Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Ending Tax Slavery Now

TAXES / ENDING TAX SLAVERY NOW

Smiley Flag Waver Taxation is impractical, unnecessary, and immoral. It is impractical because tax-supported public services -- from public schools to police protection -- work poorly, if at all, and are very wasteful.

Taxation is unnecessary because any service or product that people truly want or need -- from education to roads to charity -- they can and will purchase without being forced to pay. And taxation is immoral because it is based on brute force -- the threat of fines and imprisonment of peaceful citizens.

For 150 years, America got along fine without the personal income tax, sales tax, profits tax, and most other taxes. We need to end taxes now, before tax slavery ends America.

WE MUST END TAX SLAVERY NOW

~ By Jarret B. Wollstein

Out-of-control taxes and regulations are crippling America. According to current federal budget projections, within 15 years the government will take 70% of your income directly in taxes. America will look like East Germany under the Soviets.

IRS agents raided the Engleworld Learning Center near Detroit. Parents were told their children would not be allowed to leave until parents immediately paid any balance due to the Learning Center for the coming months. However, the money would not go to the Center, but to the IRS. A creative IRS official thought he had a great way to force parents to pay the Center's taxes.

"It was like something out of a police state," Sue Stoia says. "They were using the children as collateral."

Marilyn Derby, director of Engleworld, said, "Parents were not allowed to see their children until they had signed an agreement with the IRS. It was a very scary situation, like the Gestapo was here. Children were crying, parents were trembling. I told one woman whose hands were shaking that she shouldn't sign anything she didn't want to. She signed anyway."

18 Elderly Nursing Home Residents Die When The IRS Seizes Their Home and Kicks Them Out In The Dead Of Winter

During a freezing winter cold snap, the IRS seized all of the assets of a nursing home in Toledo, Ohio. Unable to even buy food or pay an electric or gas bill, the owners were forced to close the home. Eighteen of the residents died during the hasty relocation. When Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) demanded an explanation from the IRS, he was told it was an "extremely routine" seizure.

IRS collection agent Art Harris described the mentality of many of his fellow agents:

"Some [agents] were vicious -- they'd brag back at the office, 'Boy did I make that guy jump,' or 'I had that woman crying when I told her I'd put her on the street with her kids.' One agent who bragged about padlocking some guy's business said the man was so upset he asked, 'How do you expect me to pay now?' The agent said, 'I told him, Go get your wife to peddle [herself].'" [Source: Art Harris, "The Tax Man and the Big Sting," Washington Post 4-16-89, p. F4]

Down The Government Sewer:
What Happens To Your Tax Monies?

These incidents show how far our government has strayed from its original purpose of protecting our lives, liberty, and property. Providing basic government services such as police, courts, and military defense would cost a fraction of what we now pay in taxes. Fifty years ago, the US had an excellent court system and the most powerful military in the world, yet taxes then consumed less than 5% of the average person's income.

Today, taxes are over ten times as high, and ninety percent of the money we pay in taxes is wasted. Would you send $20 billion of our tax dollars to Mexico to prop up the peso? Would you pay for inner-city schools that graduate students who are unable to read or write? Would you pay farmers not to grow food? Would you authorize the Pentagon to spend $7,622 for a coffee maker designed to survive a plane crash? Would you have spent billions to build up the militaries of the Shah of Iran and Gen. Noriega of Panama? Would you spend $352,000 to study the mating habits of the California kangaroo rat? Would you spend $17,000 so an artist could display a picture of Christ in a jar of human urine?

Any business that spent money as irresponsibly as the government does would quickly go bankrupt -- if their directors weren't lynched first. But, as the Supreme Court has ruled, government is not legally obligated to provide you with any specific service in return for the taxes you pay.

Unlike legitimate businesses, only the government can legally force you to pay for its programs, no matter how wasteful or outrageous. And there's no limit to how much of your income the government can seize.

How Much Do You Really Pay?

According to the Tax Foundation, in 1994 the average American paid 22.4% of his or her income in federal taxes, plus 11.8% in state and local taxes -- 34.2% total.

But that's just the beginning! Dr. James Payne of the University of California found that in addition to direct taxes we also pay huge, hidden taxes including:

Compliance costs -- record keeping, monies spent on tax planning, computers and software purchased to fulfill IRS requirements, etc.

Enforcement costs -- IRS audits, field investigations, service center corrections, criminal investigations, litigation, and forced collections.

Emotional, moral and cultural costs -- families forced onto welfare, time and creative energy lost figuring out how to avoid taxes, etc.

For every $1 we pay in direct taxes, we spend an additional $0.65 in compliance costs. And even that figure doesn't include the cost of import duties, license fees and other government regulations. For a typical U.S. family, the real cost of taxes and regulations is at least:

Federal taxes 22.4% of income
State & local taxes 11.8%
Compliance costs 22.2%
Regulatory costs 12.7%

70.1% of your income is now consumed by government

Taxes Are Crippling America

Why are more businesses failing, why is unemployment soaring, and why are more and more families becoming homeless? Two major reasons are skyrocketing taxes and destructive regulations.

Taxes and regulations are destroying businesses. By the time businesses pay income tax, payroll tax, capital gains tax, inventory tax, corporate tax, license fees, IRS penalties, EPA fines, etc., etc., little or nothing is left to operate the business.

Taxes and regulations are destroying the middle class. Thirty years ago, middle-class Americans could afford to buy a house. Today, increased taxes consume a sum equivalent to mortgage payments. Both parents now have to work just to make ends meet. 15% Social Security taxes make it nearly impossible to save for retirement. And state and local taxes make it difficult for many families even to pay utility bills. Taxes keep poor people poor. Cash-starved businesses can't afford to hire and train the poor. The working poor often can't even afford to feed their families on what's left of their paycheck after taxes. Taxes make it extremely difficult for the poor to start businesses. To operate a push cart you must pay a $7,000 license fee in Washington, DC. A city "Medallion" to legally operate a taxicab in New York costs $142,000. Atlanta charges the poor $50 for a license to beg for money.

How Can We End Taxes?

The first step is to reduce taxes to the levels of 50 years ago when people could still afford to buy houses and start businesses. That means cutting government spending with a meat axe. Here are four initial cuts that would save over $600 billion a year - enough to immediately eliminate every cent you pay in personal income tax.

Cut military spending by 60%. We're now spending $279 billion a year on defense -- almost as much as we did at the height of the Cold War. We can cut military spending at least 60% without jeopardizing our security by scrapping 90% of our 25,000 nuclear weapons, eliminating four of the navy's seven fleets, and requiring honest, competitive bidding for all military procurement.

– Savings: $167 Billion A Year –

Get rid of the welfare bureaucracy. Former Treasury Secretary William E. Simon reports that 80% of the budgets of welfare programs go for salaries of government social workers and other overhead expenses. By phasing out the tax-funded welfare bureaucracy and providing private, voluntary aid through churches and community charities -- we can cut welfare costs 80%.

– Savings: $160 Billion A Year –

Privatize the schools. Public schools are failing on every level -- moral, academic, and social. SAT scores continue to drop, violence is widespread, and many inner-city schools look more and more like prisons. The solution is to privatize education by allowing parents to spend their money on the schools of their choice that reflect their values. Since government schools spend over $6,000 per pupil vs. less than $2,500 for independent, private schools, this means we would get better education at half the cost.

– Savings: Up To $100 Billion A Year –

End Corporate welfare. According to the Cato Institute, some 129 federal programs now spend $87 billion of our money each year subsidizing big business. Here are a few examples:

In fiscal 1995, taxpayers spent $1.4 billion subsidizing sugar farming. 40% of this money went to the largest 1% of sugar farms.

Taxpayers spent $465,000 to help advertise McDonalds' McNuggets and $2.5 million to promote Dole products overseas.

Texas Instruments received $13 million to create civilian applications for military hardware. Hewlett Packard received $10 million and Chrysler $6 million. We paid these companies to develop military technology, and now we're paying again to help them figure out a way to sell it to K-Mart. Corporate welfare should be eliminated now.

– Savings: $87 Billion A Year –

TOTAL SAVINGS: $514 BILLION A YEAR

End Tax Slavery Now!

As government consumes more and more of our income, the IRS and state tax authorities act increasingly like criminal gangs. Violent confrontations with tax agents, seizures of bank accounts and homes without trial, and lengthy prison sentences for people who can't both pay their taxes and feed their families, are rapidly increasing. In 1992 alone, the IRS seized 3,253,000 paychecks, bank accounts, cars and homes without trial.

As historian W. H. Chamberlin states:

"One of the most insidious consequences of the present burden of personal income tax is that it strips many middle-class families of financial reserves. [It] has made the individual vastly more dependent on the State."

At the current rate of growth, within 20 years taxes will consume every penny we earn. Long before then, we will all be living in public housing projects and eating government cheese.

Taxation is impractical, unnecessary, and immoral. It is impractical because tax-supported public services -- from public schools to police protection -- work poorly, if at all, and are very wasteful.

For 150 years, America got along fine without the personal income tax, sales tax, profits tax, and most other taxes. We need to end taxes now, before tax slavery ends America.

Jarret B. Wollstein is a member of ISIL's Board of Directors and a founder of the original Society for Individual Liberty

This pamphlet was revised in November 1997. It is part of ISIL's educational pamphlet series. Click here for the full index of pamphlets online.

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Friday, November 10, 2006

Taxpaying Voters Send A Message To Congress

TAXES / ELECTION 2006: TAXPAYERS SAY DON'T RAISE TAXES - GET A HANDLE ON THE BUDGET - KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OUR PROPERTY

Smiley Flag Waver "The 2006 election did not give a boost to bigger government, and in many cases it delivered a strong message for limited and accountable government," said NTU President John Berthoud. "Had Americans been able to use the write-in options for instructing candidates as well as casting votes for them, ballot-counters across the county would be seeing the same words over and over again: don't raise taxes, get a handle on the budget, stay out of trouble, and keep your hands off our property."

Press Releases

Election Was No Mandate for More Government, Taxpayer Group's Analysis Shows

For Immediate Release Nov 8, 2006
For Further Information, Contact:
Peter J. Sepp, Sam Batkins, (703) 683-5700

(Alexandria, VA) -- Despite the GOP's loss of the House, Democratic gains in the Senate and the defeat of several tax limitation measures on state ballots, most Americans who went to the polls yesterday voted to keep their keep their pocketbooks closed, according to a post-election survey by the 350,000-member National Taxpayers Union (NTU).

"The 2006 election did not give a boost to bigger government, and in many cases it delivered a strong message for limited and accountable government," said NTU President John Berthoud. "Had Americans been able to use the write-in options for instructing candidates as well as casting votes for them, ballot-counters across the county would be seeing the same words over and over again: don't raise taxes, get a handle on the budget, stay out of trouble, and keep your hands off our property."

Berthoud noted that the Congressional election results were influenced as much about those who didn't vote as those who did. Using the NTU Rating of Congress, which is based on every roll call vote affecting federal spending, taxes, debt, and regulation, his research found that GOP candidates who strayed from the principles of fiscal conservatism were more likely to alienate their base and be defeated:

Of the 19 Republican House Members confirmed as being ousted from their seats at press time, just 2 were recipients of NTU's "Taxpayers' Friend Award" in 2005 for attaining a Rating score of at least 70 percent.
The remaining 17 losing incumbents posted an average NTU Rating of just 56 percent last year, several points below the overall average for the GOP.
The six Republican Senators (including George Allen on the assumption that Jim Webb's lead holds up) who were defeated, by and large did not compile very good records on taxpayer issues. The defeated six on average scored 59 percent in NTU's Rating in 2005. The rest of the Senate Republican caucus averaged 70 percent. Only one of the defeated Senators (George Allen) scored higher than the average for the entire caucus.

Several gubernatorial races also appeared to be at least partially influenced by taxpayer issues. Governorships in Arkansas and Ohio swung to Democrats after the Republicans who previously held the offices lost credibility with their own voters by proposing tax increases. Republican Governors in South Carolina and Minnesota who practiced tough fiscal restraint won reelection, as did the somewhat more moderate Democrats in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Tennessee (all of whom professed varying degrees of concern for cutting taxes or controlling spending).

Some of the most important election outcomes involved ballot measures rather than candidates. This year saw nearly 100 proposals pertaining to fiscal and government reform issues. "A shallow reading of the election results would indicate that voters were more liberal this year -- by approving minimum wage hikes in all six states proposing them, and by turning down expenditure limits in Maine, Nebraska, and Oregon," Berthoud said. "A deeper examination, however, shows that voters were skeptical of most tax hike schemes and were concerned about taxes and regulations on their property." Among the highlights of NTU's review of 2006 ballot measure contests:

Comprehensive approaches to limiting government spending growth to inflation and population increases failed at the polls in Maine, Nebraska, and Oregon. However, the percentage of defeat in Maine is smaller than the rate for a property tax limit that failed in 2004, suggesting that voters there are warming to the idea of tax and spending caps. Past history shows that such proposals must often take several trips to the polls before being ratified (both Proposition 13 in California and Amendment 1 in Colorado did).
Proposals aimed at property taxes coasted to victory. In South Carolina, voters gave the nod to a plan that will limit the rise in taxable property values, while Arizonans and residents of Nashville, Tennessee approved laws protecting or requiring future public referendums for certain property tax hikes. Louisianans opted to remove municipalities' authority to levy property taxes on motor vehicles, and Washingtonians expanded the exemption level for personal property taxes. A modest New Jersey ballot measure that could allow at least some property tax relief passed, as did various new or increased exemptions for homeowners in several other states, including Florida and Louisiana.
Property rights measures did well at the polls, with 9 out of 11 possible states adopting new protections against eminent domain abuse. In the wake of last year's Kelo v. New London decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, states and localities have been emboldened to seize private property for purposes of economic development rather than public uses (such as roads and schools). This issue is of a special fiscal concern because many of the projects that eminent domain enables are taxpayer-subsidized sports stadiums, shopping malls, and private housing complexes.
Voters were generally in no mood to rubber-stamp tax increases. Californians rejected a $4 billion tax hike on oil production in the state (a proposal once considered a slam-dunk for passage), and nixed a higher business tax earmarked for publicly-funded campaigns. Tobacco tax hikes, often a weapon of first resort to would-be revenue raisers, did not receive blanket approval -- such proposals were defeated in California and Missouri, while they were enacted in Arizona and South Dakota.
Even the so-called politically safe topic of increased education budgets did not push citizens into backing higher taxes. Idahoans said no to a one-cent rise in the sales tax earmarked for education, while Californians gave a collective thumbs-down to a new per-parcel property tax. A Michigan scheme to guarantee a minimum level of school funding that would go up with inflation lost by a wide margin.
In a reflection of recent federal-level scandals, restrictions on pay and perks for politicians proved popular. Although term limits in Colorado and Oregon did not succeed, Missourians adopted a Constitutional Amendment to deny pensions to politicians removed from office, and Oklahomans chose to bar state pay for legislators convicted of a crime. A pay raise for state lawmakers was nixed in Arizona, and South Dakota's voters put a ban on the use of official state aircraft for personal travel.

Returning to the national level, Berthoud observed that the new House majority will not necessarily make up a monolithic consensus for bigger government. A significant number of Democrats who took over Republican-held seats had a more moderate stance on fiscal issues than the party's national leadership. For example, at least five winners (Ellsworth-IN, Giffords-AZ, Hill-IN, Mitchell-AZ, and Sestak-PA) have publicly pledged support for either holding the line on tax increases or putting a lid on budget growth.

"A fairly good case can be made that the story of Election 2006 is more about poorly-led House Republicans losing than Democrats winning," Berthoud concluded. "This is especially true when viewed alongside the state and local ballot measure results, which show that voters don't long for a return to the tax-and-spend mindset. Americans would likely cheer Bill Clinton's statement in 1996 that the era of big government is over, but 10 years later they're still waiting for the political establishment to act that way."

NTU is a non-profit, non-partisan citizen group working for lower taxes and smaller government at all levels. Note: NTU's Ballot Measure Guide, as well as the NTU Congressional Candidate Survey, is available at www.ntu.org.

P.S.:

I wanted to let you know that despite what you may have read about the results of the Congressional races, all is not lost for taxpayers. You probably won't see this in the post-election wrap-ups and post-mortems, but committed fiscal conservatives running for the U.S. House and Senate were overwhelmingly successful at the ballot box. It just goes to show that being true to one's principles is not only good policy but also good politics.

Despite some setbacks, voters across the country supported efforts to curb real estate taxes and protect private property. Missourians adopted a Constitutional Amendment to deny pensions to politicians removed from office, and Oklahomans chose to bar state pay for legislators convicted of a crime -- two measures that are sorely needed at the national level. You can read our analysis of how taxpayers fared on ballot measures above.

So if you think the next two years will be nothing but an uphill battle, don't forget this bit of wisdom from Ronald Reagan: "There are no great limits to growth because there are no limits of human intelligence, imagination, and wonder." I promise you that NTU will be here fighting every day for you -- advancing an agenda of lower taxes, limited government, and personal freedom.

Sincerely,

John Berthoud
President

108 North Alfred St. Alexandria VA 22314 | Phone: 703.683.5700 | Fax: 703.683.5722 | E-mail: ntu@ntu.org

E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Democrat Party Doesn't Care About Working Class

POLITICS / DEMOCRAT PARTY DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE WORKING CLASS

Devvy Kidd

Smiley Flag Waver I have belonged to no party since 1996. My blind loyalty isn't to either one of the evil machines passing themselves off as a two party system; they are just two wings on the same bird of prey. Let me tell you just a few of the ways the Democratic Party has betrayed the working class ...

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE WORKING CLASS

~ By: Devvy Kidd
October 21, 2006

"The New Deal will bring the Communist Party within striking distance of overthrow of the American form of government. ..." --Arthur Henning, 1935, Chicago Tribune. "... The New Deal is to America what the early phase of Nazism was to Germany." --Mark Sullivan, Buffalo Evening News, 1935

My column on the women's vote drew the usual screeching from women who know nothing about the U.S. Constitution, but instead, have given their blind loyalty to Marxists like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, drunks like Teddy Chappaquidick Kennedy and craven hucksters like Harry Reid. The sissy men in the Democratic Party kow tow to sexual deviants, women who demand the "right" to murder their unborn baby on demand and every other special interest hot button group in the country. These weak kneed pansies spit on their oath of office every day by promising to violate the supreme law of the land for votes by those who have been duped by this machine since FDR took his place in history and began the systematic destruction of the working class.

I have belonged to no party since 1996. My blind loyalty isn't to either one of the evil machines passing themselves off as a two party system; they are just two wings on the same bird of prey. Let me tell you just a few of the ways the Democratic Party has betrayed the working class:

Taxing them to death (and, yes, I will get to the Republicans in my next column). How many good, decent Americans who belong to the Democratic Party know anything about the Federal Reserve and it's feeding artery, the IRS? Oh, they complain about taxes, everyone does. But, do Democratic voters have any real understanding that in order to feed the unconstitutional "Federal" Reserve Banking System, Congress will continue to steal the sweat off their backs in bigger and bigger chunks via heavier taxation until they retire in poverty? If you would like to learn about the "FED," my Reading Room is full of books; you can read an indictment against the "FED" here. Sixteen years ago I woke up and it wasn't because of the taxation issue, it was because of the privately owned Federal Reserve and its systematic looting of the American people.

America's participation in the communist United Nations is unconstitutional; see here. America should never have become a member of the an organization whose mission is to destroy the sovereignty of our republic. The American people are being raped in taxes to fund this corrupt cabal while being further dragged into a one world totalitarian nightmare. This is NOT what our military have fought and died for in every war since WWI. Every Democrat in Congress votes to continue stealing from your wallet to fund this maniacal operation. Before vote fraud began stealing our elections, we actually had real statesmen and women in Congress:

On January 9, 1953, Senator John W. Bricker gave a speech titled, 'Our Liberty Must be Guarded.' This was a major discussion about the loss of our sovereignty and the passing of the UN Covenant of Human Rights. Bricker felt there wasn't much chance of getting it passed [this was before electronic ballot fraud started insuring no more loyal Americans would serve in Congress, only the corrupt, the ignorant and the supporters of globalism] but he nonetheless said:

"But the Constitution should be amended now to forestall a loss of freedom to our children and to oncoming generations through the power of treaties and executive agreements designed to circumvent the Constitution."

February 3, 1953, Congressman Burdick, asking the question, "Mr. Speaker, the subject I was going to speak on now and do speak on is: What can this country, the U.S. do to prevent the United Nations from destroying the Constitution of the United States of America and the constitution and laws of the various states of the Union?" The liberals and the government's media apparatus all chant that the UN is the answer to the world's problems of violence, terrorism and ethnic cleansing. What rubbish. What pure, undiluted propaganda.

January 15,1962, Congressman Utt: "You can expect to see a one world government, Communist controlled, under the United Nations. You will see the United Nations run up astronomical debts, which we, under the terms of the treaty, are bound to pay."

We're talking hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars to fund the anti-American agenda of the UN, the International Monetary Fund, USAID and World Bank. There is NO constitutional authority to steal from the people's treasury to fund these mechanisms bankrupting America, yet not one single Democrat in Congress has stepped forward to end our participation in any of them because they are owned by the banking cartels. Showing their civic ignorance, every Democrat in Congress, like a drunk who can't get it straight, constantly regurgitates "our democracy." How many folks in America who vote Democrat know that America is NOT a democracy, but a constitutional republic? They don't. Learn the difference by clicking here. Print it out, read it and reject democracy:

"Democracy is the most vile form of government ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." James Madison, known as the Father of the U.S. Constitution

In 1996 in my Blind Loyalty booklet, I wrote about The Democratic Socialists of America and the 57 members in Congress - all Democrats - who belong to this organization working to undermine America and our legal form of government. Nary a ripple crossed this great country. It's no great secret that a large number of Hollywood icons and "stars" throw bushels of money at the Democrats each election. Why? Because they want the Democratic Party to continue their agenda ranging from fascism, socialism to communism cloaked in "democracy" and "liberalism." Why? Because they obviously believe in the ideology of those forms of government. Back on October 9, 1999, I wrote a column on Warren Beatty and this very issue. I hope you can take the time to read it over a cup of coffee or on your lunch break. You will find it shocking.

The illegals invasion. No matter how many times you define legal vs illegal aliens, Democrats in Congress go into their socialist spiel about human rights, jobs Americans won't do and all the other claptrap. After all, they need those votes from illegals voting. Both Frosty Wooldridge and I have done extensive writing on this invasion which is one of the major factors contributing to the death of the middle class and jobs. If one listens, I mean really listens to the garbage out of the mouths of "liberal" Democrats about illegals, it all boils down to endorsing and rewarding foreigners who smuggle themselves into our country, committing a criminal act in the process. That's what Democrats in Congress wish to reward right along with the RINOs serving in that corrupt body of lawbreakers.

The Democratic Party has NEVER told their constituents the truth about social security, the voluntary nature of participation and how it dooms the working class to live at poverty level in their golden years; see my columns on SS here. Social security can't be saved; reform and so-called privatization are more distractions pumped out by "think tanks." Yes, it must be funded out for those who depend on it, but let this mathematically doomed system die out a natural death.

Last week I wrote about withholding. No Democrat in Congress has told their constituents the truth about this taxing scheme that must be abolished. If Congress as a whole really wanted to help the working class, they would have abolished this scam decades ago. Americans would take home their ENTIRE wages for their labor and just think about how that would help everyone and the economy.

One of the universally accepted political myths is that Democrats take care of domestic matters while Republican stewardship is better for international issues. Of course, this is a big, fat lie when you look at the voting record of members of Congress since FDR. The Democrats try to appear tough on terrorism, but it's all just a smokescreen. Too many of them went right along with the Republican majority in sanctioning the unconstitutional invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq based on a mountain range of bald faced lies. Now they want you to reward them and their party for their failure to uphold the supreme law of the land. Do I believe the Democratic "leadership" in Congress would be reckless if left in charge of national security? Absolutely, but what the Republicans have done in the past five years is so egregious, one runs out of words to describe their destruction of the Bill of Rights. Contrary to the hysterical rhetoric by Shallow Shawn Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, just because millions of good, decent, loyal Americans know the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were born of lies and executed unlawfully, doesn't mean any of us are for appeasement of terrorists or hate America.

Jobs. During the last pretend election, I watched a "middle aged white guy" out in Ohio shout into the microphone of a reporter, "This election isn't about Viet Nam or abortion, it's about jobs." Millions of words have been written about unconstitutional treaties (NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA) and the destruction of good American jobs by what's called outsourcing. These factually challenged nincompoops representing Democrats around the country have tried to make the situation worse with their non solution called raising the minimum wage. All Band-Aids, just like the transportation bill passed last year. This bill signed into law by Bush, promises to spend $286.5 BILLION dollars to create jobs. The problem is, there are no dollars in the U.S. Treasury. Every penny will have to be borrowed and by the time the interest is paid on those borrowed "dollars," the cost will double. Congressional Record, House, Sept. 29, 1941, page 7583, Congressman Wright Patman on the government borrowing to fund operations:

"Mr. Speaker, our government debt at this time is approximately $50 billion. By the time that it's paid, it will aggregate $100 billion ... The amount of 100 percent is due to the interest charges ... I have never yet had anyone who could, through the use of logic and reason, justify the federal government borrowing the use of its own money ... I believe the time will come when people will demand that this be changed. I believe the time will come in this country when they will actually blame you and me and everyone else connected with this Congress for sitting idly by and permitting such an idiotic system to continue.

"I have talked to the secretary of the Treasury and members of the Federal Reserve Board and other people who are supposed to know about the money system of our country. They know this can be done easily and conveniently and will save money ... We have what is known as the Federal Reserve Bank System. That system is not owned by the government. Many people think that it is because it says "Federal Reserve." It belongs to private banks, private corporations. So we have farmed out to the Federal Reserve Banking System that which is owned exclusively, wholly, 100 percent to the private banks -- we have farmed out to them the privilege of issuing the government's money!"

There is a great deal of media and political hoopla going on about the Foley filth and the possibility that the Republicans will lose control of Congress next month. Voters in the districts of those members of Congress who participated in the cover up over Foley's sodomy lifestyle should be evaluated by their constituents. The constituents in the 16th District in Florida (Foley's vacated seat) will decide which of the lesser evils they will swallow. For people in the 3rd District in California to cast their vote for a member of Congress based on the Foley debacle in Florida would be silly and without rational thought process, but the rats who control the Democratic Party are pitching this stupidity for all it's worth.

If Americans who belong to the Democratic Party would just take the time to understand the money trail, how the fruits of their labor is being stolen and handed over to the international banking cartel, they would boot out every Democrat in Congress and replace them with constitutionalists and real statesmen. You can read about the money and tax issue here. If time is an issue for you, that column and others are on my CDs so you can listen and get educated with FACTS while you drive, jog or working around the house. "More money for education" and the other popular, worn out campaign chants are just more distractions to keep all Americans from learning the painful truth: Democrats have been played for suckers, just like GOP faithful who blindly vote for a party instead of constitutional government.

Any Democrat who voted for the misnamed Patriot Act, the National ID or the Military Commissions Act should be booted out of office, period and don't replace them with clones who are no different than the one you want out of office just because they are a Democrat. Example: Dr. Bob Bowman, candidate for Congress, has become very popular with the 911 Truth Movement. While I respect his military service and his courage in speaking out about 911, I wouldn't vote for him. Dr. Bowman is on the same page as Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. Go to his web site. As a potential big spending Democrat, Bowman wants a national health care system and expansion of Medicare until "every American is covered." If might surprise Bowman to know that I don't want Medicare and will never go under that socialist system. Medicare is a massive failure which will continue to run up astronomical, unpayable debt slapped on the back of my daughter, your children and their children. I won't participate because I know it's wrong and really isn't the solution. Bowman has overlooked the fact that the U.S. Constitution does not authorize Congress to create a "national health care" plan or interfere in the medical practice within the states.

I was shocked at Dr. Bowman's solution to jobs because he starts off real well, but then says, "If the private sector can't provide jobs for all, the government should take up the slack – not with welfare, but with productive work. FDR did it, and it worked. It also resulted in enormous improvements in the nation's infrastructure." Nothing could be further from the truth. FDR's programs did nothing but further socialism and government dependency for jobs. It is NOT the responsibility of the U.S. Government to provide jobs (except in a communist system) other than those absolutely necessary to support legitimate functions, i.e. staff for federal courts and constitutional agencies. What FDR did was deliberately promote more government dependency using the deliberately created depression as justification.

His diabolical agenda should have been been stopped right then and there by a unified Congress. It wasn't for future votes from a desperate population beaten down by the "Great Depression." Bowman wants the dangerous Kyoto Treaty passed. His position on social security taxes is so convoluted, it tells me he knows nothing about Title 42. The bottom line is that while I respect Bowman's stand on 911, if he were elected, the damage he would do in voting for unconstitutional legislation and pushing more socialism upon the American people is exactly what we're trying to get rid of in Congress.

2007 will be a water shed year for this republic, make no mistake about it. It's imperative that Americans learn how they are being sent to the poor house and how our sovereignty is being sold out to foreign interests. Jefferson said it so well:

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be ... if we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not for sale or resale.

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, "Why A Bankrupt America" and "Blind Loyalty," which sold close to 2,000,000 copies. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country, ran for Congress, and is a highly sought after public speaker. Your complimentary copy of the 32-page report may be obtained from El Dorado Gold. Devvy is a contributing writer for www.NewsWithViews.com.

Devvy's website: www.devvy.com

E-mail is: devvyk@earthlink.net

Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

New York Times Bashes Religious Tax Exemptions

MEDIA / NEW YORK TIMES BASHES RELIGIOUS TAX EXEMPTIONS

Business Media Institute

Smiley Flag Waver Most people don't believe that another person's tax break worsens their situation. "Otherwise we would have no deductions, no exclusions.” For example, childless people would protest the child tax credit, arguing that it was “shifting the tax burden” onto them. People gladly take deductions for mortgage interest, while understanding that credit card interest isn’t deductible -- some financial decisions are favored by the tax structure.

While states exempt religious organizations from property taxes, they do it “typically through statutes that also cover charities, libraries, museums, private schools and other secular nonprofit groups. Indeed, when the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of this tax break in 1970 it noted approvingly that the benefits did not fall exclusively on churches.” That key fact was buried in the story series, but the writer did not allow it any relevance.

In Government's Name: New York Times Bashes Religious Tax Exemptions

Four-Day 'In God's Name' Series Argues Churches Cheat Taxpayers And Cities Out Of Money

~ By Julia A. Seymour and Amy Menefee
Business & Media Institute
10/11/2006 3:53:12 PM

The New York Times has put an ironic twist on the 8^th Commandment: “Thou shalt not steal.” It’s accused churches nationwide of fleecing taxpayers and local governments using the First Amendment.

The Times devoted more than 17,000 words and a four-day series indicting religious groups for what it argued was essentially cheating taxpayers across the country. The pro-government, pro-regulation treatise by business reporter Diana B. Henriques was titled "In God's Name."

Churches “enjoy an abundance of exemptions from regulations and taxes” and the result is “religious organizations of all faiths stand in a position that American businesses -- and the thousands of nonprofit groups without that ‘religious’ label -- can only envy,” wrote Henriques. But she wasn’t suggesting businesses and nonprofits should enjoy fewer regulations or taxes. On the contrary, the story series lobbied for more government control over religious organizations.

Henriques stated that “tax breaks are widely defended both as an acknowledgement of religion’s contributions to society and as a barrier to unjustified government limitations.” Her articles didn’t explore that defense; rather, they blamed religious organizations for burdening local governments and the churches’ neighbors -- taxpayers. She referred to religious groups as a “cost” to government or other citizens 11 times.

In a country where 92 percent say they believe in God or a higher power, according to a recent Baylor University study, Henriques never mentioned that members of all the religious organizations would also be taxpayers -- the same people who support their communities’ public services with their hard-earned dollars. Instead, her portrayal indicated congregations were mooching off the rest of their communities:

• “These organizations and their leaders still rely on public services -- police and fire protection, street lights and storm drains, highway and bridge maintenance, food and drug inspections, national defense. But their tax exemptions shift the cost of providing those benefits onto other citizens. The total cost nationwide is not known, because no one keeps track.”

• “There are no national figures on how much money these tax breaks save religious organizations and on how much extra cost is shifted to other citizens.”

• “Congressional budget records show that just the income tax breaks uniquely available for ministers, rabbis and other clergy members cost taxpayers just under $500 million a year.”

A similar struggle of churches versus local economies also appeared on the front page of the October 9 USA Today, where Emily Bazar reported that “churches are being turned away by cities and towns that hope to enliven a fading downtown or boost their tax base.”

Churches ‘Costing’ Government Money

The idea that any time someone does not pay a dollar in taxes, that is a “cost” of one dollar to the government, is pervasive among journalists. The Business & Media Institute addressed common distortions on tax issues in a 2005 report, “Tax & Spin.”

Henriques used that logic to argue that tax breaks for religious groups cost local governments money -- just as ABC’s “World News Sunday” did on its October 1 broadcast. In that story, reporter Geoff Morrell said the mayor of one Texas town feared churches would “bust the budget” because they weren’t paying taxes.

That’s “the same line opponents of federal tax cuts use,” said Pete Sepp, vice president for communications with the National Taxpayers Union.

And in Henriques’ stories, that zero-sum logic spilled over into a more personal accusation -- that churches were shifting the tax burden onto other individuals in their cities.

Sepp said most people don't believe that another person's tax break worsens their situation. "Otherwise we would have no deductions, no exclusions,” he said. For example, childless people would protest the child tax credit, arguing that it was “shifting the tax burden” onto them. People gladly take deductions for mortgage interest, while understanding that credit card interest isn’t deductible -- some financial decisions are favored by the tax structure.

But Henriques took churches to task for not paying property taxes. She admitted that while states exempt religious organizations from property taxes, they do it “typically through statutes that also cover charities, libraries, museums, private schools and other secular nonprofit groups. Indeed, when the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of this tax break in 1970 it noted approvingly that the benefits did not fall exclusively on churches.” That key fact was buried in the story series, but the writer did not allow it any relevance.

“Historically, the reason for income and property tax exemptions was because of the benefit they provide to their community, because they lift a burden from the government,” said Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of the Liberty Counsel and Dean of the Liberty University School of Law. The Liberty Counsel describes itself as a “nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom.”

He mentioned that the Red Cross and other non-profits also receive tax exemptions for this reason.

The idea that localities have been hurting in property tax collections is laughable, Sepp said. "Most state and local governments have benefited handsomely from the run-up in housing values," he said. In fact, state and local revenue from property taxes has increased by a whopping 50 percent since 2000, according to the Census Bureau.

Attacking Churches for ‘Competing’ with Businesses

As the Business & Media Institute has documented, the mainstream media are not usually the biggest supporters of the free market system. Ironically, the Times series complained that religious organizations were hurting businesses by “competing” with many of their ministries, including bookstores and coffee shops.

Throughout the articles, religious groups were painted as villains: unfairly competing to provide child care in Alabama; seeking to destroy “open spaces” by fighting a zoning restriction in Colorado; discriminating by setting an age of retirement in New York; and being uncharitable by creating a retirement community for affluent seniors in Indiana

Henriques wrote that religious tax exemptions “collide with other values important in this country.” The theme was that religious organizations are favored by government and receive special treatment in the form of tax breaks, exemptions from regulations and hiring and firing requirements, and advantages over businesses in fighting existing laws.

Those who consider such benefits an “affirmative action program for religion,” Staver said, he considers “naïve, uninformed or shortsighted,” because in attacking the benefits provided to religious non-profits, the effect would be to undermine those given to all non-profits.

“Some of the questions raised in the article ignore the historical perspective that churches have always adapted to the needs of the community,” said Gary McCaleb, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which describes itself as a legal alliance that defends religious liberty. “A large part of Western civilization was preserved because long ago churches served as libraries, agricultural centers and schools for the community’s sake. And ironically we have people complaining today because churches are responding to needs as an act of their religious faith.”

Experts Cited Critical of Religion

Henriques didn’t acknowledge the radical nature of several anti-religious sources mentioned in her series. In a section about a tax dispute, she mentioned how the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco had appointed “Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor then on the faculty at the University of Southern California” to assist in the case. However, the Times article left out that Chemerinsky also has strident views against conservative Christianity – saying “The religious right is the enemy of freedom,” in a Web posting.

That post, a Sept. 28, 2005, article on the liberal Huffingtonpost blog, was headlined “Time to Fight the Religious Right.” The piece criticized fundamentalists of all religions who “share remarkably similar views on many issues -- and remarkably similar intolerance.” Chemerinsky’s own comments mention how he “argued a case in the Supreme Court challenging a six-foot tall, three feet wide Ten Commandments monument that sits between the Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court.”

Further, Henriques ignored the widespread criticism of the Ninth Circuit as being liberal, and ruling that the words “under God” were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion in a case about the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Times acknowledged that another legal scholar was also a religion critic. Marci A. Hamilton, is “a law professor at the Cardozo law school at Yeshiva University in New York and the author of ‘God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law,’ which is critical of many religious exemptions, particularly in the areas of land use and family law.”

However, that only hinted at Hamilton’s position. In a Sept. 24, 2004, column on CNN.com, she called a bill in support of the words “under God” in the pledge as “lunacy.” “The powers that be at the moment have covered over these fundamental beliefs with misleading blather about how this is a ‘Christian’ nation, implying that Christians are the sole keeper of conscience and morals in the country,” she continued.

The Times story also referenced a study about abuse at child care centers and addiction treatment programs. The study was performed by the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, “a nonprofit research organization that opposed the faith-based initiatives.” Unsurprisingly, the analysis found higher instances of abuse and neglect at “alternatively accredited facilities” or religious sites.

However, Henriques again underplayed the anti-conservative nature of the organization. The fund is part of the Texas Freedom Network which claims on its own Web site works “to counter the religious right.” The fund “researches the agenda, activities and funding of the religious right.”