December 31, 2010

Getting the Record straight on @GovMikeHuckabee as Arkinsas Gov #tcot #sgp #gop #dems


Subject: Getting the Record straight
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:54:32 -0500

There has been a great deal of distortion and disinformation about Mike Huckabee's record as governor of Arkansas from 1996-2007. It's important that conservatives know the truth about Huckabee's record, especially since he may run for president again in 2012. So let's take a look at his record. As governor, he:

* Cut the state capital gains tax rate by 25%.
* Abolished capital gains taxes on home sales.
* Abolished the state marriage penalty tax.
* Pushed a $90 million tax cut package through the Arkansas legislature in 1997.
* From 1995 to 2005, cut taxes 90 times, returning nearly $400 million to taxpayers ($378 to be exact).
* Indexed income tax brackets to inflation, thus protecting taxpayers from being pushed into higher tax brackets by inflation.
* Doubled the child-care tax credit.
* Increased the tax deduction for single individuals to $2,000.
* Increased the tax deduction for married couples to $4,000.
* Proposed cutting the executive branch from 50 departments to 10.
* Banned illegal aliens from getting drivers licenses.
* Reduced state welfare enrollment by nearly half.
* Helped pass an unborn child amendment to the state constitution.
* Helped pass a traditional marriage amendment to the state constitution.
* Pushed through a property owners' bill of rights that limited property tax hikes and protected homeowners from unfair tax assessments.
* Pushed through homeschooling-friendly legislation.
* Limited the increase in the overall rate of state spending to 4.9% (AFI)--not bad, considering that he was dealing with a Democratic legislature.
* Protected gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits.
* Removed restrictions on concealed handgun permit holders.
* Pushed through legislation that allowed the state to fire school boards and school superintendents in school districts that were chronically performing badly.
* When faced with a $227 million deficit for fiscal year 2002, refused to call for a tax increase and instead called for a massive cut in state spending.

"The central message is that the Republican Party has a great future, if we get back to being the party of principle, clarity and conviction. And we're going to do that." ~Mike Huckabee

December 13, 2010

Tax structure is most important debate coming~ Founders would support Fairtax over the Flattax

There is an most important debate coming and it has to do with tax structure. The flat tax will be hammered as the way to go, but it is window dressing to keep what we have now, not changing anything. We need Fairtax to get federal taxation out of domestic product manufacturing so we can compete with imports and get jobs back and liberty.
Read Federalist #21: (emphasis added)
...The wealth of nations depends upon an infinite variety of causes. Situation, soil, climate, the nature of the productions, the nature of the government, the genius of the citizens, the degree of information they possess, the state of commerce, of arts, of industry, these circumstances and many more, too complex, minute, or adventitious to admit of a particular specification, occasion differences hardly conceivable in the relative opulence and riches of different countries. The consequence clearly is that there can be no common measure of national wealth, and, of course, no general or stationary rule by which the ability of a state to pay taxes can be determined. The attempt, therefore, to regulate the contributions of the members of a confederacy by any such rule, cannot fail to be productive of glaring inequality and extreme oppression.
This inequality would of itself be sufficient in America to work the eventual destruction of the Union, if any mode of enforcing a compliance with its requisitions could be devised. The suffering States would not long consent to remain associated upon a principle which distributes the public burdens with so unequal a hand, and which was calculated to impoverish and oppress the citizens of some States, while those of others would scarcely be conscious of the small proportion of the weight they were required to sustain. This, however, is an evil inseparable from the principle of quotas and requisitions.
There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.
It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them....

December 12, 2010

FW: Business Pays No Taxes | iCaucus Meeting Follow-up - Rebuttal to FLAT Tax

The fact of the flat tax can be done now and not the fairtax is wrong. To protect against the Congress using both porducitona d consumption tax systems is a threat now, not just when the fairtax were implemented.
The fault of the flat tax is keeping the same produciton tax to which taxes are imbedded in domestic production making for unfair handicap with imports. We need fairtax now, not more of the same.
We need to make a bold move to save this nation and flattax is nto such, it is a cowardly way to go. Fairtax is providential in nature and will bring the USA Lback to proserity, along with Constitutional conduct by the Federal Government and insistence by the States by nulification if need be.

Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 23:23:24 -0800
Subject: Re: Business Pays No Taxes | iCaucus Meeting Follow-up - Rebuttal to FLAT Tax
Paul, right on with your observation that increasing moral decay makes our job more difficult.

With respect to business' tax costs actually being our costs - we pay in one, and/or several, of the following ways:
1) higher prices
2) employee layoffs (laid-off employees pay on account of it)
3) decreased dividends (shareholders pay on account of it)

But, only the unenlightened believe that business is in business to collect and pay taxes. And politicians delight in our ignorance. Enlightenment comes with communicating the above simple truths to those who are not yet aware.

Daar Fisher
Internal Communication - H (248) 247-6211   Fax (360) 248-6211   Pgr (313) 714-3295
Price of success? 33¢ a day - "10 bucks a month"
Beware Little Fox 8.  Be powerful . . . ACT.

From: Paul Hales <>
To: Daar Fisher <>; Jeff Roys <>
Cc: Sent: Sat, December 11, 2010 12:42:53 PM
Subject: RE: iCaucus Meeting Follow-up - Rebuttal to FLAT Tax


How do we convince the electorate that business entities pay no taxes at all but only accumulate their total tax burden and pass it on to the ultimate consumer?

When Governor Granholm states her intention to increase taxes on businesses instead of taxing individuals she shows her total ignorance of the true nature of taxation.  


Logic would indicate the producers in society create all goods and services that are consumed by all members of the society including those who produce nothing.

A devious and thoroughly corrupt government will do all it can to conceal and disguise the total tax burden on its citizens.


Illegal aliens and many citizens involved in the practice of "Working Under The Table" only contribute to the tax base via the sales tax and energy type taxes.  They do not contribute via employment taxes, income taxes, workman's compensation taxes and the like.  They also do not usually purchase health insurance and are a further burden on the producers in society at the emergency rooms across the nation.


Removing taxation on production and shifting it to consumption is our only long term answer to avoiding the "Police State" type of government found in the USSR .


The problem with our methods of taxation is that as our nation falls further into the moral decline that has ended all the great nations before us, it will become significantly more difficult to make the changes necessary to save us.







Paul Hales
1114 Lake Valley Dr
Fenton, MI 48430
Home - 810-629-6686
Mobile - 586-764-0580
5th District Leader, iCAUCUS - Michigan
Fenton Tea Party - Genesee County

RetakeOurGov - Livingston County
Genesee Tea Party - Genesee County
Tri-City 912 -  Saginaw County

From: Daar Fisher []
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 12:02 PM
To: Jeff Roys
Cc: Paul Hales ; Allen Pool ; Bill Moilinan ; Darlene Littlejohn; Donald Jakel; Donna Nakagiri ; Janice Daniels; Kathy Tucker ; Ken and Brenda Battle Jordan ; Larry Leidlein; Loren Bearup; Mark Graham ; Michael Moon ; Robin Blitchok; Robin Burke; Susan Culver; Wes Nakagiri ; William Ralph
Subject: iCaucus Meeting Follow-up - Rebuttal to FLAT Tax


Jeff (et al),

It was a pleasure meeting you at the iCaucus meeting. Below is the Mastromarco rebuttal to Bartlett 's 1999 article criticizing the National Sales Tax (FairTax).




Daar Fisher

Internal Communication - H (248) 247-6211   Fax (360) 248-6211   Pgr (313) 714-3295


Price of success? 33¢ a day - "10 bucks a month"




Beware Little Fox 8.  Be powerful . . . ACT.




----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Daar Fisher <>
Sent: Sat, December 4, 2010 2:11:10 PM
Subject: Tax Poll at


I'm writing per your YouTube video's ( ) invitation.

Ben Stein has come around - END THE IRS. Huckabee has been there. Iowa 's Steve King, very eloquent and persuasive, and the list of pol's who understand the damage that the Income Tax has brought America continues to grow. However, as you know, pol's do NOT respond unless they see a constituency that becomes aware of, and agitates for, an issue.

Though I understand the temptation toward "incrementalism," all I've witnessed in my 56 years is a progression toward SOCIALISM. Well-intended though it be, it will not "turn the rudder of the ship 180 degrees." We must build a juggernaut that demands an end to the federal government's claim on INCOME. Thus, FAIRTAX agitation and benefits dissemination must happen now.  The rationale is well-conceived in Dan Mastromarco's rebuttal of Bruce Bartlett:

(Paraphrased) REPLY BY DAN R. MASTROMARCO (LL.M., Taxation, Georgetown , principal in the Argus Group, adjunct professor at the University of Maryland , International Management Program, and research consultant to Americans for Fair Taxation - TO:

"A National Sales Tax Doesn't Add Up" by  Bruce Bartlett, December 29, 1999

Many engaged in true tax reform find Bartlett-type attacks exasperating, if not embarrassing. I'd like to convey perspective of both flat taxers and sales taxers who believe that such attacks are counterproductive, but first provide some political history by which to frame said perspectives.

For years Conservatives have posited that a VAT is bad policy (when liberals were discussing it), fearing it would become additional to an income tax (it was called a "money machine").  Circa 1980, conservative intellectuals touted Hall-Rabushka "subtraction method" [H-R] VAT which taxed business value added at the business side and labor value added at the labor side.  Unlike European VATs (identical in scope), H-R became favorite of Dick Armey and Steve Forbes.  It eliminated steeply progressive tax rates and tax on savings.  Because of the prior VAT criticisms, H-R was packaged as the "flat tax" and is sold as an income tax to this day, rather than the VAT that "its DNA characterizes it as."

Some conservative commentators have called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment and for the adoption of the flat tax, (despite the fact that it is styled as a direct tax and could not be adopted with such repeal).  Mr. Bartlett has called the national sales tax [ie, the FairTax] a VAT (which it isn't), castigated VATs as evil, and has said that sales taxes have become VATs in Europe (which they didn't).  In the next breath, he "throws his arms around" the flat tax (which is a VAT). He quotes Bill Gale that the [FairTax] would have to be imposed at 60 percent, but glaringly fails to recognize that if the two bases are the same, he would have to impose that rate for the flat tax to be revenue neutral. In truth, all economists know that the two plans differ NOT in economic effect or base, but in administration.

An income tax taxes savings and investment multiple times.  Both flat tax and FairTax are neutral as to savings and investment, tax income only once, and are both consumption taxes.  Both are single rate taxes, have nearly the same base, and would improve the U.S. standard of living. Neither redistributes wealth.

While some have even suggested that they are the same plans under different names, the flat tax taxes value added at each stage in the production process, but the FairTax prefers to tax it when it is added up at the end and eliminate the need to make everyone a taxpayer and collector.

Substantive commonalities between the flat tax and FairTax doesn't mean that there are NO key political and policy distinctions that could be exploited in pitting one against the other.  If FairTax supporters wanted to retaliate in response to the Bartlett-type critique, they would have MUCH material with which to HONESTLY do so:

• The flat tax will make small firms and farmers pay the tax even if they have no profit
• The flat tax is opposed by many small business groups
• The flat taxers implicitly support big government by disguising even more of the overall tax burden as the current law
• The flat tax has been kicking around for nearly 20 years
• The flat tax makes everyone a taxpayer and collector, while the FairTax exempts 115 million filers [2000 figure] from ever having to deal with the IRS
• The flat tax is regressive, but the FairTax would enable everyone to keep his full paycheck.
• The flat tax has not only stalled, it has lost public and Congressional support.
• The FairTax is instantly understood, while even some proponents of the flat tax don't understand it
• There are no transition rules developed for the flat tax and they would be very difficult to craft
• The flat tax taxes exports and relieves imports from tax
• The flat tax confuses tax reform with temporary tax reduction and makes both twice as hard
• The flat tax retains the entire income tax apparatus which erodes as quickly as you can say, "tax bill"

FairTaxers could advance these truthful points without resorting to bigotry associated with a cultic religious organization. However, for the most part, FairTax supporters have chosen not to attack the flat tax, but rather accentuate the commonalities between the plans - despite the above-noted differences.  The reason is that, in the battle for tax reform, the real enemy is our current system.

Income tax advocates look down upon the articles of Bruce Bartlett with smug chortling, as Bruce is doing their work for them.  The IRS and the liberals who want an income tax to ensure (1) taxes can be raised without the American people knowing it, and (2) wealth can be redistributed from the middle class to the poor, do not even need to fight us - we're killing ourselves!

Perhaps Mr. Bartlett believes that the flat tax will help elect Republicans, effect tax reform, and provide tax cuts; however, the real effect of his criticism is to divide conservatives, to delay serious national consideration of tax reform, and to fertilize the roots of the income tax.

(Paraphrased from  - Addit'l at Whitepaper - May republish in whole, or part. -Ian)




Daar Fisher

Internal Communication - H (248) 247-6211   Fax (360) 248-6211   Pgr (313) 714-3295


Price of success? 33¢ a day - "10 bucks a month"




Beware Little Fox 8.  Be powerful . . . ACT.




----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Carolyn K. Flynn <>
To: Daar Fisher <>
Sent: Sat, December 4, 2010 12:34:42 AM
Subject: [FairTax 2012]

Carolyn K. Flynn posted in FairTax 2012.;

Carolyn K. Flynn

12:34am Dec 4

Flat Tax vs. National Sales Tax

This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation brief video explains how the current tax system is deeply flawed and argues that either the flat tax or the national sales tax (sometimes known as the Fair Tax) would be a substantial improvement over the current internal revenue code. However, the v

View Post on Facebook · Edit Email Settings · Reply to this email to add a comment.

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5694 (20101211) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5694 (20101211) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

December 01, 2010

Who won the debate between Fairtax John Linder & flattax Steve Forbes

 Did you know that you paid the payroll tax and income tax on the raising and handling of that turkey to your dinner table? When an employer sells his product he has to pass on the expenses in the price. Another way to loook at it is you pay taxes by your wages taken from you. Then you go to the store to buy something and pay for those wage taxes again. Sad for us isn't it.

It is obvious you who speak ill of Fairtax know not what is happenning to you with our current tax system which is what the proposed flattax by the corporates want in order to keep their lobbyist scheme of bribing for tax waivers from congr...ess. think these facts: Why keep the flattax as it double taxes workers? You pay your payroll and income tax and the employer puts it in the price of usa made goods. You go buy that good and you again pay your taxes. If we want to get manufacturing back from overseas, we need equity in taxing of imports and domestic production.

Take a loaf of bread. How much of the price is hidden tax? Time for America to wake up to truth of our taxation.
James A. Hodges 11:54pm Nov 28

View Post on Facebook · Edit Email Settings · Reply to this email to add a comment.