Republican pundits such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Neal Boortz properly lament what a disaster Democrat Barack Obama has been as president. Oh, if only the voters had selected the Republican nominee in November 2008 just think of where we'd be today!

So what would John McCain have done had he been elected and sworn in January 2009? We know both Obama and McCain supported the bailouts to Wall Street in the Fall of 2008. In fact, McCain supported the bailout to the point of actually suspending his campaign to emphasize its importance! Nothing different there.

Obama gave us the stimulus of 2009 — American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — as an effort to revive the weakened economy. McCain's position? Well, he did actually vote Nay, knowing the bill would pass the Senate safely. Given McCain's history on such things it is almost certain that had he been president he, like Obama, would have sought a stimulus bill rather than letting the market sort things out.

Obama reneged on his campaign promises of ending the Iraq war maintaining troops there till this day. And what would John McCain's policy be if he were president today? The same but with the suggestion that the troops could well be there for 100 years. Nothing different there.

Both men called for a surge in troop strength on top of the then 90,000 American forces in Afghanistan in 2009. Fundamentally similar policies yet again.

Our pundit friends can't complain that Obama has increased income taxes as he gave in entirely to extending the Bush income tax cuts in 2010. McCain advocated ending these tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and only the threat of a possible election defeat in his Senate campaign in 2010 got him to change his mind here. If he'd been elected president in 2008 he'd have had no electoral threat to persuade him to abandon his established position. The most optimistic conclusion is that there is no negative Obama difference or positive McCain difference here!

Maybe there's a difference between Obama and McCain regarding the money-creating, buddy-funding Federal Reserve? Nope. Both Obama and McCain have stood silent and passive as the Fed created trillions in new dollars for the favored few well-connected types. Neither man has called into question any of this or supported the effort to audit the Fed.

What about the issue of federalism? Surely, there's a difference with Obama advocating more and more federal power at the expense of the states and the people. McCain is the US Senator who has shown his lack of respect for the Bill of Rights having co-authored the freedom of speech trampling McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill and is one who is sold on trampling on the 10th amendment. Two peas in a pod is a better description of these two guys.

Well surely this past spring there was a clear difference in what John McCain wanted and what Barack Obama wanted regarding Libya, right? No, again. Obama committed US troops to combat action to oust Muammar Qadhafi with the vocal approval of John McCain. That provision about Congress having the authority to declare war in the dusty old Constitution thing was of no concern for either man. And they both had previously publicly embraced Qadhafi only months prior. The word "ditto" fits nicely here. If the proper range of opinion is represented by Obama on the left and McCain on the right, then I guess we must call them both "Great Americans"; only "myrmidons" allowed here!

In fact, Obama's policies have been such a continuation of those of George Bush that they look eerily like those of a George Bush third term!

With so many similarities and no differences on anything fundamental what can we say about the current field of Republicans seeking the presidential nomination? It is this:  The Republican Party has a choice to make. Either the Republican Party nominates one of the establishment candidates to continue the Bush-Obama policies enacting, in effect, a Bush fourth term or the Republicans must make a basic change in what they are about and return to their stated principles of limited government, free markets, and defense of this country.

Ron Paul is the only Republican who will challenge these bipartisan policies. It is either more of the same or Paul. There is no other choice.

Jim Cox [send him mail] the author of The Concise Guide to Economics and Minimum Wage, Maximum Damage. He maintains a website at PSCWatch.com.

What qualifications would the ideal candidate have? How about these?

1. He should bring to mind popular past Republican presidents and leaders, to prove his authenticity and excite the Republican base.

2. At the same time, he should be able to win the support of a large number of Independents and disaffected Democrats.

3. He must provide a sharp and positive contrast to Obama. The country is souring on Obama — polls show him at all-time lows. Obama's youth, once appealing to voters as freshness, is now looking more and more like inexperience and uncertainty. A mature GOP candidate, with successful experience inside and outside of politics, would provide a sharp and appealing contrast.

4. He must have a solid record of foresight on the economy. As in past elections, the phrase “It’s the economy, stupid” may decide the election.

5. His message should excite and motivate the increasing number of voters looking for a limited government, pro-Constitution candidate.

6. Above all, of course, the candidate must have a genuine shot at beating Barack Obama.

We have such a candidate before us — Ron Paul. Consider:

1. More than any other GOP candidate, he recalls the best qualities of previous popular Republican presidents. He is the very embodiment of Ronald Reagan’s statement that “Government is not the solution, government is the problem.” Just at the moment that the public is turning against Obama's several wars, Paul reminds us of President Eisenhower, both for Ike’s ending of the Korean War and, especially, his renowned warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. He also calls to mind two famous GOP candidates of the past, who, though unsuccessful in their races, profoundly influenced the GOP in the direction of limited government and constitutionalism: Barry Goldwater and “Mr. Republican,” Robert Taft.

2. Surveys show that Ron Paul has more appeal to Independents and disaffected Democrats than any other Republican candidate — and more than Obama.

Every Democratic vote for Paul is at the same time one less Democratic vote for Obama — a twofer of the best sort! And only Ron Paul can assemble a coalition of Tea Partiers, anti-war and pro-civil liberties leftists, and change-minded Independents, while at the same time retaining the GOP base. Indeed, a recent study showed that a stunning 49% of his supporters would not vote for any other Republican candidate.

3. Ron Paul exudes a Reaganesque maturity that can trump Obama's youth card. Remember Reagan’s effective reframing of the age issue during the 1984 debate with Walter Mondale: “I will not exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” Unlike Obama, Paul has served in the military and has been successful in his private sector career. And Paul has a political record of trustworthiness and consistency that no one else in Congress, Democrat or Republican, has.

4. Paul has been right, again, and again, about the economy. His message of free markets, limited government, and economic liberty will stand in stark contrast to the ever-bigger-government rhetoric of Obama.

5. No candidate in modern American history has been as close to the message of the Founding Fathers, as deeply committed to the Constitution, as Ron Paul. His supporters already know this, and more people are learning about this every day. Glenn Beck recently told his millions of listeners that Paul is "the closest to our Founders" of any of the GOP candidates. This has appeal that transcends left-versus-right politics. Millions of Americans will be excited to have the opportunity to vote for a candidate sounding the ideals of the Fathers.

6. Finally, on the vital question of who can beat Obama, surveys show Ron Paul can compete head-on with Obama. Indeed, there are indications that Paul has the best chance of any Republican against Obama.

Summing up: no one else but Ron Paul fulfils these six crucial requirements; Ron Paul is the Republican Party Dream Candidate!

Jim Cox [send him mail] the author of The Concise Guide to Economics and Minimum Wage, Maximum Damage. James W. Harris has published articles in numerous magazines and newspapers including Reason, The Nation, and the Orange County Register.

President Obama in warning against the Florida pastor’s plan to burn the Koran stated,

“This is a recruitment bonanza for al Qaeda. You could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan. This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities.”

It’s funny how B.O. (or his predecessor) never cited past American government policies as being a recruitment bonanza for al Qaeda. Only a handful of misguided activists at the Florida church using their own property and their privately acquired copies of the Koran have such an effect in the President’s view.

Here is a partial list of the past as well as some on-going American foreign policy interventions that — by official standards — have had no influence in empowering al Qaeda:

1. The combined British/American overthrow of the democratically elected head of government in Iran in 1953, replacing him with the hated Shah and his secret police who the U.S. trained to murder thousands of Iranians.

2. In 1987 the U.S. militarily supported Saddam Hussein in the Iraqi war with Iran.

3. In 1988 the U.S. ship Vincennes, stationed in the Persian Gulf, shot down a commercial jetliner, killing 290 Iranian civilians.

4. After the Gulf War, the U.S. led an embargo against Iraq, allowing no humanitarian or medical aid. The results, according to UN estimates: 10,000 Iraqi deaths per month with the toll including more than 300,000 children. Then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright when asked said it was "worth it." Albright never retracted her statement nor was it ever repudiated by an American president.

5. In 1998 President Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan. A number of totally innocent civilians were killed.

6. European armies, rather than native peoples, drew many of the borders in North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and southwest Asia.

7. The Saudi government, the Kuwaiti government, and the Afghani government are actively supported with foreign aid by the U.S. despite the fact that they routinely oppress their people.

8. The war in Iraq since 2003 that has resulted in a minimum of 97,000 civilian deaths as well as the displacement of more than a million civilians.

9. The war in Afghanistan since 2001 that has resulted in a minimum of 6,000 civilian deaths.

10. Predator strikes in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan.

But, again according to the official bi-partisan view, none of these actions have caused blowback against Americans or Europeans.

Finally, we know what the CIA meant when it coined the term "blowback" — hostility over Koran burning. Also, we now know what Noam Chomsky, 9-11; Rick Maybury, The Thousand Year War; Robin Wright, Sacred Rage; and Chalmers Johnson, Blowback must have had in mind when the penned their works.

It’s refreshing to know that Koran burning is the provocation that incites the Islamic world and is the only thing we have to end to protect Americans from more terrorism — our imperialistic foreign policy, now under Barack Obama, can continue without any consequence whatsoever.

Jim Cox is a professor of economics and is the author of The Concise Guide to Economics and Minimum Wage, Maximum Damage.

~

1

In looking for factors impacting global temperatures the one to ignore is:

~

a

Methane

~

b

CO2

~

c

The Sun

~

d

Water flows

~

2

In considering the cause-and-effect analysis of CO2 and temperature the most important issue to ignore is:

~

a

Periods that show a positive relationship

~

b

If the graphs show a correlation

~

c

Which is the cause and which is the effect

~

d

Periods for which we have data

~

3

In considering the sources of any global warming it is important to ignore:

~

a

Cow gas

~

b

Human exhalation

~

c

Similar warming on Mars

~

d

SUV exhaust

~

4

In considering the effects of global temperatures the standard for the best temperature is:

~

a

What it was in Al Gore’s youth

~

b

When crops flourished best

~

c

Less than whatever it is currently

~

d

The last Ice Age

~

5

In considering the sources of any global warming it is important to ignore:

~

A

Hot temperatures of summer months

~

B

CO2 measures of the past year

~

c

The Medieval Warming Period of 950—1250 and the Little Ice Age of 1350—1850

~

d

Unusual weather that can be cited as evidence of global warming

~

6

To maintain the integrity of the data, man-made global-warming scientists should:

~

a

Keep duplicate sets of data available

~

b

Comply with laws regarding Freedom of Information

~

c

Refuse to comply with legally required Freedom of Information requests

~

d

Produce alternate sets of data for various purposes

~

7

To maintain the integrity of the data, man-made global-warming scientists should also:

~

a

Keep historical data in a systematic record

~

b

Share historical data freely

~

c

Destroy historical data

~

d

Assure that temperature gauges are unaffected by their immediate surroundings

~

8

To maintain the integrity of the data, man-made global-warming scientists should additionally:

~

a

Publish comprehensive sets of data

~

b

Recruit scientists based on their background in actual climate sciences

~

c

Refuse to share historical data

~

d

Openly engage dissenters in order to arrive at valid conclusions

~

9

To maintain the integrity of the science, man-made global-warming scientists should further:

~

a

Follow standard peer review procedures

~

b

Respond to dissenters with reasoned arguments

~

c

Manipulate the peer review process

~

d

Openly debate dissenters

~

10

In the search for any needed solutions to man-made global-warming scientists should consider everything except:

~

a

Economic production-killing CO2 restrictions

~

b

Nationalization of industries

~

c

Simple, reversable, and inexpensive geo-engineering solutions

~

d

Requiring automobiles to be replaced by underpowered, dangerous cars such as the Smart Car

~

If you answered "c" in each case you are eligible to join the man-made global-warming movement. If you answered anything but "c" in every case you are subject to ad hominem attacks from man-made global-warming scientists.

~

1

In looking for factors impacting global temperatures the one to ignore is:

~

a

Methane

~

b

CO2

~

c

The Sun

~

d

Water flows

~

2

In considering the cause-and-effect analysis of CO2 and temperature the most important issue to ignore is:

~

a

Periods that show a positive relationship

~

b

If the graphs show a correlation

~

c

Which is the cause and which is the effect

~

d

Periods for which we have data

~

3

In considering the sources of any global warming it is important to ignore:

~

a

Cow gas

~

b

Human exhalation

~

c

Similar warming on Mars

~

d

SUV exhaust

~

4

In considering the effects of global temperatures the standard for the best temperature is:

~

a

What it was in Al Gore’s youth

~

b

When crops flourished best

~

c

Less than whatever it is currently

~

d

The last Ice Age

~

5

In considering the sources of any global warming it is important to ignore:

~

A

Hot temperatures of summer months

~

B

CO2 measures of the past year

~

c

The Medieval Warming Period of 950—1250 and the Little Ice Age of 1350—1850

~

d

Unusual weather that can be cited as evidence of global warming

~

6

To maintain the integrity of the data, man-made global-warming scientists should:

~

a

Keep duplicate sets of data available

~

b

Comply with laws regarding Freedom of Information

~

c

Refuse to comply with legally required Freedom of Information requests

~

d

Produce alternate sets of data for various purposes

~

7

To maintain the integrity of the data, man-made global-warming scientists should also:

~

a

Keep historical data in a systematic record

~

b

Share historical data freely

~

c

Destroy historical data

~

d

Assure that temperature gauges are unaffected by their immediate surroundings

~

8

To maintain the integrity of the data, man-made global-warming scientists should additionally:

~

a

Publish comprehensive sets of data

~

b

Recruit scientists based on their background in actual climate sciences

~

c

Refuse to share historical data

~

d

Openly engage dissenters in order to arrive at valid conclusions

~

9

To maintain the integrity of the science, man-made global-warming scientists should further:

~

a

Follow standard peer review procedures

~

b

Respond to dissenters with reasoned arguments

~

c

Manipulate the peer review process

~

d

Openly debate dissenters

~

10

In the search for any needed solutions to man-made global-warming scientists should consider everything except:

~

a

Economic production-killing CO2 restrictions

~

b

Nationalization of industries

~

c

Simple, reversable, and inexpensive geo-engineering solutions

~

d

Requiring automobiles to be replaced by underpowered, dangerous cars such as the Smart Car

~

Jim Cox is an Associate Professor of Economics at the Clarkston Campus of Georgia Perimeter College and author of Minimum Wage, Maximum Damage.

DIGG THIS

Last year I added another 15-item list of comparisons between the US experience in Vietnam, and that of the current war in Iraq. With yet another year behind us, here is Part IV of that comparison for Iraq, 2003—2007 and Vietnam, 1965—1969:

1—15

Iraq is not Vietnam

16—30

Iraq is Not Vietnam, II

31—45

Iraq is Not Vietnam, III

`

Item

Iraq 2003—2007

Vietnam 1965—1969

46

Phenomena of homeless veterans?

Yes

Yes

47

Attempt to pay for war without tax increases?

Yes, during first five years

Yes, during first four years

48

Military leaders complain of lack of martial spirit among domestic allies?

Yes

Yes

49
Troop deaths in 5th year?
Higher than in the first two years
Higher than in the first two years

50

Diplomats refuse postings to country?

Yes

Yes

51

War has the effect of empowering a neighboring enemy?

Yes, Iran

Yes, Cambodia

52

Costs in constant dollars?

$510+ billion (so far)

$670 billion (total)

53

President demands that we "stay the course" despite lack of anticipated progress?

Bush, 2005

Johnson, 1967

54

Fear of leaving?

Yes

Yes

55

Special term to dehumanize victims?

Hajis

Gooks

56

Area of greatest resistance?

Sunni Triangle

Iron Triangle

57

Notable General warned against war?

Norman Schwarzkopf

Douglas
MacArthur

58

Large number of refugees leaves the country?

Yes

Yes

59

President secretly visits troops?

Yes, 9-3-07

Yes, 10-26-66

60
Bombing campaign meant to demonstrate to the enemy that resistance is futile?
Shock and Awe

Rolling Thunder

So, what is the difference between Iraq and Vietnam? Answer: Whatever the differences, the most similar war to Iraq in U.S. history, is, in fact, Vietnam!

Jim Cox [send him mail] is an Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Clarkston Campus of Georgia Perimeter College and the author of The Concise Guide to Economics and Minimum Wage, Maximum Damage.

DIGG THIS

Neal Boortz has repeatedly hailed Ron Paul for his libertarian/Constitutionalist views but makes one exception to Paul’s policies: the war on terror. Boortz thinks Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy is dangerous to America. We would like to reach out to Boortz’s listeners (and Neal himself) to reconsider this view. Here is the way we see it:

We currently have troops stationed on 700 military bases in 130 countries. Ron Paul advocates removing these troops from around the globe and repositioning a number of them around our borders to stop illegal immigration. The current administration’s policy is to leave American borders unsecured and therefore open to terrorists to infiltrate our country. This is the Clinton/Bush policy which has been in place since the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In the 15 years since the first major terrorist attack on American soil the border has been left wide open to would-be terrorists! It is the current policy, not the Paul policy, which is putting America in danger.

Until 1987 it was perfectly legal to carry a gun onto a commercial airplane (subject only to the airline’s own rules). Disarming the pilots and passengers by federal decree made possible the 9/11 suicide hijackings. This policy remained in place until after 2003 when the Bush administration began to allow, on a very limited basis, federally trained pilots to carry weapons. From the time of the 1993 WTC bombing until the limited arming of pilots was implemented, official mandates put Americans at great risk. Ron Paul has repeatedly championed the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, thus allowing the airlines to determine their own security measures. The current practice is putting Americans at undue risk; Paul’s policies would assure a much greater level of security.

In 2002 President Bush stated his intention to capture Osama Bin Laden "Dead or Alive." The President could have had Bin Laden in custody merely by presenting evidence to the government of Afghanistan as they had offered to accept for this purpose, but he refused, opting instead for a war which has resulted in the death of hundreds of American servicemen and women in Afghanistan. Ron Paul in contrast has repeatedly stated his intention to negotiate and talk with other countries in such circumstances. (And President Bush has since stated that he is not that concerned with Bin Laden!)

Later when Bin Laden was cornered in Tora Bora it was the Bush administration’s decisions which resulted in this mass murderer escaping over the border into Pakistan. Ron Paul in contrast introduced legislation to authorize Letters of Marque and Reprisal to aid in the capture of Bin Laden.

All of the other candidates — both Republican and Democrat — endorse continuing the subsidies handed to tyrannical and decent governments, alike. Many of these regimes are despised by their people. A U.S. subsidy to these states results in the people of these countries despising the U.S. in turn for propping up the government which they despise, and needlessly makes new enemies for Americans. It is the current procedure, not the Paul policy of ending all foreign aid, which is needlessly endangering Americans.

All of the other candidates endorse the massive functions taken over by the federal government. In trying to do so much the Congress and the President have little time to focus on vital national security issues. Paul’s strictly limited federal government would allow the proper focus on vital national security issues.

With our troops stationed in many, many far-off lands, America itself is left relatively defenseless. As Paul has stated, Seoul, South Korea was better defended than Washington, D.C. on September 11th! It is the current policies, not the Paul plan which leaves Americans under-defended. Additionally, the misdirected war in Iraq has so depleted American military reserves that we are probably in the greatest danger ever from foreign attack.

The President and presidential candidates endorse the very strategies which provoke terrorist attacks against Americans. Bin Laden specifically cited American troop presence on Arabian soil as one of the provocations for the 9/11 attack (as did former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, as did the former head of the Bin Laden unit in the CIA, Michael Scheuer).

In contrast to the current practices and those endorsed by the other candidates for president, Ron Paul’s approach to dealing with terrorism is based on following the U.S. Constitution. Every one of the policies endorsed by Ron Paul conforms to the standards established for our government under the Constitution. Nearly every one of those currently enacted or proposed by the other candidates is in direct violation of the Constitution.

With all of this in mind is it any wonder that of all of the presidential candidates it is Ron Paul who leads in campaign contributions from former and current military personnel, soldiers who swear to protect America from all enemies foreign and domestic and to protect the U.S. Constitution?

See the following videos on Ron Paul and American defense here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

For a long list of veterans who have endorsed Ron Paul, see his campaign website.

We hope and trust that these considerations will convince Neal Boortz himself, and his many patriotic listeners, to reconsider their position on this vital matter.

Jim Cox [send him mail] is an Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Clarkston Campus of Georgia Perimeter College and the author of The Concise Guide to Economics and Minimum Wage, Maximum Damage. After being rejected by the draft in 1967, David Brookshire [send him mail] volunteered and served in the US Army from 1967—1971 in the Intelligence Division, achieving a rank of E-5. He served in Viet Nam, Germany and Turkey. Both Cox and Brookshire live in metropolitan Atlanta and have a combined total of 46 years of listening to The TalkMaster.

Jim Cox Archives

DIGG THIS

1.

During the summer of 2001 when repeated urgent warnings of impending terrorist attacks reached the White House, the response from George W. Bush was to:

a.

instruct all defense and security agencies to be on high alert to protect the American people.

b.

do a "What Me Worry?" and let things ride while taking the precaution of sleeping on a U.S. aircraft carrier at the G-8 Summit off Genoa, Italy in July and then taking a one-month retreat to his ranch in Crawford, Texas in August while his Cabinet avoided commercial flights in favor of private jet travel.

2.

When the Taliban in Afghanistan offered to turn over Osama Bin Laden to the U.S. in the fall 2001 if evidence were provided of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks, the response of George W. Bush was to:

a.

immediately work with the Afghan government to provide the evidence as a better solution than a war in which hundreds of American soldiers would die.

b.

do a "What Me Worry?" and refuse to provide the requested evidence or pursue the matter at all.

3.

After pledging to bring Osama Bin Laden in "dead or alive," George W. Bush:

a.

pressed his advantage with sufficient U.S. troops when Bin Laden was cornered in Tora Bora.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and allowed Bin Laden to escape.

4.

After the oil company UNOCAL failed to get concessions from the Taliban government in Afghanistan prior to 2001, the response from George W. Bush in 2002 was to:

a.

oversee free elections in Afghanistan and not interfere in the sovereign nation of Afghanistan’s dealings with UNOCAL.

b.

do a "What Me Worry?" and oversee the installation of former UNOCAL employees Hamid Karzai as prime minister and Zalmay Khalizad as ambassador to Afghanistan.

5.

When Saddam Hussein made feelers through Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak’s son about the possibility of going in to exile prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, the reaction of George W. Bush was to:

a.

pursue this behind-the-scenes appeal to avoid a war in which thousands of American soldiers would likely be killed.

b.

do a "What Me Worry?" and refuse to consider the idea at all.

6.

In the build-up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, George W. Bush:

a.

conscientiously sought information from the C.I.A., D.I.A., State Department, and I.A.E.A. in determining the likelihood of WMDs and other such vital concerns.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and based his conclusions on information from the discredited “Curveball” and Ahmad Chalabi, the convicted embezzler.

7.

Given the on-going unpopularity of the U.S. among many former allies that has developed in the last five years, George W. Bush:

a.

has bent over backwards to show respect to these countries’ customs and traditions.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and in defiance of Canadian law barred Members of the Canadian Parliament from entering their own building.

8.

To further shore up good feelings with allies, George W. Bush:

a.

made a point of leaving everything in perfect order upon his departure from a visit to England in 2003.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and trashed Buckingham Palace leaving the Queen furious over the thousands of dollars worth of damage he and his entourage left behind.

9.

As Texas governor, George W. Bush signed a law which allowed hospitals to withdraw life support from patients over the objections of the family. So when the Terri Schiavo case became a Republican rallying point, George W. Bush:

a.

as a man of principled convictions stood by his previous view and vetoed the special bill passed by the Republican controlled Congress.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and made a special flightu2014interrupting his vacationu2014from his Crawford ranch to Washington to sign the bill so he could grandstand on the issue.

10.

As a man of resolve who stands by his principles, George W. Bush:

a.

declared himself a "war president" as a means of getting to the heart of his presidency.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" after calling himself a war president for two years declaring himself a "peace president" as the election approached only to revert back to calling himself a "war president" when the "peace president" line didn’t seem to be working for him.

11.

Since the First Amendment guarantees Americans freedom of speech, George W. Bush:

a.

followed the pattern of all previous presidents and did not interfere with people’s protests at his campaign rallies.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and restricted dissentersu2014and dissenters, onlyu2014to "free speech" zones out of the sight of the president and the media covering the rallies.

12.

In 2003 when the Iranian government contacted the U.S. offering to stop funding Hezbollah and give up its nuclear program in exchange for security guarantees and normalized relations, the response of George W. Bush was to:

a.

take this remarkable opportunity to engage the Iranians on these matters.

b.

do a "What Me Worry?" and ignore the offer and admonish the Swiss diplomats for delivering it.

13.

When George W. Bush finds himself confronted by unpleasant facts his practice has been to:

a.

put a lot of thought into the issue and request informed input to help in finding the best way to deal with such facts.

b.

do a "What Me Worry?" and dismiss the concept of "facts" itself, dismissively declaring them to be irrelevant as the administration is now able to create its own reality.

14.

When the McCain-Feingold Finance Campaign Reform Bill was presented for the President’s signature, George W. Bush:

a.

declared the bill to be unconstitutional and vetoed it right then and there.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and signed the bill into law after declaring it to be an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment all despite the oath he had sworn to uphold the Constitution.

15.

When the transportation bill made its way to his desk for signature in 2005, George W. Bush:

a.

reiterated his 2003 stance of fighting pork barrel legislation.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and declared that the $286 billion bill loaded with more than 6,000 pet projects made him proud to sign the bill.

16.

To garner positive news coverage for his policies, George W. Bush:

a.

worked hard at cultivating positive relations with the media.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and planted a fake journalist in the White House press corps to ask softball questions of the president during otherwise contentious news conferences.

17.

As a further attempt at garnering positive news coverage for his policies, George W. Bush:

a.

pledged to answer any and all questions from news reporters honestly.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and oversaw secret payments from the Education Department to Armstrong Williams to promote his education policies.

18.

When Congress called for a full independent investigation of the 9/11 tragedy to prepare the U.S. against future terrorist attacks, the reaction of George W. Bush was to:

a.

support the effort and pledge to fully cooperate with the investigating committee.

b.

do a "What Me Worry?" and first refuse the request, then under pressure agree to an investigation of a limited nature only, then appoint Condi Rice underling Phillip Zelikow to effectively investigate himself.

19.

After more than six years in office and more than four years at war, the George W. Bush administration:

a.

ensured that the best medical care was provided for soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and oversaw a decline in the standards at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for wounded soldiers all the way down to the level of "unacceptable".

20.

When wounded and injured American troops returned to the U.S. from Afghanistan and Iraq, the reaction of George W. Bush was to:

a.

ensure that the troops were treated with respect and dignity until their wounds could heal and rehabilitate them to other military service or civilian life.

b.

was to do a "What Me Worry?" and ship the still affected troops back into action to shore up the numbers on duty in Iraq.

The answer in each case is b. the “What Me Worry?” response.

1.

During the summer of 2001 when repeated urgent warnings of impending terrorist attacks reached the White House, the response from George W. Bush was to:

a.

instruct all defense and security agencies to be on high alert to protect the American people.

b.

do a "What Me Worry?" and let things ride while taking the precaution of sleeping on a U.S. aircraft carrier at the G-8 Summit off Genoa, Italy in July and then taking a one-month retreat to his ranch in Crawford, Texas in August while his Cabinet avoided commercial flights in favor of private jet travel.

2.

When the Taliban in Afghanistan offered to turn over Osama Bin Laden to the U.S. in the fall 2001 if evidence were provided of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks, the response of George W. Bush was to:

a.

immediately work with the Afghan government to provide the evidence as a better solution than a war in which hundreds of American soldiers would die.

b.

do a "What Me Worry?" and refuse to provide the requested evidence or pursue the matter at all.

3.

After pledging to bring Osama Bin Laden in "dead or alive," George W. Bush:

a.

pressed his advantage with sufficient U.S. troops when Bin Laden was cornered in Tora Bora.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and allowed Bin Laden to escape.

4.

After the oil company UNOCAL failed to get concessions from the Taliban government in Afghanistan prior to 2001, the response from George W. Bush in 2002 was to:

a.

oversee free elections in Afghanistan and not interfere in the sovereign nation of Afghanistan’s dealings with UNOCAL.

b.

do a "What Me Worry?" and oversee the installation of former UNOCAL employees Hamid Karzai as prime minister and Zalmay Khalizad as ambassador to Afghanistan.

5.

When Saddam Hussein made feelers through Egyptian president Hosni

Mubarak’s son about the possibility of going in to exile prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, the reaction of George W. Bush was to:

a.

pursue this behind-the-scenes appeal to avoid a war in which thousands of American soldiers would likely be killed.

b.

do a "What Me Worry?" and refuse to consider the idea at all.

6.

In the build-up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, George W. Bush:

a.

conscientiously sought information from the C.I.A., D.I.A., State Department, and I.A.E.A. in determining the likelihood of WMDs and other such vital concerns.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and based his conclusions on information from the discredited “Curveball” and Ahmad Chalabi, the convicted embezzler.

7.

Given the on-going unpopularity of the U.S. among many former allies that has developed in the last five years, George W. Bush:

a.

has bent over backwards to show respect to these countries’ customs and traditions.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and in defiance of Canadian law barred

Members of the Canadian Parliament from entering their own building.

8.

To further shore up good feelings with allies, George W. Bush:

a.

made a point of leaving everything in perfect order upon his departure from a visit to England in 2003.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and trashed Buckingham Palace leaving the Queen furious over the thousands of dollars worth of damage he and his entourage left behind.

9.

As Texas governor, George W. Bush signed a law which allowed hospitals to withdraw life support from patients over the objections of the family. So when the Terri Schiavo case became a Republican rallying point, George W. Bush:

a.

as a man of principled convictions stood by his previous view and vetoed the special bill passed by the Republican controlled Congress.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and made a special flightu2014interrupting his vacationu2014from his Crawford ranch to Washington to sign the bill so he could grandstand on the issue.

10.

As a man of resolve who stands by his principles, George W. Bush:

a.

declared himself a "war president" as a means of getting to the heart of his presidency.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" after calling himself a war president for two years declaring himself a "peace president" as the election approached only to revert back to calling himself a "war president" when the "peace president" line didn’t seem to be working for him.

11.

Since the First Amendment guarantees Americans freedom of speech, George W. Bush:

a.

followed the pattern of all previous presidents and did not interfere with people’s protests at his campaign rallies.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and restricted dissentersu2014and dissenters, onlyu2014to "free speech" zones out of the sight of the president and the media covering the rallies.

12.

In 2003 when the Iranian government contacted the U.S. offering to stop funding Hezbollah and give up its nuclear program in exchange for security guarantees and normalized relations, the response of George W. Bush was to:

a.

take this remarkable opportunity to engage the Iranians on these matters.

b.

do a "What Me Worry?" and ignore the offer and admonish the

Swiss diplomats for delivering it.

13.

When George W. Bush finds himself confronted by unpleasant facts his practice has been to:

a.

put a lot of thought into the issue and request informed input to help in finding the best way to deal with such facts.

b.

do a "What Me Worry?" and dismiss the concept of "facts" itself, dismissively declaring them to be irrelevant as the administration is now able to create its own reality.

14.

When the McCain-Feingold Finance Campaign Reform Bill was presented for the President’s signature, George W. Bush:

a.

declared the bill to be unconstitutional and vetoed it right then and there.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and signed the bill into law after declaring it to be an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment all despite the oath he had sworn to uphold the Constitution.

15.

When the transportation bill made its way to his desk for signature in 2005, George W. Bush:

a.

reiterated his 2003 stance of fighting pork barrel legislation.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and declared that the $286 billion bill loaded with more than 6,000 pet projects made him proud to sign the bill.

16.

To garner positive news coverage for his policies, George W. Bush:

a.

worked hard at cultivating positive relations with the media.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and planted a fake journalist in the White House press corps to ask softball questions of the president during otherwise contentious news conferences.

17.

As a further attempt at garnering positive news coverage for his policies, George W. Bush:

a.

pledged to answer any and all questions from news reporters honestly.

b.

did a "What Me Worry" and oversaw secret payments from the Education Department to Armstrong Williams to promote his education policies.

18.

When Congress called for a full independent investigation of the 9/11 tragedy to prepare the U.S. against future terrorist attacks, the reaction of George W. Bush was to:

a.

support the effort and pledge to fully cooperate with the investigating committee.

b.

do a "What Me Worry?" and first refuse the request, then under pressure agree to an investigation of a limited nature only, then appoint Condi Rice underling Phillip Zelikow to effectively investigate himself.

19.

After more than six years in office and more than four years at war, the George W. Bush administration:

a.

ensured that the best medical care was provided for soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

b.

did a "What Me Worry?" and oversaw a decline in the standards at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for wounded soldiers all the way down to the level of "unacceptable".

20.

When wounded and injured American troops returned to the U.S. from Afghanistan and Iraq, the reaction of George W. Bush was to:

a.

ensure that the troops were treated with respect and dignity until their wounds could heal and rehabilitate them to other military service or civilian life.

b.

was to do a "What Me Worry?" and ship the affected troops back into action to shore up the numbers on duty in Iraq.

Jim Cox [send him mail] is an Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Clarkston Campus of Georgia Perimeter College and the author of The Concise Guide to Economics and Minimum Wage, Maximum Damage.

The answer in each case is the “What Me Worry?” response.

1. After repeated failures in the oil business, George W. Bush:
   1. redoubled his efforts and eventually succeeded by pleasing consumers with his business production.

   2. did a “What Me Worry?” and maneuvered the taxpayers into funding his investment in the Texas Rangers while he and his partners collected the profits.

2. When informed that a second commercial jet had struck the World Trade Center Towers and that “America is under attack,” George W. Bush:
   1. excused himself and headed to Air Force One to take command of the nation’s defenses.

   2. did a “What Me Worry?” and continued reading the goat book with the first graders.

3. After the 9/11 attacks during which commercial jets were used as weapons, George W. Bush:
   1. called his chief security advisors on the carpet, firing the head of the CIA and the NSA.

   2. did a “What Me Worry?” by having Condi Rice falsely tell the world that no one ever imagined that commercial jets could be used as weapons.

4. To win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, George W. Bush:
   1. emphatically disputed the previous administration’s acceptance of the death of 500,000 Iraqi children as being caused by U.S. led sanctions during the 1990s.

   2. did a “What Me Worry?” and let the statement stand.

5. After 600 American soldiers had been killed in the hunt for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, George W. Bush:
   1. held a memorial ceremony to honor their lives.

   2. did a “What Me Worry?” by filming a mock hunt of WMD in the oval office to entertain the attendees at the annual dinner of the Radio and Television News Correspondents Association.

6. When it became clear that U.S. troops in Iraq did not have the armored vehicles necessary for their protection, George W. Bush:
   1. accepted blame for the poor planning and immediately arranged for increased shipment of armor for the troops.

   2. did a “What Me Worry?” excusing the oversight.

7. When the troops in Iraq found they were not provided with body armor George W. Bush:
   1. immediately called on Congress to shift funding from pork barrel spending to secure the needed body armor.

   2. did a “What Me Worry?” leaving the troops to buy their own body armor.

8. When the insurgents in Iraq continued guerilla attacks on U.S. troops after the May 1, 2003 Mission Accomplished celebration, George W. Bush:
   1. decided to bring the troops back home to the U.S.

   2. did a “What Me Worry?” by uttering the challenge, “bring it on.”

9. Once it became clear that not only was the invasion of Iraq not a cakewalk, the troops weren’t greeted with flowers, finding weapons of mass destruction wasn’t a slam dunk, and the insurgency strong and persistent, George W. Bush:
   1. admitted to his mistakes and replaced the principals in charge.

   2. did a “What Me Worry?” and awarded medals to Paul Bremer, Tommy Franks, and George Tenet.

10. After Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast on Monday, August 29th, George W. Bush’s response on Tuesday, August 30th was to:
    1. immediately launch into a disaster relief readiness mode by meeting with the relevant officials in his administration.

    2. do a “What Me Worry?” by going to Utah to talk to a veteran’s group to try to counter the negative publicity from Cindy Sheehan.

11. When asked about the lack of timely response to the Hurricane Katrina George W. Bush:
    1. fired the head of Homeland Security for his failures.

    2. did a “What Me Worry?” by falsely claiming that no one knew the levees could fail.

12. After firing aid Lawrence Lindsey in 2002 for forecasting that the Iraq war would eventually cost the U.S. as much as $200 billion, George W. Bush:
    1. made a public apology to Lindsey in his 2006 State of the Union speech because the costs had risen to over $320 billion.

    2. did a “What Me Worry?” and forged ahead asking the Congress for another $50 billion without acknowledging any of his errors.

13. When the number of terrorist attacks in 2003 more than tripled from 2002, George W. Bush:
    1. acknowledged the problem and admitted it was time to rethink his War on Terror.

    2. did a “What Me Worry?” and directed the State Department to drop the figures from its annual Congressionally-mandated report.

14. With the fact that unintended consequences plaque even the best planned nation-building and war-making, George W. Bush:
    1. moved cautiously in invading a country with an alien culture.

    2. did a “What Me Worry?” and turned former U.S. ally and enemy of Iran, Iraq, into a burgeoning clone of Shiite-led Iran.

15. Given that Middle Easterners take an exceptionally long view of history, George W. Bush:
    1. studiously avoided linking the U.S. invasion of Iraq to the Crusades.

    2. did a “What Me Worry?” and referred to the War on Terror as a “crusade.”

16. After campaigning as a fiscal conservative, George W. Bush:
    1. submitted budgets to Congress limiting spending and vetoed any excess spending implemented by Congress.

    2. did a “What Me Worry?” by becoming not only the biggest spending president since LBJ, but also the first president since 1881 to never exercise his veto power.

17. To limit the spread of nuclear weapons into terrorists’ hands, George W. Bush:
    1. took a leadership role in the world to secure old Soviet nuclear weapons.

    2. did a “What Me Worry?” and ignored the hundreds of Soviet weapons though securing them would have cost less than two week’s expense in the Iraq war.

18. After pledging that Osama Bin Laden would be hunted down and brought in “dead or alive,” George W. Bush:
    1. has maintained a more-than-4-years focus on doing just that.

    2. did a “What Me Worry?” and later stated, “I truly am not that concerned about him.”

19. After the American people were repeatedly told that Iraqi oil revenues would shoulder the costs of rebuilding Iraq, George W. Bush:
    1. went to the American people and apologized for the faulty estimates.

    2. did a “What Me Worry?” and pressed on with billions more in spending for the rebuilding efforts.

20. Given the extraordinary efforts she engaged in to meet with him, George W. Bush:
    1. expressed regret that he could not meet with Gold Star mother Cindy Sheehan due to scheduling problems.
    2. did a “What Me Worry?” and stated that while on vacation it was more important to “go on with my life” than to meet with the dead soldier’s mother.

With thanks to Alfred E. Neuman who even looks like the separated-at-birth twin to George W. Bush.

Jim Cox is an Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Lawrenceville Campus of Georgia Perimeter College and the author of The Concise Guide to Economics and Minimum Wage, Maximum Damage.

`

Item

Iraq 2003—2005

Vietnam 1965—1967

16

Poisonous weapon used?

depleted uranium

agent orange

17

Administration’s response to soldier complaints of being poisoned by US weapons?

denial

denial

18

US troop deaths?

2,178

16,159

19

Troops in country during 3rd year?

160,000

500,000

20

US troop deaths per troops in country?

136 per 10,000

300 per 10,000

21

Number of President’s children of military age?

2

2

22

Number of President’s children serving in military?

0

0

23

Strange concept of liberation applied?

We had to destroy it to save it

We had to destroy it to save it

24

Who have war supporters blamed for lack of quick victory?

news media, war protestors

news media, war protestors

25

Who have war supporters not blamed for lack of quick victory?

administration war planners

administration war planners

26

Language, history, and customs unknown to American soldiers on the ground?

yes

yes

27

Election held to choose head of state of country?

December 15, 2005

October 21, 1967

28

Monthly cost to US for operations in country (in 2004 dollars)

$5.6 billion

$5.1 billion

29

Member of US Congress calls for withdrawal?

John Murtha
D-PA

Eugene McCarthy
D-MN

30

Term increasingly applied to US involvement?

quagmire

quagmire

Thus, we can all still take comfort securely in our knowledge that Iraq is not Vietnam; Vietnam is spelled with a "V" and is in Southeast Asia, Iraq is spelled with an "I" and is in Southwest Asia.

Jim Cox is an Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Lawrenceville Campus of Georgia Perimeter College and the author of The Concise Guide to Economics and Minimum Wage, Maximum Damage.

But lost in this history, and what ultimately allowed for a flourishing population, was the transformation of the colony from a collectivized (commune-ist, with a small “c”) system of production to that of an individual property-based system of production. (This collectivist arrangement for the colonists had been foolishly required by the investors in the venture.)

Governor Bradford recorded the experiences of the Pilgrims in his detailed diary and described their experience with collectivized production this way:

“For this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men that were most able and fit for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.”

In 1623, after having seen the devastation brought on by a collectivized system of production, the colonists wisely transformed their tiny economy into one based on private property production — and flourished. The words from the diary tell the story:

“So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. …the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves…And so assigned to every family a parcel of land. …This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any [other] means…The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have thought great tyranny and oppression.”

Without this change the population of Plymouth Colony would surely have suffered the same devastation in subsequent years as they did the first two. If indeed the Plymouth Colony had been decimated, as others were, their experiences would rate at best a footnote in American colonial history and not be the foundation of one of our major annual holidays.

Thus Thanksgiving Day is not merely a celebration of that for which we should feel grateful, but has its origins in a particular system of producing that which we have — the system of individual initiative in a private property arrangement. This is the arrangement to which the rest of the world is moving, and unfortunately which this country — which achieved its most dramatic successes — is in the process of abandoning. The Pilgrims have a lot to teach a twenty-first century America which is losing its way. A happy individualist private property—based production day to all!

Jim Cox is an Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science at the Lawrenceville Campus of Georgia Perimeter College and the author of The Concise Guide to Economics and Minimum Wage, Maximum Damage.

The following is a comprehensive recounting of the bad to be found in The FairTax Book:

The book isn’t about reducing taxes or spending but about funding the entirety of current spending levels (2).

The historical example of the 1872 repeal of the income tax is noted, but the lesson that it was done without trading the income tax for a new tax is overlooked (11).

The tax trade in the Ruml plan of 1942 — with the taxpayer taking it on the chin — is recounted, but the lesson of not trusting politicians with such tax trades is ignored (27).

More than an entire chapter is spent celebrating the idea of every household receiving a monthly check from the federal government (79—90).

A reference to "replacing virtually all personal income and corporate taxes" is slipped in, apparently betraying the book’s claim that the national sales tax will replace all of these taxes (82).

There’s a passing reference to politicians who thrive on others’ dependency, but the idea of every household receiving a monthly check from the feds disturbs these authors not at all (88).

The authors seem quite stressed over individuals using things such as Offshore Financial Services and Eurodollar transactions to avoid death taxes and other taxes (99—100).

The authors want the US to become a tax haven for businesses, but bellyache about other countries being such tax havens (100—101).

Part of the FairTaxers’ propaganda that the intended sales tax rate will generate as much revenue as all of the current income-based federal taxes do today is based on three unrealistic assumptions: 1) no increase in black market activities; 2) governments at all levels paying the tax; and 3) no additional exceptions to what is taxed being implemented (106).

It is claimed that businesses will no longer need to keep payroll records (108). Then, inconsistently, the authors state that businesses will in fact report the number of quarters of employment to the Social Security Administration (168), while the FairTax.org website states: "Employers continue to report wages for each employee … for the determination of benefits." [emphasis added]

The authors believe that when people avoid any taxes it causes an increase in other people’s taxes (4, 93—94) — despite the fact that at other times they tell us politicians will always spend any additional money they receive (136).

The authors celebrate the prospect of broadening the tax base for the unconstitutional Social Security program and bemoan the fact that currently Social Security taxes are not levied on dividends (136—137).

Apparently it is offensive that the IRS would demand that golfer Lee Trevino pay gift taxes on heart surgery he paid for his caddy, but not offensive if he were forced to pay their hefty sales tax on that same surgery (142).

Revealing a near-psychotic level of navety, the authors tell us that the kind of abuses suffered under the IRS "simply wouldn’t happen" once the FairTax is implemented (145—146).

In the Q & A, we’re told that questions and objections unanswered in the book itself is why we have talk shows and email and that the Neal Boortz Show is the unofficial clearinghouse for the FairTax. Yet Boortz has avoided answering the objections I have raised (as well as those of others who have contacted me) (148, 179).

The authors attack doubters who point out that the plan calls for a sales tax rate that is 30% of an item’s price, claiming that such critics "never miss a trick." Yet Boortz and Linder wrongly claim that their misleading, but more appealing, 23%, is the proper figure (152).

To further muddy the waters concerning the intended national sales tax rate the book refers to a $100 item as one priced at $77 with the $23 worth of tax. Once upon a time, one of the touted virtues of the proposal was to bring the tax rate out in the open for the taxpayers…now the intention is to hide the tax within the price as politicians currently do with gasoline prices (152, 154)?

Denying the lessons of marginal analysis, we’re told the deductibility of charitable contributions has no effect on the decision to contribute — in their enthusiasm for this new tax scheme these guys will claim anything to tout the FairTax, it seems (164—165).

In defiance of all common sense, law, and history the authors claim that politicians will only be able to change the tax rate itself, not which items the tax is applied to, once the FairTax becomes law (166).

First, we’re told that the FairTax will apply to all new retail purchases, goods and services alike, then inexplicably we’re told that that your monthly bill for access to the Internet will not be so taxed (77, 170).

The authors expect us to cheer at the prospect of the states’ new-found power in collecting an extra $20 billion on sales of goods through the Internet (171).

We’re told that the FairTax will not apply to education expenses (at least college and other tuition), while nothing is said about home schooling supplies and other such spending. This is based on the idea that education is an "investment." Of course, this gives away the fact that everyone will be clamoring to have the goods and services they sell officially classified as "investments," thus unraveling the alleged simplicity of the entire scheme and keeping all those K Street lobbyists in business (171).

The authors call for reaching for the possible. But surely there are better possible goals to reach for than building a movement to institute the FairTax. How about for instance, a movement to limit government to its Constitutional functions (174)?

A virtue claimed for the FairTax is that it was not written by politicians, though of course the final bill will be. The authors claim in contrast that the income tax was written by politicians, though they ignore their own recounting of how the income tax came from the mind of Karl Marx (175, 180).

They have the audacity to state that "income taxes are seized. Consumption taxes are paid." It’s time to apply the often-stated Boortz challenge: try not paying your [sales] tax and see how voluntary they are (176).

The authors manage to refer to their status-quo-protecting $2.5 trillion take for the feds as "revolutionary legislation" (178).

The cheap shot is taken against those who dissent from this scheme. So let me say that I did not read this book and write this critique because I like shooting down other people’s ideas, or have no ideas of my own. Here are a few alternatives to the FairTax:

• The Liberty Amendment is supported by the most libertarian/strict constructionist member of Congress, Ron Paul of Texas. The two authors could have written a book called Constitutional Government and developed a following for this amendment — but they didn’t.

• The Read the Bills Act is a piece of legislation deserving of support; but this hoopla over the FairTax helps to keep people from knowing about it.

• Walter Williams has proposed a Constitutional Amendment worthy of support, but again, it’s not well known in part due to the energies devoted to the FairTax scheme.

• Milton Friedman, through the National Tax Limitation Committee, has proposed constitutional changes as well.

• Harry Browne detailed a way to eliminate all taxes, except the current import duties and excise taxes.

• The Cato Institute has published its Handbook for Congress now for more than 10 years. The Handbook has hundreds of pages of analysis and literally dozens and dozens of specific policy recommendations and is distributed to all 535 members of the House and Senate each Congressional term.

I can only conclude that neither of our two authors wants Americans to know anything about these — and many other — worthy ideas since they don’t mention them in the book, discuss them on the radio, or tout them on the Internet (179).

With seemingly no shame at all, the authors actually brag of their efforts to fund the current expenses of the grossly bloated federal government (179).

Rising to new levels of silliness the authors tell us the FairTax will have none of the flaws of the current income tax (180).

Yes, America is better than the income tax, as the authors say; but it is also clearly better than the FairTax (180).

And finally, in calling the FairTax movement the "Second American Revolution"(!) the authors apparently believe the American Revolution was not about individual rights and limited government but about a way to fund the British Empire more efficiently, in lieu of a tax on tea (180).

Jim Cox is an Associate Professor of Economics at the Lawrenceville Campus of Georgia Perimeter College and author of Minimum Wage, Maximum Damage.

The
following is a comprehensive recounting of the good to be found
in The
FairTax Book:

The
progressive income tax is noted as a major plank in Karl Marx's
ten-point plan for a communist society (p. xx–1) as are government
schools (1).

Tax
confiscations are limited only by the people's willingness to tolerate
it; politicians have no limit to what they would take (10).

The
U.S. survived with no income tax for most of its history (10).

The
intended federal system, with 95% of the governing at the local
level and a mere 5% by the national government, is noted (10–11).

Citing
Thomas Woods, it is noted that the war of 1861–1865 was not a civil
war, but a war for independence from the national government (11).

The
sordid history of the income tax, based on the work of Arthur Ekirch,
is recounted in detail (11–30).

It
is routine for politicians to give a bill a deceptive title (12).

Charlotee Twight is referenced regarding the history of the withholding
feature of the income tax (23).

Corporations
don't pay taxes; only individuals do (32–37).

The
high cost of tax compliance is noted (39–50).

The
employer's share of Social Security and Medicare is actually paid
by the employee (42, 125).

The
IRS helpline gives out faulty information as a matter of routine
(48).

Taxes
add significantly to the cost of goods we buy (51–60).

Corporations
move offshore to avoid the high US tax rates (62–67).

The
fraud of the Earned Income Tax is noted (83).

The
politicians have the audacity to call any money they don't tax away
from those earning it, "tax expenditures" (96).

Milton
Friedman is quoted on the relation of economic freedom to freedom
in general (109–110).

Knowledge
of the tax code is the lobbyists' intellectual capital (114).

There
have been ten thousand amendments to the simplified tax code of
1986, all to the benefit of those lobbying for the changes (115).

Unearned
income is set off in quotation marks to indicate the phony distinction
between it and earned income (126–128).

James
Bovard's book Lost Rights is recommended (145).

An
entire chapter is devoted to IRS outrages (139–146).

Milton
Friedman is quoted on the ill effects of a Value Added Tax (154).

Congress
can be depended on to spend every dollar it gets its hands on to
fund vote-buying programs (136).

Frank
Chodorov is favorably cited as a champion of liberty (175).

America
became great due to the freedom of the people rather than due to
government programs (176).

All
of these facts show all the more reason to GET RID OF THE INCOME
TAX. But why replace it with another government program that we
know from history will only create more government growth and fraud?

Next
article: what's offensive in this "libertarian" book.

November
4, 2005

Jim
Cox is an Associate Professor of Economics at the Lawrenceville
Campus of Georgia Perimeter College and author of Minimum
Wage, Maximum Damage.

No
one should trust politicians (Neal actually says he doesn't!). Just
because a bill reads one way when it is looking for sponsors doesn’t
mean it will read the same once its worked its way through committee
and the entire House and then the Senate and the conference committee
and the regulations to be written after becoming law. (Neal thinks
we should be grateful that the enforcement agency writing the regulations
to implement and collect the tax will go by some name other than
"Internal Revenue Service.")

Think
of who will be involved in all of this: the Ted Kennedys, Harry
Reids, Chuck Schumers, as well as a bunch of Republicans who are
on the biggest spending spree since LBJ and the saviors of America
who were elected with the Contract with America and then couldn’t
even kill off the National Endowment for the Arts!

In
my dealings with FairTax enthusiasts I’ve challenged them (and I’m
asking readers here as well) to give me a (some) meaningful example(s)
of politicians trading away some power for a new taxing authority.
So far, no examples.

I
have repeatedly sent this point to The TalkMaster by email, snail
mail, and at my Amazon
review. Neal regularly responds to dissenters on
the air and at his website,
but NEVER to this basic point or to my other three. So, I'm calling
you out, Neal Boortz. Answer the very serious concern about trading
power to politicians. Do it here for the very popular LewRockwell.com
website where you can reach so many politically aware readers. Do
it here where your allies on seemingly all other economic issues
– the minimum wage law, government schools, tax cuts, eminent
domain, business regulation, socialism, price controls, etc., etc.
– can be won over. Do it here so the prolific writers at this
website can be enlisted in your great cause. Do it here to enlighten
the economic writers you repeatedly and properly recommend, such
as Walter
Williams and Harry
Browne, so they can shed their mistaken views on the FairTax.
We're eagerly awaiting you, Neal.

August
30, 2005

Jim
Cox is an Associate Professor of Economics at the Lawrenceville
Campus of Georgia Perimeter College and author of Minimum
Wage, Maximum Damage.

A rising concern that Iraq is becoming the new Vietnam has prompted many commentators to denounce any such comparisons as too ridiculous to be entertained. Here's a comparison of Iraq limited to 2003–2004 to match the first two years of US ground troop involvement in fighting in Vietnam, 1965–1966 to show the difference:

–

Item

Iraq 2003–2004

Vietnam 1965–1966

1

Commander-in-Chief?

Texan, George W. Bush (with stateside duty during Vietnam war)

Texan, Lyndon B. Johnson (with stateside duty during World War II)

2

Justification for invasion?

Based on deceptions – WMD, 9/11, aluminum tubes, etc

Based on deceptions – Gulf of Tonkin

3

US Casualties?

1,432 killed, 3,000+ wounded

3,910 killed, 5,000+ wounded

4

War Declared by Congress as required by US Constitution?

No, instead a resolution authorizing the president to take action he deems necessary

No, instead a resolution authorizing the president to take action he deems necessary

5

Enemy?

Not a nation, but an abstraction – terrorism

Not a nation, but an abstraction – the spread of communism

6

Frontlines?

No frontlines, guerilla resistance

No frontlines, guerilla resistance

7

President makes TV appearance to reassure Americans of the necessity of the war?

Yes, after 2 years – 2005

Yes, after 3 years – 1968

8

Handling of the Federal Budget?

Guns and butter policy

Guns and butter policy

9

Party in control of Congress?

No check and balance as Congress is in the hands of the same party as the Presidency

No check and balance as Congress is in the hands of the same party as the Presidency

10

Troops?

Enlistments buttressed by deployment extensions, and National Guard and Reserves

Enlistments buttressed by draft

11

Troops in country?

140,000

200,000

12

Alliance?

minimal troops from allied countries

minimal troops from allied countries

13

History of country?

former colony of a European power (Britain, 1917–1932)

former colony of a European power (France, 1887–1954)

14

Hoped for Solution?

Iraqification

Vietnamization

15

Most extreme suggestion?

Michael Savage: "Drop a nuclear bomb on the Sunni triangle."

Curtis LeMay: "Bomb them back to the stone age."

Thus, we can all take comfort securely in our knowledge that Iraq is not Vietnam; Vietnam is spelled with a "V" and is in Southeast Asia, Iraq is spelled with an "I" and is in Southwest Asia.

Jim Cox is an Associate Professor of Economics at the Lawrenceville Campus of Georgia Perimeter College and author of Minimum Wage, Maximum Damage.

First, politicians cannot be trusted with a
new tax traded for some existing tax. We’ll end up with both: the
sales tax on top of the income tax.

American history is replete with politicians
promising to deliver a later benefit to the American people if they
get more taxing authority immediately.

During World War II, American workers were for
the first time subject to the withholding tax, having been told
that it was only a temporary wartime measure.

The war ended more than 59 years ago; the withholding
feature lives on.

In 1982, President Reagan – the most celebrated
of all tax-cutting presidents – agreed to an income tax increase
on the promise from Congress of a $3 reduction in spending for every
$1 increase in taxes. Reagan boasted to the American people of the
bargain he had engineered. Americans suffered the tax increase but
never saw the promised spending reductions.

Why so many people are anxious to repeat these
foul experiences is baffling. The clear lesson is: never pursue
tax trades with politicians.

Further, the FairTax proposal can be passed
by a simple majority of both houses of Congress plus the President’s
signature. But the much-touted repeal of the 16th Amendment, which
authorizes the income tax, requires a much more demanding 2/3 vote
in each house and then approval by of state legislatures. The
likelihood of ending up with both the 23% federal tax and the current
income tax is therefore all the greater.

Second, the proposed national retail sales tax
will be set at 23 percent to replace the revenues from the individual
and corporate income tax, as well as the payroll taxes for Social
Security and Medicare. Added to this 23 percent tax will be the
states’ average sales taxes of more than 6 percent. A 29 percent
sales tax will generate pressure to turn the sales tax into a value-added
tax (VAT).

This will happen because such a large tax will
generate a black market in goods to avoid the added tax. Politicians
will find it in their self-interest to transform the FairTax into
a tax at various stages of production – a VAT. This same process developed
after the income tax was instituted – withholding was created in part
to mask the actual level of taxation.

Third, the much-touted end of the Internal Revenue
Service is a sham. Some enforcement agency will be needed to handle
tax collections. One provision of the national retail sales tax
is to issue rebates equal to the sales taxes paid on essential goods
and services to ensure that no American pays taxes on necessities.
There will have to be a way to distinguish who gets these monthly
checks. So a federal agency that tracks individuals will persist.
Changing the name of the IRS while maintaining its functions is
pointless. Added to this is the very serious concern of so many
Americans becoming accustomed to a monthly check from Uncle Sam.
A massive constituency will be created which will pressure Congress
for increases in the definition of necessities. The FairTax will
indirectly become the means of an ever-greater expansion of government.

Further, the Social Security Administration
will keep records for the federal government to determine an individual's
Social Security benefits based on…their income. Here's
the way it's stated at the FairTax
website: "…Social Security
[will] operate exactly as it does today, …Employers will continue
to report wages for each employee…."

And fourth – and most importantly – working on this
tax trade diverts scarce political energy from the cause of limiting
federal spending and taxation to the cause of rearranging the means
of tax collections.

One could believe that this entire movement
is a grand conspiracy to waste the time and energy of political
activists – activists who are now chasing after insignificant differences
in the way taxes are collected and therefore ignoring the real issues
of obscenely high federal taxes and obscenely high federal spending.

March
29, 2005

Jim
Cox is an Associate Professor of Economics at the Lawrenceville
Campus of Georgia Perimeter College and author of Minimum
Wage, Maximum Damage.

By
raising the age of eligibility for military service a whole generation
of patriots can participate in military service, rather than being
relegated to merely championing it from afar for the young.

And
so in the spirit of Rush Limbaugh's suggestion for an All-Women's
Amazon Brigade, I hereby suggest the formation of a Super Macho
Patriot Brigade.

What
are the qualifications for the Super Macho Patriot Brigade? Candidates
must 1) be a vocal advocate of current US military operations, 2)
be over age 40, 3) have not served in the military in their youth – which
is to say did everything imaginable to avoid service during the
Vietnam or other war era, and 4) earn an above average, very comfortable
living substantially in part by championing service in the Iraq
War.

Finally,
with the implementation of the Super Macho Patriot Brigade, the
folks fitting the above profile will be able to shed their Chickenhawk
reputation.

So
who comes to mind as candidates for the Super Macho Patriot Brigade?

Certainly
Rush Limbaugh, who avoided military service in the late 1960s due
to a cyst on his behind. Cysts are treatable, so I assume this was
done decades ago. Maybe Rush can enlighten us when he rushes down
to the recruitment office. And of course Rush has lost a lot of
weight these past several years and is an active golfer, being so
physically accomplished that he even participates in tournaments
regularly.

Sean
Hannity, who once laughed off the idea of his enlisting with the
quip, "they don't want 41-year-olds with a spare tire around
their waist." Now they do, Sean. Besides, eight weeks of basic
training will take care of the spare tire. But Sean's personal trainer
has already buffed him up for his time in the military, so this
really is no excuse at all.

Neal
Boortz. Now admittedly, in contrast to his soon-to-be comrades in
arms, Neal actually did try to join in his youth. Neal's asthma
kept him out of the service. Of course, there have been many advances
in medical treatments and technology to lighten the physical requirements
of military service during the intervening years. And like the other
two, Neal boasts of being in good shape from his work with a personal
trainer, even to the point that he regularly pilots acrobatic planes
and hot-air balloons, skis mountains around the world, and is an
avid and knowledgeable gun enthusiast. Surely, if anything, Neal
may actually be overqualified to begin his military service as a
private.

Others
who quickly come to mind include moralist Bill Bennett, blabbermouth
Michael Savage, politico Newt Gingrich, the hateful Ann Coulter,
privileged Michael Reagan, suck-up Joe Scarborough, Vice President
Dick Cheney, pompous Bill O'Reilly, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz,
Trent Lott, Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, Saxby Chambliss, Jeb Bush,
Bill Kristol, Roger Ailes, Ted Nugent, John Ashcroft…. When you
stop to think about it, there are quite a few high-profilers who
fit the pattern for membership. Yes, none of these gung-ho war enthusiasts
ever served in the military.

Other
than relieving these very public patriots of their "do as I
say, not as I do" hypocrisy, think of the practical and moral
benefits of each of the Super Macho Patriot Brigade members replacing
a 20-year-old in combat.

The
20-year-old has only begun his adult life. The 20-year-old, in contrast
to the Brigade members, has not experienced years of marital bliss,
the joy of offspring, a fulfilling career, wealth and fame. These
proposed Brigade members have enjoyed literally decades of adult
life and all of its attendant experiences along with a level of
wealth and fame beyond most Americans' comprehension. If Americans
must die in service
to their country, as these folks constantly tell us is necessary,
surely it should be those who have already had a full life rather
than those just starting out.

Think
of what a lift to the spirits of their fellow soldiers these rich,
older, famous, accomplished people will bring when they are seen
shoulder to shoulder with our men in uniform. And so, as a public
service, I offer this proposal and await the enthusiastic response
for those eligible to fill the ranks of the Super Macho Patriot
Brigade.

March
3, 2005

Jim
Cox is an Associate Professor of Economics at the Lawrenceville
Campus of Georgia Perimeter College and author of Minimum
Wage, Maximum Damage.

1. Kim
   Il Sung
2. Donald
   Rumsfeld

3. Jacques
   Chirac

The
answer to each question is "b."

1. Which nation
   financially supported Iraq's Baath Party's rise to power in the
   1960's?
   1. Iran
   2. US
   3. Soviet
      Union

   This is
   the political party of Saddam Hussein. The
   US helped bring the Baath Party (a socialist party) to power.

2. Which
   nation allied itself with Saddam Hussein from 1980 to 1990?
   1. Iran
   2. US
   3. Soviet
      Union

   The
   US had no compunctions about allying itself with Hussein
   even though it was during this period when the majority of the
   killings of his own people as well as the gassing of the Kurds
   occurred.

3. Which nation's
   ambassador to Iraq pledged that it would remain on the sidelines
   when
   Hussein inquired about the reaction to invading Kuwait in 1990?
   1. Iran
   2. US
   3. France

   Said
   U.S. Ambassador Glaspie — "We have no opinion on your
   Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary
   (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction,
   first given to Iraq in the 1960′s, that the Kuwait issue is
   not associated with America."

4. Which country
   was the first to gas Iraqis?
   1. Iraq
      itself
   2. Great
      Britain
   3. Soviet
      Union

   Great
   Britain used gas to quell an uprising by the Kurds in 1920.

5. Who drew
   the borders of Iraq?
   1. Iraqis
      themselves
   2. The
      British
   3. Iranians

   The British
   drew the borders of Iraq after World War I.

6. Which
   country opposes the secession of the Kurds from Iraq?
   1. Iran
   2. US
   3. Kuwait

   Bush
   has pledged that the current boundaries of Iraq — no Kurdish
   independence — will be maintained.

7. Colin Powell
   has stated that the intelligence on Iraq's WMD was:
   1. accurate
   2. flawed
   3. never
      to be questioned

   In 2004
   Powell
   acknowledged that the information presented to the UN to
   justify the invasion of Iraq which he presented in 2003 was
   "flawed."

8. The most
   secular government in the Middle East in the 1990's was:
   1. Iran
   2. Iraq
   3. Kuwait

   "Iraq
   was not controlled by a fundamentalist Muslim government, something
   that is now a possibility. One could even purchase a drink
   in Baghdad. The Baath government tolerated both Jews and Christians,
   something not to be seen in Muslim countries like Indonesia,
   Turkey, and Iran"

9. Which of
   these countries has been the most tolerant of Christians during
   the
   last 20 years?
   1. Iran
   2. Iraq
   3. Saudi
      Arabia

   "Unlike
   any other regime in the Middle East, Saddam
   has permitted Christians to occupy high public office. This
   includes the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Assiz, who is a Roman
   Catholic. In addition, Saddam's regime has permitted a degree
   of free practice for Christians that is positively enviable
   compared to the situations experienced in such U.S. u2018allies'
   as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Christmas and Easter decorations
   always abound, even in Baghdad, and attending church does not
   require an act of courage."

10. Into what
    country has Iraq never sent troops?
    1. Kuwait
    2. US
    3. Iran

    Iraq sent
    troops into Iran during its 1980-1988 war, and into Kuwait in
    1990, but never into the US.

11. Which of
    the following countries was not represented among the 19
    hijackers of
    9-11?
    1. Eqypt
    2. Iraq
    3. Saudi
       Arabia

    Of
    the 19 hijackers, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, and 4 from
    Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Lebanon.

12. Which
    country supplied Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons during the
    1980's?
    1. Turkey
    2. US
    3. Soviet
       Union

    The US
    sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein between 1985 and
    1990.

13. Which country's
    intelligence operatives helped overthrow the only Islamic democracy
    in the Middle East in 1953?
    1. Iraq
    2. US
    3. Soviet
       Union

    Along with
    the British, the
    CIA overthrew the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister
    Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, ending the only Islamic democracy
    in the Middle East.

14. Who
    made two trips to meet with Saddam Hussein during the 1980's as
    a special representative of his country to confirm a renewal of
    diplomatic relations?
    1. Kim
       Il Park
    2. Donald
       Rumsfeld
    3. Jacques
       Chirac

    Reagan
    sent special high level envoy, Donald
    Rumsfeld to confirm the new relation with Iraq in 1983.

15. Which is
    the only Middle Eastern/Southwest Asian country not in
    possession of nuclear weapons?
    1. Israel
    2. Iraq
    3. Pakistan

    Pakistan
    is known to have nuclear weapons, Israel does not confirm or
    deny, but it's no secret. Iraq has none.

16. Which country's
    intelligence information supplied to the UN weapons inspectors
    in Iraq was concluded to be "garbage after garbage after
    garbage."
    1. Iraq
    2. US
    3. France

    The US
    supplied information on where to hunt for weapons in 2002 and
    2003, none
    of which proved to be fruitful.

17. According
    to UN estimates, the US-led embargo against Iraq from 1991 until
    1996 resulted in:
    1. no
       deaths, only pressure on Saddam Hussein to reform
    2. the
       death of 500,000 Iraqi children
    3. the
       death of 500 Iraqis, total

    In 1996,
    Secretary
    of State Madeline Albright stated approval of the sanctions
    even with the estimate of 500,000 children dying as a result.
    Neither the Clinton nor Bush administration ever disputed these
    estimates.

18. After
    the 1991 Gulf War, who encouraged the Kurds to revolt against
    Saddam Hussein only to withdraw support after the revolt began?
    1. Kofi
       Anon
    2. George
       H. W. Bush
    3. Vladimir
       Putin

    Overly
    confident that Hussein would be overthrown, G.
    H. W. Bush reneged on his plans and more than 100,000 Iraqis
    were killed.

19. Who made
    the decision for UN weapons inspectors to leave Iraq in 1998?
    1. they
       were evicted by Saddam Hussein
    2. UN
       weapons inspector Richard Butler in anticipation of a US/British
       military attack
    3. UN
       weapons inspectors did not leave in 1998

    Hussein
    did not kick out the UN weapons inspectors; they left to
    avoid being killed in the ensuing attack.

20. The number
    of American combat deaths during the first 12 months of which
    conflict was the greatest?
    1. Vietnam
       1965
    2. Iraq
       War 2003
    3. Gulf
       War 1991

    US
    losses in Iraq during the first 12 months were 550, March
    2003-February 2004; 65
    in Vietnam in 1965; 148
    during the 1991 Gulf War.

April
15, 2004

Jim
Cox is an Associate Professor of Economics and Political Science
at the Lawrenceville Campus of Georgia Perimeter College and author
of The
Concise Guide to Economics. His website is: http://www.gpc.edu/~jcox/.