obama's was not the confident voice of Harry S. Truman promising to protect Europe and Japan against "outright aggression and . . . the threat of further armed attack." Nor did the president sound like the determined Dwight Eisenhower explaining America's commitment to South Korea's transition to democracy after the Korean War by saying, "We may not now relax our guard nor cease our quest."
    Instead, Mr. Obama's address was more reminiscent of Sen. George McGovern's plea in the 1972 presidential campaign to "Come home, America." It sounded like he couldn't head for the Iraq exit door quickly enough.
    Imagine if after World War II, America had left Europe in the face of the aggressive Soviet threat. What would Asia look like now if, following the Korean War, the U.S. had set a quick date for withdrawal from the peninsula?
    As much as he may wish, Mr. Obama cannot ignore Iraq or withdraw prematurely from Afghanistan. He has ownership of both wars; it's part of his job description. He will share in the wars' success or be blamed if they are lost. And he will have a better chance of succeeding if our friends and enemies sense resolve, rather than weariness.
    The world needs a determined United States. It is in the security, diplomatic and economic interests of our nation to provide to Iraq and Afghanistan the same patient leadership we provided in Europe and Asia. We face new threats from Iran. China and Russia are both flexing their muscles. Telegraphing to the world that America is no longer a dependable ally is the worst possible message a president can send.
    Tuesday might have been better spent visiting not just Fort Bliss but other military installations as well to honor all the services. Then Mr. Obama could have given an Oval Office address when the new Iraqi government is formed, pairing progress on security with political success.
    Mr. Obama suggested that a trillion dollars had been squandered to no good purpose in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade. Are removing murderous regimes that were threats to peace and stability, catalyzing change in the Arab Middle East by expanding democracy, dealing a brutal blow to al Qaeda, protecting the American homeland, and diminishing the threat of transnational terrorism really of so little value to the president?

    About Karl Rove

    Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy-making process.
    Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.
    Karl writes a weekly op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is the author of the forthcoming book "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions).
    Email the author atKarl@Rove.comor visit him on the web Or, you can send a Tweet to @karlrove.
    Speaking of trillions, have we prospered because of the trillion dollars Mr. Obama is spending on stimulus? Are we more confident of our country's future because Mr. Obama will lay out two-and-a-half trillion dollars in ObamaCare's first decade of operation? Do back-to-back-to-back deficits under this president—each of more than a trillion dollars—give us comfort about his fiscal leadership?
    All issues pale compared to the question of U.S. leadership. America can either shape the world's agenda, or wait for direction from international organizations.
    Suggesting that only by withdrawing from the world can a president "jump-start industries," reform education, and make "tough decisions" about issues at home leaves the impression that Mr. Obama has little interest in being commander in chief, that his real passion is domestic issues and his goal to mold America into a European-style social democracy.
    Presidents can simultaneously pursue international and domestic agendas. In dangerous times, it is vital that the president use America's power to shape the world.
    Mr. Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, is the author of "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions, 2010).