RFFM.ORG

Social Security COLA Freeze: Obama To The Rescue? I Told You So!

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

On August 24, 2009 I wrote a commentary titled, "COLA Freeze for Social Security Recipients: Part of an Obama Ruse to Keep Senior Voting Bloc?"  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/08/cola-freeze-for-social-security-recipients-part-of-an-obama-ruse-to-keep-senior-voting-bloc-.html.  

 

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.  Barack Obama has proposed Congress approve a one-time $250 payment to seniors and handicapped meant to offset a freeze in the Social Security Cost Of Living Adjustment for the next two years. 

 

Fuel prices are predicted to go up.  The cost of food has skyrocketed in recent weeks.  And if Congress passes health care reform and Cap and Trade legislation, the cost of living index will go through the roof.  But a one-time $250 payment should cover it, right?  Political bribery anyone?

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: Dan@rffm.org   

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Obama's Stimulus Package Really A Spending Bill: How Do We Know? He Said So!

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director 

Altogether now, everybody sing:

"One hundred, two hundred, three hundred billion,
four hundred, five hundred, six hundred billion,
seven hundred, eight hundred, nine hundred billion,
one trillion down the drain."

I don't really feel like launching into song, but what can we do?  Doesn't it seem like we are living through some sort of nightmare and no matter how hard we pinch ourselves, we just can't seem to wake up?

When Barack Obama won the presidential election just a few short months ago, many of us asked:  How bad could it be?  Well, putting it mildly, it couldn't be any worse.  Obama really meant it when he promised "change" for America.  Right before our eyes, he is changing the U.S. into a socialist nation, along the lines of Euro-socialism and it is apparent there's nothing any of us can do about it.  But let's not forget he did have help.

Even before Obama took office, George Bush gave him a flying head start by calling for a Wall Street welfare package to the tune of $750 billion.  It will be known for all time as the first step towards the nationalization of the United States banking system.

"We need this legislation," said Republicans and Democrats alike.  "Our nation's economic future depends on it," said talking heads.  And the mainstream media made sure Americans got the message, no matter how much the public protested.

The numbers vary, but a super majority of Americans were against the bail-out, while citizens rang the phones off the walls, pleading with legislators not to pass the bill.  However, in the dark of night, the boondoggle passed with bi-partisan support.  Even John McCain postponed his presidential campaign to fly back to Washington, D.C., in order to save the day and assure the bill's passage.

We now know banks took the Christmas "present" and used it in an irresponsible manner.  In fact, they used the same tact that put our nation's economy into the tail spin we are still experiencing today.

The purpose of the bail-out was to free up credit.  But the only credit that was freed up was for individuals and businesses--including the management of AIG--which spent millions of dollars for themselves on retreats at high-end spas.  Sorry, I'm wrong.  AIG, which is now called 21st Century Insurance, actually had $150 billion of taxpayer money which was not included in the bail-out money.  The actual bail-out dough (TARP) went towards the purchase of stocks in other banking institutions and huge bonuses for the upper management of failing institutions.  Heck, some banks even bought foreign banks just for good measure.

Of course, some of these economic gurus used the money for a good cause, at least for them, including payment towards the best lawyers money can buy to fight against charges of corruption which led to the financial crisis in the first place.  Amazingly, the criminal charges (levied by the American government) and the individuals facing these legal proceedings were given the money to defend themselves by their victims and benefactors--the American taxpayer.  If this sounds like madness, it is, but sadly there's more.  To add frosting to the cake, we now have learned nearly $80 billion of the first bail-out welfare payment has magically disappeared.  That's right.  Now you see it, now you don't.  Houdini would be proud.

Then cometh President Barack Obama.  Again, Americans were told without yet another so-called stimulus package, there would be dire circumstances for our nation's economy.  Hey, is there an echo in here?  Yes, another trillion dollars needed to be pumped into our economy and the sooner, the better.  A single moment's hesitation would bring the most cataclysmic results.  The only thing is the so-called stimulus package will do very little to stimulate and a huge portion of this money won't be rushed into the economy for a half decade or more.  Indeed, what will eventually cost American taxpayers upwards of $1.3 trillion is full of pork, big government programs and money for everyone who asked for it, except the people who needed it most--the American people.

But at least Mr. Obama was honest.  Well, let's say, he got honest...eventually.  To kick off another one of those high-end retreats, this time for Democrats who were willing to head up to only the best spa New England has to offer--at taxpayers expense--Obama called the stimulus package what it really is--a spending bill.  Obama even laughed about it, as his Democratic audience chuckled with delight over the prospect of the biggest transfers of wealth from the private sector to the public sector in American history.  However, Republicans finally caught on and all but three members of the GOP from both the House of Representatives and the Senate agreed to go along with billions of dollars in spending for things like Frisbee golf courses, research on the effects of global warming and perhaps one of the biggest take-overs of the public education system in U.S. history.

Who were the Republicans that couldn't resist some of the goodies in the spending bill?  Well, in these cases, the term Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) truly does come to mind.  There was Pennsylvania Senator Arlen "single bullet theory" Specter and the gruesome twosome from Maine--Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.  You see, Republicans might have been able to filibuster Obama's spending bill, if not for the help of these three so-called Republicans, but there's no use crying over spilt milk or wasted tax dollars.

So my friends, sometime during this weekend, against the wishes of a majority of Americans, the Senate will pass Obama's spending bill, no matter what the Dems call it.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi will then officiate over a conference between the House and Senate and the biggest step towards socialism in American history will have been taken when Obama signs the bill.  Will someone please pinch me?  It is a nightmare, isn't it?

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Obama's Treasury Secretary Nominee (and Scofflaw) Geithner: Taxes? I Don't Have To Pay No Stinkin' Taxes

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

I'm really getting tired of saying this, but the situation surrounding Barack Obama's presidency would be funny, if it wasn't so sad.

If you haven't heard the latest, supposed financial genius, Timothy Geithner, was confirmed by the Senate Finance Committee by a vote of 18 - 5 on Thursday morning.  Geithner was nominated by Obama to be the new Secretary of the Treasury.  This all sounds well and good so far, doesn't it?  However, there is a little problem of Geithner being a tax scofflaw.  Indeed, if it weren't for the fact Geithner was nominated by Obama for the Treasury position, he would still owe the IRS somewhere around $34,000 and Geithner would probably be a better candidate for a TV show, America's Most Wanted, perhaps?  But Geithner did the right thing.  I'm sorry, let me put it this way.  Geithner did what he had to do and paid two years worth of unpaid back taxes.  However, he did not pay for the two other years he owed because the statutes of limitations had run out.  Huh?

I'm not kidding.  The individual who will be the Secretary of the United States Treasury which, by the way, oversees the Internal Revenue Service, only paid his taxes because he had to.  What a fine example he should make for the American taxpayer.  No wonder they call him a genius.  Oh, the reason why Geithner will probably be confirmed to the Treasury post is because the man is simply too intelligent to let go.  According to the Obama and media spin machines (same thing), it is worth putting a scofflaw in charge of the nation's monetary system--if he is brilliant.  I guess the test was since Geithner could get away with dodging the IRS, he was well qualified to run that government body.

Yes, it sounds like madness, but there's more.  In the year 2007, the government was owed approximately $290 billion from those like Geithner who either forgot, refused or didn't pay their taxes for whatever reason.  The money Geithner owed stemmed from income he received while self-employed.  Geithner also wrongfully deducted an expense related to his children's sleep-away camp--to make matters worse.  Please remember, this man is a "genius" who will now have control over literally trillions of dollars when he is confirmed as the U.S. Treasury Secretary.

Now, if you expected Geithner to receive the grilling of his life from the Senate Finance Committee, you were wrong.  Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) called Geithner's situation "problematic".  Wow!  That's brutal.  Some other Republicans asked Geithner about his failure to understand the American income tax system, one saying it was a reason for the IRS code to be reformed.  Yep!  Some screwy Republicans tried to use Geithner's tax evasion...oops, sorry for telling it like it was...to score political points regarding the tax code.  Amazing, isn't it?

I just couldn't watch any more after John Kerry said he was voting for Geithner ten minutes into the hearing and before the Massachusetts senator had an opportunity to ask a question.  It was obvious the fix was in.  The Senate Finance Committee hearing was nothing more than a dog and pony show for us idiots (the American public) who thought some serious questions would be asked.

I wonder what would happen to an average citizen who only paid his taxes after getting a letter from the IRS or before undergoing a background check, in order to take a new job with the government. 

Folks, this man didn't pay for two years of taxes that he owed because the clock had run out on the statutes of limitations.  I know I said this before, but it's so remarkable it bared repeating.  I wonder what would have happened to a Bush nominee who did the same after Bush's re-election in 2004.  We all know the answer to that question.  But this is the Barack Obama White House.  A government which once operated as a democratic republic is quickly evolving into a monarchy or worse.

Yes, Mr. Geithner will soon be confirmed as the monetary guru of the land.  The full Senate will have to vote on his confirmation. 

In the mean time, the rest of us scratch our heads and try to get ready for April 15th.  However, perhaps there is a new loophole called the "Geithner Clause."  Is anybody willing to try it out?

For a list of U.S. Senate Finance Committee members, go to:  http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/committee.htm

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Who Gets to Spend Rest of Bail-Out (TARP)? Bush or Obama? Does It Matter?

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

It's almost like a bad joke.  One day a leading Republican in the U.S. Senate put his foot down.  I'm not going to mention his name because at this point many of us believe all politicians are the same.  The Republican was drawing a line in the sand regarding President-elect Barack Obama's urgent call for a stimulus package that would be voted on within the first 100 days of his administration.  The member of the Senate, speaking for Republicans, said we'll go along with the $750 billion price tag, but we're drawing the line at $1 trillion.  I don't have the exact quote here, but that really doesn't matter either.  The Congressional fleecing of America's future will continue no matter which Party is in power and no matter what the American people say about it.  Imagine, someone has the courage or audacity to draw the line at $1 trillion.  There is an old saying in Chicago attributed to former Bears Coach Mike Ditka.  Speaking of the team's frugal owner, Ditka once said, "George Halas threw nickels around like manhole covers."  I suppose the opposite is true for the United States Congress.  Members of the Senate and House of Reps. throw billions of dollars around like 25 cent poker chips, if there is such a thing.

The Bush administration wants to get its hands on the $350 billion left over from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) money.  If you're not familiar with the acronym TARP, it is a convenient grammatical distraction for the word bail-out which was dreamt up by some enterprising Washington, D.C. bureaucrat.  You see, the American people were overwhelmingly opposed to the welfare program which gave the first-half of the $750 billion installment to bankers who played a significant role in the financial crisis America now finds itself in.  What was done with the money?  Few people know, except for those who spent it like drunken sailors on shore leave.  The truth has driveled out, however.  We have learned solvent banks used some of the bail-out funds for a myriad of purposes--many of which had nothing to do with increasing the flow of credit.  Some banks bought stock in foreign banking institutions.  Others actually bought foreign banking institutions.  But nobody really knows where the money went and if it was used for the purpose for which it was meant--if we truly ever knew what that purpose was in the first place.

Here's a bit of History 101.  The primary cause for the Great Depression was the breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of many banking institutions.  Whether you call it malpractice, malfeasance, misfeasance, nonfeasance or plain negligence, the actions of financial institutions drove America into a crisis which matched the Civil War in its severity.  There were actually those who wondered if the free enterprise system would survive and our nation along with it.  Add to this questionable lending practices, unchecked speculation in the stock market and a general attitude which said things were too good to go bad.  Sound familiar?  And it seems the same culprits who led the United States into a financial crisis--which lasted for more than a decade--are at it again.

A bit more history.  Contrary to conventional wisdom, Americans were still suffering as the country went into the 1940's.  Most historians agree the only thing that revived the U.S. economy was World War II and, as soon as it ended, again contrary to conventional wisdom, the country was once more plunged into a recession.

It is apparent our nation's leaders have learned nothing from history.  Therefore, in the dark of night, expect Congress to release the second-half of the bail-out money to either Bush or Obama.  This will be followed by a great deal of Monday morning quarterbacking from the media, just like what we heard when the original bail-out was first passed.  Isn't is something?  It's hard to find a politician who was in favor of that bail-out these days.  Yet it happened and while the deficit increases and the national debt grows to incalculable numbers, they want to spend more.  In fact, Obama will make Lyndon Johnson's Great Society look like a classroom experiment before he is done.  Therefore, I'm in favor of letting Obama spend the second-half of the TARP money.  Bush has done more than his share in his mad attempt to break the taxpayer's piggy bank.

The saddest aspect about the whole thing is it will get worse before it gets better.  In fact, America may experience the second Great Depression before it's all over.  At least we'll know who to blame.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

The Bail-Out: A Scam of the American People and a Feathery Bed for Politicians

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

It's been said a certain percentage of auto racing fans go to these events to see a crash.  The more mayhem, the better.  They don't necessarily want to see people die, but as the old adage of a gaper's block applies, people can't take their eyes away from a good accident.

 

I suppose individuals like myself must fall into the same category.  I just finished watching Treasury Secretary Pat Paulson's press conference where he discussed just who would be entitled to the first installment of over $350 billion targeted for the Wall Street bail-out.  I'm sorry, Pat Paulson was a comedian who frequently appeared on the Smothers Brothers show back in the late '60's, but Henry M. Paulson's act was nearly as comical, except for the fact King Paulson's decisions will affect America for generations to come.  In essence, Secretary Paulson told a multitude of reporters gathered the bail-out money was beginning to flow out of the U.S. Treasury.  He had some bad news, at least temporarily, for the auto industry.  GM, Ford and Chrysler will only be receiving $25 billion in American tax dollars.  But never fear, there is always hope the auto industry, encouraged by the United Auto Workers (UAW) Union, will get the other $50 billion they are seeking in the second half of the bail-out money which has to be approved for release by Congress.  Oh, by the way, for you home owners in danger of going into foreclosure, Paulson said you'll have to bite the bullet like the rest of...oops.  Too bad you didn't need a few billion because then you'd have money to give back to the politicians.  Remember, quid pro quo.

 

I have only one question for the Bush administration and both Democratic and Republican elected officials:  Where will the gravy train stop and, for that matter, where did they receive the mandate from voters to turn America's economy into a bastion of socialism?  We have all learned some interesting things about the bail-out which were conveniently shared with the American people after Congress stamped its approval on this give away of all give aways.  Americans have learned banks and financial institutions who didn't need government assistance will receive a nice stipend any way, permitting such institutions to buy out other banks, share vast increased profits with their CEO's and more.  In addition, it has been revealed corrupt officials who helped lead the United States into this financial crisis may be prosecuted by the federal government.  The only problem is, these same corrupt officials can use the bail-out money to pay for their defense through the hiring of high-priced legal representation.  Only in Washington would this make sense.  But if we look deeply behind the reason for the bail-out in the first place, the pieces of the puzzle all fit together.

 

Before the election, both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain were in favor of the bail-out.  However, for those who follow politics closely, this didn't make sense from the start.  Democrats hate big corporations.  They see such institutions as the root of all social evils.  Yet Obama supported nearly $1 trillion of taxpayers money going to the Darth Vaders of the economic world.  In contrast, McCain and Republicans allegedly hate regulations.  One of the themes of the Reagan era said we needed to get big government out of our lives.  Yet John McCain not only supported the government give away, but suspended his presidential campaign at the most crucial of times and returned to Washington to make sure the legislation was passed.  Later on, McCain tried to claim he was against the bail-out.  But his words fell on deaf ears with the public and well they should.

 

The truth of the matter is all Americans received an unsavory look at how Washington, D.C. and Wall Street have combined forces in the effort to secure the solvency of the good ole boys club.

 

You see, there were financial fat cats who had dipped their grubby hands into the financial till too may times.  They were in trouble.  They were in big trouble and a few millions shifted around here and there would not solve their problem.  At the same time, Washington, D.C. politicians saw the end of their financial gravy train may be at hand.  If New York fat cats didn't have the money, there would be an end to the cushy deals U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives have become accustomed to.  Fat cat lobbying jobs were at stake.  There would be less positions on the boards of financial institutions which guaranteed the future of every elected official and crony that made it to Washington.  It was a crisis.  As it was once said in Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles, the chant went up, "Gentlemen, we have to protect our phony baloney jobs" and there was no better way to do so than by propping up corrupt and failing financial institutions and the people who ran them.  For the first time, Americans had a chance to see the classic "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine" scenario performed right in front of their eyes.

 

The only problem is, and don't get me wrong, this is a big enough problem now that there are other industries with their hands out, including the auto makers, credit card companies and the list will get larger as time goes on.  The auto makers want relief because they have made deals with the UAW which are preventing them from seeing profits.  In comparison, an average member of the UAW makes $40 an hour with benefit packages that would make members of Congress salivate with envy.  When you buy a car from Toyota, roughly $400 of that price tag goes toward the health plans of auto workers.  When you buy a car from the big three auto makers, $1,500 of that cost is allocated for the health plan of its auto workers.  Is it any wonder why Chrysler, Ford and GM are on the brink of bankruptcy?

 

By no fault of our own, we have all become part-owners of many financial institutions and the auto industry.  But none of us will see the profits from our taxpayer investment.  Oh yes, we are told the American taxpayer will eventually see a financial windfall from the bail-out, but that promise can go along with the assurance that "the check's in the mail."

 

I guess the individuals we are sending to Washington are playing us for fools and, if we keep sending the same people back, I guess we are. 

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org 
 
Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Cuban High Bidder for Cubs: Could America’s Team Go To An Anti-American?

Mark Cuban’s funding of Movies Criticizing U.S. Armed Forces Make Cuban a Poor Suitor for Chicago Cubs

by Dan Gura

On April 2nd, 2007 the Tribune Company announced their intention to sell the Chicago Cubs baseball team following the 2007 season. This decision was made because shareholders compelled the newspaper (TRB: NYSE) to market itself for sale as well as divest certain component parts--including their baseball team.

Like any smart seller in a buyer's market, they spruced up the old ballpark (the second oldest in the major leagues) to make it more saleable. The long overdue rebuilding of the playing surface at Wrigley Field began immediately after the Cubs were eliminated (in a sweep) from the first round of the playoffs. The Friendly Confines, which had previously been valued at $90 million, most certainly will now fetch top dollar.

And a potential buyer has stepped forth, one with enough assets to make the team a perennial World Series contender. Mark Cuban, controversial owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks, has expressed a desire to purchase this venerable baseball franchise. He told ABC News, "when a team that's so iconic and such an amazing team like the Cubbies come up, that's an opportunity I couldn't let slip by." Cuban reportedly is set to offer $1.3 billion for a team which Forbes magazine valued in 2005 at $448 million (1). But does the perfect smile which Cuban flashed as a contestant on "Dancing with the Stars" (ABC) hide a darker secret?

The ugly truth is Cuban financed "Redacted" -- a movie which was little more than terrorist propaganda. Director Brian DePalma, evidently not satisfied with besmirching the good name of American soldiers fighting in Vietnam, has resurrected the script from his 1989 anti-war movie, "Casualties of War." Sure, he changed the uniforms from jungle green to desert camouflage, but kept the premise the same: evil imperialistic American soldiers rape a girl then go on a killing spree. What makes Redacted so dangerous is DePalma's style mimics an actual documentary, lending an air of truth and accuracy to what is a stylized, fictional account of a single event in a war which has lasted over four years. Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor (FOX NEWS)--the most watched program on cable news--summed up the plot with, it "will incite anti-American hatred around the world."

However, Redacted appears to be a stealth movie, flying under the radar of the American public. Its theater release hardly caused a ripple--a miniscule worldwide gross of $167,995; $44,651 domestic and $123,344 worldwide--(2) DePalma chose instead to release it via pay-per-view and at hotels. It is clear the movie has found a more receptive audience among those in foreign lands, some of whom mean ill will towards America.

I was curious what Cubs fans would think about their team being bought by a man who invested money in a movie which had the potential of enflaming terrorists (to avenge the movie's premise). I soon found out it was no easy task to find anyone who has even heard of the movie, let alone Cuban's financial involvement. Though admittedly unscientific, I began my poll by asking everyone I saw wearing Cubs logo clothing or a jacket their opinion. To a one, all expressed great excitement about the potential infusion of Cuban cash. Typical comments were, "I couldn't care less as long as they bring home a winner." (Alfred in Elk Grove Village) and "Who cares as long as he is willing to spend the money to win the World Series." (Kevin in Palatine).

I switched tactics and tried the Internet where I found a site on which the so-called blogging billionaire Cuban invites questions from mere peons. I e-mailed a series of questions regarding the movie, Cuban's interest in the Cubs and plans for the team--if he is the successful buyer. To date I have not received a reply from either Cuban or anyone in his employ.

Next I searched every Cubs blog which I could find to see if anyone else had the same curiosity. Nada. Was I the only person who cared?

Finally, I found an on-line petition which encouraged Cuban to buy the Lovable Losers. 1,339 Cubs fans had affixed their signatures to said petition. (Note of hope: In 2007 the Cubs set a franchise attendance record of 3,252,462 -- that means only .0004116 percent of attendees were thus willing to show their support for Cuban buying the team). Comments were solicited in addition to signatures. I read every single one of them--Justin Beyer's was typical, "Please Lord, have mercy on us Cubs fans. Show Mark Cuban the way to the Northside and deliver us from the execs at the Tribune Company."

Though discouraged, I continued reading and had my spirits lifted when I found the eloquent comment left by Laurie McCabe of Virginia who wrote, "To Mark Cuban. Let me preface this note with I am a doctoral student of behavioral sciences, so you know I am capable and intelligent. When the Jihadists finally use this movie to kill more Americans, I will think of you CUBAN! You might be rich, but you are also demented and at the present moment the nemesis of the entire nation..."

Thank you, Laurie. I'm sure that's a sentiment many others will share.

(1) www.forbes.com/lists/2006/33/Value_1.html Sorry White Sox Fans, but Forbes said the south siders are only worth $315 million.

(2) www.boxofficemojo.com reports the movie was released at fifteen theatres worldwide and averaged a paltry $1,708 per screen. Figures current as of November 25, 2007.

A version of this column was first posted November 29, 2007.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.

Dems Perfectly Happy When Gas Prices Soar: High Fuel Costs Mean Better Chance For Donkey Party In November

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

We all remember stories about the Teflon Don (John Gotti).  But when it comes to the ever-increasing cost of gasoline, the new phrase in the political world should be the Teflon Dems.  Let there be no mistake.  A vast majority of those within the Democratic Party see no downside to the fact the price of oil seems to reach a new high every day.

 

In fact, the more Americans pay for a gallon of gasoline, the bigger the smile on the faces of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  As long as George Bush is in the White House, everything related to the high price of energy will be blamed on Republicans.  There are a number of reasons for this.  Bush is linked with the oil industry and nothing the Republicans can do will change this public perception of the man from Texas.  The President's recent trip to Saudi Arabia was portrayed as a fruitless hat-in-hand endeavor by the dominant media, even though the Saudi's recently called for OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) to increase oil production.  Also, even though the Democrats control both Houses of Congress, the public still sees Republicans as being in control of the legislative branch of government.  But members of the GOP can take some of the blame for refusing to take a stand on energy-related issues which has helped lead to the unfair image the Party has among average Americans.

 

One of the first things the Minority Party should do is portray the Democrats as the villains in the debate over who is to blame for gasoline prices which now exceed a national average of $4.00 for a gallon of regular gasoline.  Most experts agree more exploration is needed to tap American oil deposits.  But, for some reason, Republicans have failed to place the blame where it belongs when it comes to obstruction regarding a possible step towards energy dependence.

 

Radical environmentalism has made offshore drilling in the Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico off-base for U.S. oil companies.  Instead of screaming from the mountain tops regarding this issue and others, like opening up oil reserves in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), members of the GOP twiddle their thumbs and remain silent, while public angst grows.

 

It is clear the Democrats want high oil prices to be an issue in the November election.  Republicans also find themselves in a bind because the Party's presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, is against some of the remedies which would lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil.  It's called being between a rock and a hard place.  If Republican members of Congress start screaming about this issue, McCain will either have to come along for the ride or change his position on issues like drilling for oil in Alaska, offshore research and development of oil fields.  Therefore, while other nations drill for oil 50 miles off of American shores, the Democratic-led Congress has the hands of the oil industry tied in the United States.  It's called a perfect storm in a political sense and Republicans find themselves in the midst of it.

 

Meanwhile, Al Gore and his environmental minions are sitting back with Cheshire smiles on their faces that would match the cat who ate the canary.  Radical environmentalists throw a party every time gas prices reach record highs.  Indeed, inflating the price of oil is part of the environmental hand book.  You see, Gore believes when gas reaches $7 or $8 a gallon, it will stop Americans from driving and he's probably right.  The only problem is, those who will have to stop driving will be the elderly, handicapped and poor who can least afford such a drain on their pocket books.  Then, while Gore flies to a meeting in his private jet and soothes his conscience with some quick purchases of carbon credits, the world becomes a perfect place.  Only millionaires, like Gore, will be on the highway.  It would certainly make that trip to the airport on the way to pick up that next Nobel Prize a lot quicker.

 

Somewhere along the line, Republicans are going to have to decide dancing with the Devil won't get them into political Heaven.  There are some 527 organizations that are beginning to shed light on the Democratic conspiracy to keep gas prices as high as possible for as long as possible.  But these groups can't do all the heavy-lifting for John McCain and the Republican members of Congress.

 

Someone is going to have to put this to music.  We need less restrictions on the utilization of oil-rich deposits in America, including shale.  We need to open up Alaska to tap the resources we have there.  America needs to increase its oil refining capacity.  And the beat goes on.  It sounds like an old song, doesn't it?  But sometimes old solutions are good solutions, as long as we have the courage to use them.

 

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

FairTax Resolution submitted to the Illinois State Republican Party Convention

Below is the FairTax resolution I submitted to the Platform & Resolutions Committee of the Illinois GOP Party Convention.

Marilyn Rickert, Illinois FairTax, President

The FairTax reflects the values, ideals and principals of the people of Illinois and the nation. I respectfully submit this resolution to be adopted as part of the Illinois Republican Party platform.
FairTax Resolution background:

The resolution was adopted by the Texas Republican Party into their platform and can be found at:

http://www.texasgop.org/site/PageServer?pagename=library_platform

The FairTax resolution can be found on page 24

The Iowa Republican Party has also adopted the FairTax as part of their platform and can be found at:

http://www.iowagop.net/inner.asp?z=11  paragraph 13.6.

The FairTax resolution is being considered for adoption by Republican Parties across the nation. View the Republican Party of Kentucky acting on the FairTax resolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS_a2i8Kt6o

On Tax day 2008, Americans For Fair Taxation and the National Taxpayers Union delivered a petition to Washington with over 163,000 signatures supporting the FairTax. Picture and more information: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

The FairTax has the most support of any tax reform plan in the U.S. House of Representatives with 72 cosponsors plus one sponsor - 72 of them Republicans. Cosponsors include former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert.

For more information on the FairTax Act, please watch the 18 min. FairTax “It’s Time” video at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwuS9VCPmb0

The FairTax Resolution:

Endorsing a federal retail sales tax as a complete replacement for all forms of income and Social Security taxation.

1.  Since The FairTax Book went from unavailable to #1 on The New York Times Best Sellers list in nine days (August 2005) and stayed at the top of the list for the rest of the summer, this “poll” makes it clear that tax-concerned, activist voters support a complete replacement of income and payroll taxes with a national retail sales tax; and

2.  Since the sequel to above book, the FairTax Book: The Truth, Answering the Critics (March 2008) also appeared on the New York Times best seller list, this second “poll” further reinforces the above statement that tax-concerned, activist voters support a complete replacement of income and payroll taxes with a national retail sales tax; and

3.  Since the overwhelming majority of all communications received by President Bush’s tax reform panel supported the FairTax; and

4.  Since the current income tax system requires individual taxpayers to prepare annual tax returns using many complicated forms, where innocent errors will happen and are heavily punished; and

5.  Since the current income tax system actually punishes marriage and the family, the very foundation of our country’s moral strength, and

6.  Since our Founding Fathers knew history showed income taxes gave government too much power over citizens, so the Founding Fathers specifically outlawed such taxes in the Constitution; and

7.  Since a national retail sales is constitutional and would restore the Founding Fathers’ description of ideal tax systems (Federalist 21) and ends income taxes, annual tax filing and the IRS: and since citizens pay sales taxes to sellers of goods and services; the sellers send collected sales taxes to state agencies; and only the state sales tax agency deals with the federal tax collectors;

We, the Republican Party of Illinois urge the  National Party to adopt the tax reform policy HR 25, sponsored by Representative John Linder of Georgia and primary co-sponsor Representative Dan Boren of Oklahoma, known as “The FairTax Act of 2007” as a meaningful, well researched platform that will be for the good of the American people and our country. We recommend that the platform contain the following wording:

Federal Tax Reform – Federal tax reform is required and any reform should support free enterprise, economic growth, be simple and fair and support job retention in the United States.  The Internal Revenue Service is unacceptable to the U.S. taxpayers!  The Party urges that the IRS be abolished and the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution be repealed.  We further urge that the personal income tax, inheritance (death) tax, gift tax, capital gains, corporate income tax and payroll taxes be eliminated.  We recommend the implementation of a national retail sales tax, with the provision that a two-thirds majority of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate is required to raise the rate.  Such reforms will encourage investment and economic growth.  Lastly, such a sales tax plan must ensure no one in America pays taxes of any kind on the necessities of life, ensuring opportunity and quality of life for low and fixed income Americans.  We believe every tax at every level should be a separate and clearly visible billing to the taxpayer, regardless of type of tax, and of the calculation method, so we support tax visibility in all forms.

(Mister/Madam Chairman, I move the adoption of this resolution.)

Marilyn Rickert, Illinois FairTax, President 

fairtaxnow@aol.com

Voice: 708-687-9412

Fax: 708-687-4718

www.ilfairtax.org

For more information on the FairTax Act of 2007, HR 25 / S 1025 contact:

Americans For Fair Taxation
www.fairtax.org
1-800-FAIR-TAX

Office of Congressman John Linder, Sponsor
D.C. office: 202-225-4272

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org 

Environmental Elitism Plus Run-Away Oil Profits Equal Squeeze On Middle Class

RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza

I have a very close friend who worked in the oil industry for many years.  Let's call him Joe.  Joe started working in the oil fields of foreboding places like North Dakota as a roughneck where temperatures regularly reached forty degrees below zero or more in the winter.  In the summer, the weather was not forgiving either.  Frequently, the thermometer topped 100 degrees in the shade, but the derricks never shut down because the oil had to keep flowing.

In later years, Joe worked his way up into management where he learned the ins and outs of the oil industry.  Therefore, when I criticized companies like Exxon--which made nearly $10.5 billion in profits in the first quarter of 2008 alone--Joe would become very defensive.  Joe explains to me how the oil industry is rewarded for its financial risks with the profits they make.  And, when things don't go right, the industry has to eat its losses--which can total hundreds of millions dollars, i.e., due to the destruction of drilling facilities because of storms in the Gulf of Mexico or exploration which does not result in the finding of new oil deposits.  Subsequently, I'm told the highest profits in history made by private companies are justified.

At the same time, we have environmentalists who see escalating oil prices as a good thing.  Remember, these groups find themselves on the Left of the political spectrum.  They are the same people who, supposedly, care about the poor.  These groups tell us high oil prices will help wean Americans off of fossil fuels, like gasoline.  Former Vice-president Al Gore looks forward to the day when prices at the pump will top off at $7 or $8 per gallon.  I suppose the oil industry looks forward to those days with the same zeal, but for different reasons.  Unfortunately, a huge segment of the American population is stuck in the middle of this madness and there seems to be no way out in the foreseeable future.

Of course, there are simple resolutions to the problem that can, at the very least, lesson the burden on working-class Americans.  Sen. John McCain and Sen. Hillary Clinton have suggested a "gas-tax holiday" which would suspend the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax and the 24.4 cent per gallon diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day.  McCain would also like to stop adding to the Strategic Oil Reserve which would increase supply.  In theory, McCain's plan regarding the Strategic Oil Reserve would bring gasoline prices down even further.

Most economists say McCain and Clinton's proposal would only be a temporary fix and, for the long term, there needs to be a change in America's energy policy.  In contrast, Barack Obama is against the federal gas-tax holiday because he says $50 or $60 worth of savings at the pump wouldn't mean very much.  Excuse me?  It wouldn't mean very much?  To who?  Why didn't he just simply say, "let them eat cake"?  I know Obama has never had to worry about filling up his ride at the local Shell station.  I'm sure his chauffeur takes care of such menial tasks for him.  Obama just peels off a C-note from his Congressional budgetary expense account and, as he makes a call to his spiritual guru, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's chauffeur drives him to his private jet which is gassed up and waiting on the airport tarmac of whatever city the junior Senator from Illinois is in that day.  Hardly the common man, is he?

But this is the very attitude many liberal elitists have towards their fellow citizens who they care so much about.  Well, at least that's what they tell us.  You see these defenders of the poor also expect senior citizens on fixed incomes to buy environmentally-friendly light bulbs at $4 or $5 a pop.  At the same time, the inner city poor--if they are fortunate enough to have a car--are put on a guilt trip because they don't drive hybrids.  And let's not forget about alternative energy like solar and wind power.  Can you just see it?  People who are struggling to buy food and medicine, and in order to be good stewards of the planet, should install windmills in their back yards, so they can feel good about themselves.  Now, if many of these people had back yards and could afford these environmentally-friendly luxuries, they would probably join the Al Gore set.  However, this isn't a realistic view of the situation most Americans are in.

What is the answer?  We might begin by opening up desolate areas of Alaska to responsible exploration and extraction of oil.  ANWR comes to mind?  Then, we might start tapping some of the offshore oil reserves on both coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico.  Perhaps we could follow that up by allowing the construction of more oil refineries.  And, finally, the EPA could lesson its requirements on multiple gasoline blends for different parts of the country and for each season, too--which also drives up costs at the pump.

Oh and what about nuclear energy?  Some European nations, which many on the Left admire, actually obtain a vast majority of their power from nuclear energy.  Heaven forbid!  Parlez-Vous Français?

The suggestions above would cause most radical environmentalists to go into cardiac arrest, but these reasonable suggestions wouldn't get very far in a Democratic-controlled Congress any way.  Heck, none of these solutions were enacted under a Republican House and Senate with a Republican president in office to boot.

I know, oil companies are in business to make a profit.  Indeed, much of the blame for record oil prices can be placed on Wall Street speculators who are driving up gasoline costs, in order to put more money in their pockets.  Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.  But I guess these people can afford the higher pump prices, too.

Perhaps the truth is oil companies are greedy and so are the speculators.  On the other hand, the radical environmentalists are hypocrites who care little about the less fortunate in our society.   And the politicians?  Well, enough said.  Anybody have a carbon credit?  And can you trade them in for bonus bucks at the BP station down the block?

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org

Fiscal Conservatism Is A Good Message: Inability To Articulate This Message Is Hurting America

RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

Most of us who fall within the category of baby boomers can explain why small government and low taxation served our nation very well.  At least we should be able to.  A little more than a quarter century ago, the norm included one parent who brought home an income which supported an entire family.  Of course, government programs, including the GI Bill, made it possible for millions of families to join the middle class after World War II.  But, all the same, jobs in manufacturing were sufficient to bring reality to the well-turned phrase, "a rising tide lifts all boats."

My Father was a baker.  He learned his skills in the Merchant Marines, before he plied his trade in the private sector after World War II.  He made a salary sufficient to raise a family, buy a modest home in the suburbs and put away enough savings to send his children to institutions of higher learning.

Today, such a vision of domestic tranquility is a thing of the past.  In practically every circumstance, it now takes two parents to provide the same quality of life, as the parents of baby boomers enjoyed a mere generation ago.

What has changed?  Big government and higher taxes has forced families to adopt a completely different way of looking at what it takes to provide quality of life in the 21st century.  The days of a lone breadwinner in a household are long gone.  This has created many new problems in our society.  Children who were once called latch-key kids are now the norm and this cultural phenomenon has led to problems unforeseen thirty or forty years ago.

Here is something we should have learned.  Big government and high taxation has been a curse on America and its society.  Unfortunately, Republicans have, for the most part, failed to explain these concepts to the average citizen.  Republicans are now looked upon as greedy, money-grubbers who seek lower taxation merely to line their pockets with cash.  On the other hand, Democrats are seen as the champions of the dwindling middle class, the saviors of the downtrodden and the only hope for those who haven't obtained the American dream.

Republicans can blame no one else for this misperception of their philosophy.  Indeed, in some cases, this description is a reality.  There are Republicans and Democrats who want more and more, but are willing to give less and less back.  But Republicans are saddled with a negative image of greed that will last until we learn how to articulate our message better.

Will we ever see a day when the salary of one parent will be able to purchase a nice home and send two, three or more children to college?  The answer to that question is probably no.  The high taxation genie is out of the bottle and, once that monster escaped, it unleashed big government with it.

Sadly, the consequences have been disastrous for the United States.  Our nation's schools have taken more and more responsibility for the rearing of children.  Government regulations have made it harder for small businesses to flourish.  And government waste has become something that is expected.

You would think Republicans would be able to articulate the damage that big government and higher taxation has wrought on the country.  But there are those who are so far removed from the days of rugged individualism and citizen government they do not have the ability to present this argument in a rationale form.

This inability leads to dire consequences.  Today, polling indicates many believe government should be bigger and wage earners should be willing to give more of their income in taxes to demonstrate good citizenship.  In reality, our society has been turned upside down, to the point where government supposedly knows what's best for children than parents do and on and on and on.  Yet Republicans do not face an impossible task.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what has gone wrong in what still is a nation where a better future can be obtained for each of its citizens.  By now, it should be plain for anyone with a modicum of common sense to understand the Great Society experiment of the 1960's failed miserably.  In the same sense, it should be easy to comprehend the remnants from that failed experiment have taken root in America's institutions, including education, business and, most important, society.

Perhaps it is only a matter of education.  If conservative Republicans--and Democrats for that matter--can learn and articulate that the amount of money it takes to incarcerate an individual for one year could be used to put that same individual through four years of college, possibly the message would start to sink in.

You see, we are beyond the point of just saying lower taxes and smaller government will fix all our problems.  High taxes and big government have done damage which needs to be repaired.  However, government can bring us back to sanity through the institution of reasonable programs which re-assert the importance of family and community.  It's not good enough to just say, "we need to keep more of our money."  But such a statement is not an unobtainable goal.  We can get there.  However, it will take more than hollow platitudes and catchy phrases like hope and change.

Unfortunately, big government and high taxation is here to stay, at least for a while.  Yet like a recovering addict, our nation can wean itself off of this deadly formula which has brought our culture to the brink.  The question is:  Do we have it within us to do something very hard?  That is a question only the American people can answer.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org.