On the Road Again

I am headed back out on the road. While on the road I only infrequently have access to the internet.

Critiquing Wikipedia

Much of what you can come up with on Wikipedia is plain bullshit.

People on the internet will even sight Wikipedia articles as if they are somehow authority.

(See here) a Wikipedia article that explores the Fair Tax issue. Actually, this article does a pretty good job of discussing many of the issues about Fair Tax. However look at the graphic labeled "Effective Tax Rate Comparison Chart". Under this chart, everyone gets a tax cut.

But the proponents of the Fair Tax claim it will be revenue neutral!

If everyone "gets a tax cut" then we would be adding, again, to the national deficit!

I will not wander into how the graph must be simplistic, that it could never explore how the "typical" taxpayer probably itemizes because of home mortgage interest, tithing to their church, might lower their tax obligation, but let us stick with the standard deduction. Please note the graph claims to be for a married couple with two children. (See here) where I explore (prove) that an "average" American family, married with two children, earning $43,00 a year, will actually pay over $2,000 in extra taxes under the Fair Tax then they do under the current system. The graph shows this taxpayer would pay less!

Let us apply a little common sense to this issue. Proponents say the measure would be revenue neutral, however the graph shows everyone either paying the same or paying less. It even shows the lowest income levels benefitting from the Fair Tax which probably indicates the person behind the graph failed to consider the effects of the Earned Income Tax Credit which such a low wage earner (married with two kids) would qualify for under the current tax system.

Perhaps the graph contained in the Wikipedia piece I linked to will disappear. This is the strength and the weakness of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an ever shifting mess. It is infested with special interests that can authoritively use the inclusion of their version of things to prove it is factual while it has no basis in fact. Evidently, even the "peer review" process offered by Wikipedia did not prevent a graph full of fiction from winning acceptance.

A picture beats a thousand words. A graph used to prove the point of the words serves as a picture. The picture, the graph, is full of shit. The words of the article ain't too bad. But blogs capture and display the graph to prove their point while escaping the complete offering of all the words.

Dubyah Bush on Iraq

Sigh, Dubyah has not learned a damn thing.

This man has been punched in the nose, and instead of standing up to the bully who punched up, insists on sitting on the ground nursing his bloody nose while refusing real medical treatment.

(See here) where the Washington Post reports Dubyah is still vowing American troops will not be pulled out until the "mission is complete".

Sigh. The foolhardy mission we embarked upon was due to Dubyah's foolhardy leadership. He can't duck this, which is why he is so reluctant to change course. We have gained no headway in Iraq, and instead seem to be losing ground, but still Dubyah screams "Stay the course."

Well how much is it going to take for Dubyah to accept the course he set us out on was wrong? When the "Ship of State" runs aground? That happened when he left port. Must all the life boats be holed before he admits he was wrong? Well, listening to him, that is where he is going to lead us.

George Dubyah Bush led us into the Iraqi conflict. This conflict distracted us from the greater War on Terror. In fact, this side road into Iraq which he led us down, might make the greater War on Terror less winnable. But now that Dubyah led us down a dead end alley, he still screams, " I got the flashlight, only I can lead."

Well, Dubyah has led us into a difficult situation. As difficult as it might be to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, it might yet be possible. Perhaps victory will come with someone else taking the flashlight away from Dubyah. But we have to wait another two years for someone to replace Dubyah.

Dubyah is still screaming "Stay the course." Well, when he set us out on this course he should have recognized the difficulties his course meant. He should have realized this course meant charging off a cliff it we did not alter course.

Some of us recognized the difficulties before we put our truck in gear. Our voices were drowned by those such as our President who screamed "Full speed ahead!"

Our President was not speaking wisdom then, and he is not speaking wisdom now. We are beating our heads against the wall in Iraq.

Reports are that our politcal leadership is considering backing a strong man in Iraq who would, through brutality, restore order in Iraq. This is called one step forward and two steps back.

A better plan is the plan offered by Senator Joe Biden from Maryland. There is more wisdom coming from Maryland right now then comes from the White House.

Detroit vs St Louis

OK, it is Detroit vs St Louis in Baseball's World Series.

I have been rooting for my Cardinals. I still have hopes that my Cardinals can pull off an upset. I have been amazed that my Cardinals have gotten this far.

At first, I was motivated to do what the Ken Rosenthal article said, the headline which screamed "Shut Up and Watch".

I was going to remain silent. That is till I read this shit. As reported by Fox Sports in an AP piece, first game Detroit pitching starter Justin Verlander states:

"I think we view ourselves as the underdogs, personally," Verlander said as the unexpected pennant winners prepared Friday on a cool, overcast day at Comerica Park. "Everybody has doubted us."

Have you got that? Justin Verlander thinks Detroit is the underdogs. Meanwhile St Louis got swept by Detroit in the three game inter-league matchup this season when they faced each other. The American League has a recent history of being so dominant that many (including me) have started describing the National League as being the Minor League to the American League.

This is too much. Detroit is the underdog? Heh heh, I am still hoping my Cardinals can pull a rabbit out of the hat, however I must honestly describe them as being the underdogs.

If you want to root for the underdog, root for St Louis. Do not listen to the bullshit Justin Verlander spouts. He's only trying to soften the blow for what happens if he loses game one. Well if Justin Verlander is worried, this is a good sign. Because if the Cardinals win game one, with their best pitching coming later, then Detroit really does have something to worry about.

But St Louis is the underdog. The National League has been swept 8 games to nothing in the last two World Series matchups. St Louis has nowhere to go but up. But St Louis still is the underdog no matter how ridiculous Justin Verlander wants to sound.

America loves an underdog. I am rooting for St Louis. Truth is, St Louis is my team and I would still be rooting for them if they were favored.

My forecast? Detroit in six (Carpenter should have a favorable matchup). But I will be pleased if I am wrong. I am rooting for the underdog.

Phil Kellam and Nancy Pelosi

A vote for Phil Kellam is a vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

Well, a vote for Thelma evidently led to Tom Delay assuming a leadership role in our government so I do not think Thelma wins on this argument. Delay might now be history, but Thelma is part of that history.

(See here) an interesting Washington Post piece written by Lois Ramano on Nancy Pelosi. Please note that Nancy wins praises for leading the Democrat Party to a new high 88% party line voting record.

As a side, I will compare this with Thelma Drake's 98% voting record. Even "evil" Nancy Pelosi can only win praises for attaining an 88% record amongst the fractious Democrat Party, while Thelma votes for ALL the Republican bullshit 98% of the time.

It is my hope that Phil becomes a maverick within the Democrat Party. It is my hope that when Phil caucuses within the Democrat Party that he votes for someone besides Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House (or Minority Leader if the Democrats fail to achieve a majority).

If Nancy Pelosi seeks to punish my representative for representing his district in the House, I am not going to hold it against my representative. I want an upstart in Congress. Phil will at least be willing to talk with the liberals, unlike the Republican leadership that Thelma Drake follows.

I like liberals. I like liberals a whole damn lot. But I think my "like", which I might also go far to describe as "love" is my viewpoint that he who I describe as "Rabbi and Savior" is Jesus. You see, I describe Jesus as being the perfect liberal. What worries me about Nancy Pelosi is that she comes from an EXTREME left wing district. Nancy Pelosi's district is EXTREME blue in dark blue California.

Nancy Pelosi better make room for some moderates in the Democrat Party. She also better not try to punish my representative in the House (should Phil Kellam be elected) for representing his district. You see, my district is ANTI gay marriage. My district is ANTI late term abortion. There better be room in Nancy Pelosi's version of a "large tent" Democrat Party that has room for moderates. My district does not want to force every Congressional District to accept a definition of "paradise" that would make Nancy Pelosi's Congressional District happy.

I want Phil to be a lion in the Democrat Party much as my Republican Senator John Warner is a lion in the Republican Party.

If there is not room for Phil in the Democrat Party's tent, then I hope he frequently votes with the Republicans when they offer a better plan.

I think that if new Democrats are elected and caucus together as moderates, they could soon, as a group, eclipse Nancy Pelosi in political power even if she is Speaker of the House. These new Democrats can threaten to join the Republican minority with their votes if Nancy Pelosi refuses to be reasonable.

I hope Phil Kellam is part of a new leadership that can lead our nation forward.

The Unfair Fair Tax

OK I am going to refine my argument that the "Fair Tax" is unfair to the Middle Class. I attempted this once before, however my math left a little to be desired, (frankly, it might even accurately have been described as bullshit) so I am going to post new figures along with an explanation.

Now, here are my assumptions. (See here) where Marty at Speckblog puts forth that the average American Family is a family of four and earns $43K a year. I am going to use Marty's figures because Marty and I are having a little cross blog debate about this.

I am going to assume that this family is renting a home or apartment, since this seems to be important to Lethal Poison even though I think this is rather unreasonable. But only using the standard deduction does simplify things, so I will stick with that.

I am going to assume this "average" family is a married couple, with two children still in school. This seems to be a rather reasonable assumption.

I am going to use a 2005 1040A along with 2005 tax tables to compute current tax liability for this average family.

I am going to assume this family of four has to spend 100% of their after tax income to meet daily living expenses and they are unable to save a dime. This is not an unreasonable assumption, since $43K ain't a whole lot of money. Also, if this family is saving anything, it probably is going into a 401K or something, since there the employee would qualify for the employer match. Savings such as this would not be subject to tax (at least not yet) under the current tax system anyway... so our average family spends every dime to meet daily expenses. (If they are REALLY average, they're probably running up their charge cards anyway - grin.)

OK, federal tax liability for this family according to a 1040A is $2,304 - $2K child tax credit = $304 federal income tax. $43K times 7.65% (employee share of Social Security Tax) = $3,290. 304 + 3,290 = $3,594 in total taxes under current system.

Under fair tax: 43K Gross income - 3,594 (taxes under old system) = $39,406. $39,406 times 30% (amount of increase in daily expenses due to fair tax) = $11,822. $11,822 - prebate of $6,072 = $5,750.

Fair tax $5,750 - current tax $3,594 = $2,156 increase in taxes for this "average American" family.

Marty on Speckblog will argue that these figures do not allow for the employer possibly immediately increasing the employee's wages by the employer's share of Social Security taxes. However, this is far from being automatic. If you look at those in favor of the Fair Tax, there is a large overlap amongst them with those who argue against any increase in the minimum wage. The argument goes: "Employers can not afford an increase." OK, well these guys can not have their cake and eat it too. If employers can not afford an increase in the minimum wage, they can not afford to give the employee the money they save from not having to pay the payroll tax.

The unfair Fair Tax

Is the "Fair Tax" fair for the middle class?

I took some time out to do up a 1040A for a middle income tax payer.

(See here) where Speckblog speaks in favor of the "Fair Tax".

I did a little math on my own. Speckblog claims the median income of an American with 2 kids was $43,000. So I adopted $43k as my figure.

Doing up a 1040A for a family of four with $43K for income, I come with with federal income tax being owed as $2,304. Allowing for a 7.65 percent SSI tax I come up with $3,289. Total = $5,593.

Now what would this same families tax obligation be under the "Fair Tax"? (See here) where a family of four can expect a prebate of $6,072.

So, $43K plus $6,072 equals $49,072. Multiply this by 30% and you come up with $14,722.

$14,722 minus $6,072 means the $43K wage owner pays a "fair tax" of $8,650.00.

Have you got that? The "average family" gets to pay an additional $3,057 in taxes. This is without allowing if they had a few income deductions due to home interest or college tuition.

Perhaps this example gets into whether or not the "Fair Tax" calls for a 30% tax or a 23% tax. It depends on how you look at it. Something that now costs $1.00 will cost $1.30 after the Fair Tax is added on. 30 cents is only about 23% of $1.30, so there you get the 23%. But that $1.00 soda you buy is still going up in price by 30%.

Bill Clinton for Vice President

(See here) where it is reported in a Washington Post piece written by Peter Baker that Constitutional Lawyers are having a field day as to what would happen if Hillary Clinton chose her husband to run beside her as Vice President.

First, I do not want to scold Peter Baker. As a reporter, he only reports on the opinions of lawyerly scholars and he is supposed to keep his own opinion from creeping in on what he reports about.

But I will scold the high minded constitutional lawyers' opinion that he reports about.

Here is the issue. Can Bill Clinton serve as Vice President according to the Constitution?

I encourage anyone who thinks they might disagree with me to explore the links I am going to provide.

First off, what prevented Bill Clinton from running for a third term? Well it is the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution (see here) that put term limits on those who serve as President. Please note that this amendment bars Bill Clinton from being elected to a third term. He is constitutionally barred from being "elected". Please note that I put a little emphasis on "elected". It is theoretically possible for Bill Clinton to still "serve" as President, however unlikely a scenario you can come up with might be.

But can Bill serve as Vice President? And then if the President dies or something can he serve as President? Well let us look at the 12th Amendment to the Constitution (see here). The 12th Amendment seems to be dedicated to how the Electoral College shall conduct themselves, and how an election will be decided if a third or even a fourth party candidate ran and prevented any candidate from having sufficient strength to carry the election on their own. The purpose seems to be to define how a President will be selected if the Electoral College can not come up with a result. If this was to happen, the House of Representatives gets to decide from amongst the candidates, limited to the three highest vote getters, as to who will be President.

Please note that the concluding sentence of this amendment states:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

So since the 12th Amendment seeks to take authority over the Electoral College, and what happens if they can not come to a result, I assume this sentence is obligatory. This amendment sought to take charge of all aspects of how a President is selected. Since Bill Clinton can not constitutionally serve a third term as President, he can not constitutionally serve as Vice President.

How does Constitutional Succession go? If Bill Clinton served as Speaker of the House, and all the guys like the President and Vice President were killed by Osama or something, yeah, he could once again serve as President. However, he can not be elected as Vice President, the Constitution prevents it.

Follow the links and go read it for yourself.

Talent vs McCaskill

While I was traveling through Missouri recently I noted the heated campaign battle between incumbent Republican Jim Talent vs Democrat Claire McCaskill to represent Missouri in the Federal Senate.

First off, I am not aware of which candidate I would vote for if I still lived in Missouri (I was born and raised as a child in the Show Me state) since I do not know where either stands on the issues. The only thing I can point to is the Talent attack add that I frequently heard running on the radio as I transited the state which went something like "If elected, McCaskill is going to take your guns."

This is supposed to be a tight race. However, as I traveled the rural byways in western Missouri, I saw a whole lot more Talent yard signs then McCaskill yard signs. This made sense, since Talent is the conservative candidate and I would imagine much of his base is in the rather conservative rural areas.

Anyway, seeing all the Talent yard signs, and hearing only Talent attack adds left me wondering how McCaskill could effectively reply with an attack add of her own. I came up with this idea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Campaign add recommendation for Claire McCaskill:

Screen opens with a shot of a smiling Jim Talent with the following voiceover: "We sent Jim Talent to Washington to improve government. Well Jim had 6 years to improve things and what has the result been? Things are worse then ever."

Next shot is of Claire McCaskill stating: "When Missouri citizens go to the polls this November, they have a unique opportunity to send the politicians in Washington a message. Missouri citizens can send the message to politicians in Washington that they are un-Talent-ed."

An arm comes across the screen leaving a rubber stamp which says "Republicans are un-Talent-ed".

Closing shot: The obligatory "I support this message" statement.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End of recommendation and now for some discussion.

There are some real strengths to such an advertisement. It would show Claire McCaskill to have a sense of humor. It contains nothing that Jim Talent can fire back at. The add would not have to run for very long to create some buzz about it. Even those who support Jim Talent might get a chuckle out of it.

Phil Kellam Quacks Like a Duck

In Thelma Drake's targeted mailings, my wife received a slick glossy piece that was addressed to her and not the traditional "head of household" that lives at my residence. I am impressed by the efficiency of the Drake campaign. They seem to have sniffed it out that my wife is the one who really wears the pants in my family so sent the literature to her instead of me. Grin.

Anyway, Thelma's glossy piece, on one side says "If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck."

On the reverse side is the explanation of the pitch. I am going to have to type this out by hand, but here is the message on the reverse side:

Phil Kellam "claims" not to be a big tax-and-spend liberal but he "quacks" like one.

Democrat Phil Kellam is supported by liberals like Nancy Pelosi, because she's counting on him to support her liberal agenda in Washington.

He takes money from the liberal Democrat leadership. So that means he will probably support their extreme agenda that includes:

- Higher taxes on working families

- Amnesty for illegal aliens

- Weakness in the War on Terror

The Car Tax

In 1997, Phil Kellam was not a supporter of the Jim Gilmore plan to eliminate the car tax on vehicles valued less then $20,000. Phil Kellam did not support this program that has provided car tax relief for Virginia Beach families. (The Virginian-Pilot, 11/2/97)

Raise Gas Prices

Phil Kellam was also a prominent member of the Commission on Transportation in Urbanized Areas. The commission released a report that recommended an increase of the statewide gas tax (Commission on Transportation in Urbanized Areas Final Report 12/31/05) and supported allowing different regions to increase the gas tax even more.

Vote NO on Democrat Phil Kellam. He's just another tax-and-spend politician.

First let me take on the over all message from this slick glossy. They say Phil Kellam is a "tax-and-spend liberal". OK, so then Thelma Drake is a "borrow-and-spend conservative". So which is worse? The politician who actually insists you pay for everything you demand now or the politician who says it is OK for you to demand things now while pushing the bill onto your kids?

Higher taxes on working families? Phil Kellam has stated he is in favor of tax cuts for the middle class and actually supports the Dubyah Bush tax cuts. Meanwhile Thelma has stated she is in favor of a national sales tax that will push the tax burden onto the middle class. Ahem. Middle class taxpayers qualify as working families. The likes of Bill Gates and Paris Hilton do not qualify as meeting this description. OK, OK, I will be honest. Bill Gates works hard. But I think Bill can afford a bigger tax hike then I can.

Amnesty for illegal aliens? Has Phil ever stated this? Meanwhile Dubyah Bush is in favor of some type of guest worker program and Thelma does not seem to be able to break from the Dubyah leadership. By the way, just to be clear, I personally support a guest worker program as long as it is targeted at occupations that face a direct competition from cheap foreign labor.

Weakness in the War on Terror? Heh heh, and the War on Terror had to lead us into the invasion of Iraq? There is no room for some wisdom in the War on Terror? If Thelma had any wisdom to offer in this war, her voting record would reflect it.

The Car Tax? What is Phil Kellam's current job? Perhaps Phil was concerned that eliminating the car tax would reduce local government tax revenues and force them to raise taxes in other areas. At the time (1997), this was a complicated debate.

Raise Gas Prices? Look, the need for increased revenue is a given considering our locality's need to meet transportation requirements. The Commission on Transportation in Urbanized Areas came out in favor of increased fuel taxes as the most fair way to raise these revenue needs. What are the Republicans in favor of? Let me point out Republican Virginia State Senator Frank W Wagner's position on this. This man represents the Hampton Roads area and even serves on the Virginia Senate's Transportation Committee. He wants to put a toll on everything. He wants to put a toll on I-81, I-85, and I-95. Recently I have heard "they" have proposed restoring the tolls on the tunnels in Hampton Roads. Republicans are against taxes. They are against raising the fuel taxes but they think the idea of tolls are really neat because they do not think of tolls as being a tax. Sorry. I have dealt with the traffic tie ups due to the gates with toll attendants sticking their hand out for money. I personally support any revenue needed come from an increase in the fuel tax and not from tolls. Tolls are a tax too. Fuel taxes are a more fair way of collecting the taxes then tolls and they do not lead to traffic backups. You pay at the fuel pump and not at the toll booth.

Let me conclude about this the way I opened up. Phil Kellam is a tax-and-spend Democrat? Thelma is a borrow-and-spend Republican. Thelma votes 98% of the time with the Republican leadership that tries to vote in tax cuts for the wealthy while simultaneously raising spending and increasing the deficit. If you want a balanced budget, Thelma is not the person to vote for! Thelma is borrow-and-spend!

If it quacks like a duck it is a duck. If it slithers along the ground and spits out a forked tongue, it is a snake. Too far? Thelma is not a snake? Well Thelma has a 98% voting record. Thelma might not be a snake, but many of the leaders she followed are. Thelma did not possess the backbone to break from this leadership when they attempted to lead us astray. Thelma might not be a snake, but by her willingness to vote the party line, she has led the voters from Virginia's 2nd Congressional District deep into the snake pit.

If the voting record of our representative hisses like a snake, the person casting the votes is a snake.

Phil Kellam promises to be a moderate Democrat. Will he deliver? Maybe so or maybe not. Thelma Drake has a proven track record to examine. I am saying Thelma can not point to this record with pride.

* Note, the above post was edited/corrected to accurately reflect Phil Kellam's position supporting the Dubyah Bush tax cuts.

Walmart, Penny Wise Dollar Foolish

Walmart has announced a plan to trim worker costs at their facilities. Seems since Sam died, the magic of Walmart might be in its sunset phase.

It is hard to argue with success. Walmart has been successful. But it is important to note that most of the success within Walmart was due to Sam. Successes past his death might only be explained due to the momentum that was built up while he was alive.

(See here) an MSNBC piece that reports on worker unrest within the Walmart empire due to the latest cost cutting moves.

I doubt Walmart will be facing something like an organized union explosion, though this is a possibility. However Walmart can not turn its back on reality. If organized labor is not in Walmart's future due to current cost cutting measures, loss of good employees is in that future. Good employees are going to find other employment. What is going to hurt Walmart most is the loss of good middle management employees who find it impossible to meet Walmart's expectations under the new cost cutting measures. Middle management is going to find it impossible to meet Walmart's expectations (think also customer expectations) with the new work force they are going to be cultivating. Anyone who is motivated to work to support a family is now going to find it impossible to meet these needs by working at Walmart. Sam would be shaking his head. While Sam was alive such things didn't happen.

Perhaps it is a good time to invest in Target?

Bill O'Reilly's Failed Leadership

First off, let me state that my opinion of Bill O'Reilly is that his radio program is amongst my favorites when it comes to the right wing perspective. Bill O'Reilly at least is not amongst those whom I describe as clowns.

However, if you want to listen and consider Bill's point of view, you got to get past sexual indiscretion. Bill attempted to engage in phone sex with one of his employees after he had a little too much to drink or something. If I can forgive Bill Clinton for his indiscretions (which were physical in nature) I can forgive Bill O'Reilly for attempting to engage in a little phone sex.

But what irks me is that Bill O'Reilly refuses to admit to mistakes when it comes to leadership. (See here) where it is reported that Bill O'Reilly decries that there is no leadership from within current candidates seeking to run for the office of President.

First, let me condemn Bill O'Reilly for himself not being willing to accept at least partial responsibility for the mess America has currently got herself into in Iraq. As the NewsMax piece reports, Bill stated:

Asked if the Iraq war can be viewed as "a mistake" on the part of the Bush administration, O'Reilly was ambivalent.

"I'm not a Monday morning quarterback," he said. "We're in a war. Let's win it."

However Bill offers no leadership on how we are to do this himself. He himself is at least partially to blame for getting us into the mess and he himself has no plan to get us out of it.

How about this Bill? Senator Joe Biden representing Maryland has a plan to federalize the Iraqi central government and split the oil wealth revenues between the states that would result. There would be a Kurdish state, a Sunni state, and a Shiite state.

We can not force the Iraqi people to accept this plan, however we can withdraw our forces and our protection from any groups of people within Iraq that refuse to accept our solution.

Now I do not support Senator Biden in his run for the Presidency. However I can acknowledge kernels of wisdom when they arise from amongst those who seek to run for President.

Bill O'Reilly says he will not be a Monday Morning Quarterback. However this did not stop him from shooting his mouth off on Saturday evening before Sunday's game started. Since he is at least partially responsible for getting us into the mess, I would expect him to now come up with suggestions on how to improve the team so that we are more competitive.

The problem, for Bill O'Reilly, is that there are no easy answers. Bill O'Reilly's Saturday evening answer led us into the situation we are in within Iraq. He is not about to endorse any solution because once again he might be wrong and he does not want to be wrong twice in a row.

My suggestion is much along the lines of Senator Biden's. We get tough with the various forces that exercise political power within Iraq. We will not continue to offer everyone protection. We can't do that. We can seek to empower those who are willing to accept a reasonable resolution.

Anyone who seeks to win through violence loses and violence is visited upon them. Anyone who stands behind justice and peace wins.

Inaction in support of justice will be the same as action towards violence. If the Iraqi people want justice, they are going to have to stand up for it.

I do not support Senator Biden for President. I think he is lacking in many of the qualities I want as President. However in his plan for Iraq he speaks wisdom.

Bill O'Reilly refuses to be a Monday Morning Quarterback. He refuses to accept that his game plan for America was wrong while every solution offered by a Democrat must be a mistake.

I only lament that Bill O'Reilly is amongst the best the right wing talk show hosts have to offer. Bill O'Reilly just needs to be a little more honest with himself. He was amongst those who on Saturday evening cheered us on into getting into Iraq. It is now Monday morning. Bill O'Reilly needs to help us figure out what went wrong on Sunday.

Senator Biden's plan might not be perfect, but there is more wisdom in this plan than anything the "stay the course" Republicans have offered. If Bill O'Reilly has a better plan, well I am all ears.

Phil Kellam vs Thelma Drake

In the Phil Kellam vs Thelma Drake race for Virginia's 2nd Conrgessional district, I just thought of a wonderful campaign add for Phil Kellam.

First, let me identify myself, I live in Virginia Beach and I will be represented in the House by whoever wins this election. While I describe myself as a moderate, independent, I have pretty much decided I want Phil Kellam to win the election. So I am going to try and offer Phil a little help.

Secondly, I generally disapprove of attack adds, however those who support the Thelma Drake campaign have been letting a few loose, so I guess Phil's supporters need to get down in the mud with them.

Here's how the add would go. Starting with a slideshow of smiling Thelmas (the closer she is to smirking the better) a voiceover states: "Thelma Drake is proud of her voting record in Congress. But what is she really in favor of? Back in July, in front of the Citizens of Hampton Roads, Thelma let her guard down."

Cut to a video of her saying, back in the July debate, that she endorses a national sales tax.

The voiceover then explains: "Thelma wants to replace the graduated income tax with a national sales tax. She wants to cut taxes for the rich alright, but she wants to raise taxes for the middle class."

Closing scene: with a still shot of Thelma smiling in the background, the announcer, speaking in a dour voice, says: "Thelma Drake wants to raise your taxes." While a hand comes across the picture and leaves a stamp that says "WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES".

Then, in a longer then normal "I support this message" view, Phil Kellam comes on and explains. "I wish to be fair and honest with this message. If you are rich, Thelma does not intend to raise your taxes she wants to cut them, so this message is not intended for you. However if you are in the Middle Class, Thelma does want to raise your taxes, she said it herself. This is the message I support."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

End of campaign add recommendation and now for some discussion.

If Phil was to run this add, he better be able to defend his position in a debate. A brief description of the "Fair Tax" issue is contained on this blog. I would recommend the piece I wrote back in April of this year (see here), it contains links to websites that support the Fair Tax. He might want to also get ahold of Neil Boortz and Congressman Linder's bestselling book on the Fair Tax so he can be familiar with all the arguments in favor of it and can say he actually read the book.

Now he also needs to be ready for Thelma to state "I never said Fair Tax, I said national sales tax." But if she does this, it should be like throwing raw meat to a pitbull. If Thelma is not talking about something like the Fair Tax then she is talking about raising taxes for everybody.

Phil should be ready for a curveball... and be ready to then endorse the curveball himself, something like: "There are some advantages to the Fair Tax. For example if a sales tax was implemented at a rate lesser then the proposed 23%, along with a prebate to protect the lower class, income taxes and the need to file tax returns could be eliminated for the middle class. However on incomes beyond (Phil inserts an income level he finds acceptable, I suggest $150K for an individual, $300K for a married couple) income taxes should continue to be paid in a very American system of progressive taxation. As long as any changes to the taxcode meet my definition of the American Way, I can live with that."

Phil might also want to line up a few economists he could refer to that are of the opinion the Fair Tax would be regressive in comparison to the current income tax system and who are of the opinion it will result in raising taxes for the middle class. This shouldn't be too hard, because anyone who is not on the payroll of the Republican National Committee probably has this opinion. He probably could get some help from the Democrat National Committee on lining a few experts up. If Phil does not want to refer to Ivy League experts (this could lead to claims of being elitist - though he should have a few of them lined up to quote if need be) he could keep the experts local at first by referring to professors from Old Dominion, Norfolk State or the University of Virginia.

The Unfair "Fair Tax"

Since I dared to criticize Thelma Drake for supporting the so-called Fair Tax, I was motivated to once again explore the issue to see if "Fair Tax" advocates have anything new to say. My conclusion, they're still spreading the same ole lies.

(See here) where "Marty" posts on SpeckBlog that the Fair Tax is not regressive. Marty shows where a lower class wage earner might actually end up paying less in taxes if the SSI tax of 15.3% is excluded. However this supposition is rather simplistic. I would assume that under the fair tax, this lower income wage earner would no longer be elligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit since income tax will be abolished. It also would seem to assume that the employer would be willing to give the employee, in the form of increased wages, the half of this 15.3% the employer currently pays. Yeah right. Marty states:

I think that pretty well devastates the idea that the FairTax is “regressive”.

OK Marty, if the "Fair Tax" is not regressive, then how does it remain revenue neutral? Apply a little common sense to the issue Marty! Our current income tax code is progressive. Lower income pays little or no taxes. Middle income pays a higher rate, and upper income pays an even higher rate. Since the middle class is going to now going to pay the same rate of taxes, on purchases, as the upper class, how is this not regressive for the middle class? I will allow that the "Fair Tax" is protective of the lower class through the prebate. However it is going to result in a shifting of much of the tax burden from the upper class to the middle class. It offers protections for the lower class but replaces the tax rates that progress as one goes from middle income to upper income with an equal 23% tax on consumption. This is common sense, and one does not need to be a math whiz to come to this obvious conclusion.

After the middle income taxpayer's expenditures exceed the level allowed for in the prebate, his expenditures are taxed at the same level as Bill Gate's expenditures. Now note that as extravagent as Bill Gates might choose to be with his expenditures, his level of personal expenditures is never going to approach anything near 100% of income. Meanwhile, the middle income wage earner might have to expend nearly 100% of his income to maintain something approaching the American dream. This is going to result in a regressive tax code where the middle income wage earner ends up paying more money each year, as a percentage of income, because he can not afford to save as much each year as Bill Gates. I think this is called regressive.

"Marty" can choose to call his proposal "Fair Tax" if he wants to. Your local grocer can choose to label apples as oranges in his produce aisle because consumers are willing to pay more for oranges then apples. I am going to call the "Fair Tax" what it is. It is downright unfair. It seeks to replace our progressive tax code with a regressive tax system and shift the tax burden to the middle class. I stand against it, I already pay enough in taxes thank you very much.

Phil Kellam vs Thelma Drake

It seems I am starting to overdose on posts about the Phil Kellam vs Thelma Drake election race. Let me explain why, I have to make up my mind in the next few days on who to cast my vote for via absentee ballot because I will not be home on election day. I have been searching the internet about this race to make sure I was going to vote wisely.

(See here) a PilotOnline article that reports on a debate between Phil and Thelma that took place back in July of this year. The article itself is not very informative. Why I am linking to this article is because of a comment by one of Virginia Beach's citizens, David Campbell, who evidently attended the debate and who's comment reports on things the article leaves out. Most telling is David's statement that:

She even endorsed their radical proposal to replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax...

That about does it for me. This proves to me just how extreme Thelma is. For anyone unfamiliar with the national sales tax proposal, often called the "Fair Tax" by proponents, I would encourage you to (see here) my previous post on this issue which I wrote back in April of this year.

I am now pretty certain my vote is going for Phil. I can now cast my vote in this election with some confidence that I am getting it right. Thelma has got to go. If she is in favor of the fraudulently labeled "Fair Tax" she is too much of an extremist for me.

Phil Kellam vs Thelma Drake

Election day is quickly approaching for me. Due to my occupation, I have to cast my absentee ballot within the next seven days.

Scanning the internet, I came across (this) CQ.com piece that describes the differences between the two candidates in one sentence for each.

For Phil Kellam: "Kellam says Drake sides too frequently with GOP leaders and President Bush."

This seems to be a true statement. Reports sight something like a 98% voting record. I have been watching as often as I can how Thelma votes. While I can not witness to the 98% voting record, I can witness that on the controversial issues Thelma never fell out of line. Her vote was a safe vote for Republican leaders. Thelma was not a leader, she was a follower. Where Republican leaders pointed her to vote is where her vote fell. Evidently 98% of the time. Surely if Thelma was a true leader her vote would have strayed more often then this, but that did not happen. I want Thelma to vote Virginia values, and I do not think the national Republican leadership represents Virginia values. Let Thelma follow disgraced leaders like Tom Delay if she wants to, perhaps this will get her enough campaign money to eventually run for President or something, however it is not going to win my vote.

For Thelma Drake: "Drake has sought to portray MoveOn.org's support of Kellam as a sure sign he is too liberal for the district."

First off, I wish MoveOn would butt out of our politics. Their endorsement of Phil Kellam is actually a negative. Their endorsement of center-right Kellam is only because they look at the victory of a Democrat as a vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, even if Phil is too extremist toward the right for their tastes. I have read where liberal Democrats have even described Phil as being too right wing to be a decent Democrat. Whoop whoop whoop, the alarm claxon is sounding. Thelma is trying to paint Phil as a liberal through association with MoveOn and that is an extreme stretch. Perhaps we should try to paint Thelma as a liberal because the church she attends on Sunday is Presbyterian?

Truth is that I think our national leadership has swung too far to the right. Our national leadership has swung so far to the right that as qualified a candidate as Harriet Miers was refused by the Republican Party, after George Dubyah Bush nominated her, because Harriet Miers was too liberal to serve on the Supreme Court. Heh heh, and the Republican leadership said we would forget about Harriet Miers. Well I remember. I remember the Republican leadership that torpedoed Harriet's nomination because even Harriet was "too liberal". This proved to me just how extremist the Republican leadership and the Republican Party is. Thelma votes with this leadership 98% of the time.

I am pretty sure I am going to vote for Phil Kellam. There is not a lot of difference between Phil and Thelma on many issues. However, I am hoping Phil will become a lion in the Democrat Party while Thelma has been a kitten in the Republican Party. Perhaps Phil can, by aligning himself with a bipartisan moderate alliance in the House, influence legislation. I want influence from my representatives. Moderate Virginia Republican Senator John Warner has paved the way for the path to influence.

I remember Harriet Miers. Even "born again" Harriet was not conservative enough for the Republicans to serve on the Supreme Court. Thelma votes with the leadership that rejected Harriet 98% of the time. This is too right wing extremist for me. Perhaps with Phil I will get someone reasonable.

I think I am going to vote for Phil.

Mark Warner Drops Presidential Run

In a past post, I put forth that former Virginia Governor Mark Warner would make a great President. (See here) where NewsMax reports Mark Warner is withdrawing from the race.

The article reports that Mark Warner made this decision because:

This wasn't the right time in his life. He would have to put everything else on the backburner in order to run for president and do it right, and he wants a real life.

I think there is another reason for the withdrawal. Despite frequent campaign appearances in Iowa and New Hampshire, the Warner campaign was not gaining any traction.

"When the going gets tough, the tough get going." When the going got tough for Mark Warner, Mark Warner gave up.

Phil Kellam vs Thelma Drake

Heh heh, the liberals are condemning Phil Kellam.

(See here) where at least one blogger says "Phil Kellam is far too right-leaning to be called a decent Democrat".

Damn liberal Democrats, they think they own the party. I remember back to the days of my Daddy when my Daddy once was proud to call himself a Democrat. He supported everything which was best about the Democrat party and he turned his back on the Democrat party when it strayed too far left. I love my Daddy. I understand why he started to vote Republican. However I wonder if he were still alive if he would still support what the Republican Party has come to stand for. I think he would have been extremely torn.

Why do I support Phil Kellam?

Because I am hoping Phil Kellam might become a lion in the Democrat Party while Thelma Drake has proven herself to be a kitten in the Republican Party (no sexism implied, the statement would have been more powerful if Thelma was male).

South Carolina's New State Flag

While traveling through South Carolina today, I got a glimpse of South Carolina's new state flag.

First let me explain why South Carolina was motivated to adopt a new state flag. Prior to this new flag, the South Carolina flag included the Confederate Battle Flag. Since the inclusion of the Confederate Battle Flag was offensive to some (think descendants of slaves) South Carolina decided to strike the old flag and adopt the new one. You can see an image of the flag (here) as well as an explanation of what the symbols on the flag represent.

When I first saw this flag I was struck by its beauty, a computer image does not do justice to the irredescent shade of blue fluttering with the sky as a background. Truthfully, the first time I saw it, flying in front of a corporate hospital, I thought it was a corporate flag for a corporate health firm. My second viewing was in front of a medical center, so I still felt it was related somehow to health care. After later seeing it flown in front of other types of establishments, I figured out it must be South Carolina's new state flag.

I give South Carolina an A+ for esthetics. It is a beautiful flag. I also give them an A+ for history. South Carolina sought to replace their prior state flag, which was grounded in history, with another flag also steeped in tradition. However I give them at best a D+ for what the symbolic content represents to modern day citizens.

What is my criticism? The new South Carolina flag includes the crescent moon. I was puzzled how this could have come to be included in a flag representing South Carolina. South Carolina is in the Bible Belt with a strong influence in politics by Southern Baptists.

Think about it. If South Carolina tried to adopt a state flag that includes the Christian Cross in its field, there would have been immediate objections. However the crescent moon is also a religious symbol. The Crescent Moon is the symbol of Islam. It symbolizes the new moon that signals the start of Ramadan to Moslems. When I saw the crescent moon on the flag that is what I thought of.

While I was still in South Carolina, on the CB I asked if any South Carolina truckers knew what the crescent moon represented. I was not surprised that none of them seemed to know. I was shocked that none of them knew the Crescent Moon was as much a symbol of Islam as the Christian Cross is a symbol of Christianity. Having some fun with these truckers, I told them South Carolina must be a damn Islamic state.

Before I get to the final point of this post, let me point out some recent developments to anyone uninformed. Recently it has become fashionable to try and get any hint of Christian religious symbols from the likes of things like city seals, no matter how steeped in tradition these seals are. However not a peep that I am aware of has been raised about the inclusion of an Islamic symbol in the field of the South Carolina state flag.

If I were a politically minded Southern Baptist residing in South Carolina, I would demand that the symbol of Christianity, the Christian Cross, be given equal prominence on the state flag as the Islamic symbol, the Crescent Moon. In a nod to religious tolerance, I would agree to having the Star of David also represented.

If this was not acceptable to the state legislature, I would turn to the ACLU and ask them to file suit against the state of South Carolina for including an Islamic Crescent Moon in the state flag while discriminating against other religions.