The Pronk Pops Show 478, June 4, 2015, Story 1: Rick Perry Announces His Candidacy For President in 2016 — Enters A Very Crowded Candidate Field — Run Rick Run — Big Interventionist Government Statist (BIGS) Cheerleader — Voters Beware of Identity Politics Videos

Posted on June 5, 2015. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Benghazi, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, Hillary Clinton, History, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Investments, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Media, Middle East, Monetary Policy, Natural Gas, News, Obama, Oil, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, President Barack Obama, Pro Life, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Scandals, Science, Security, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, United States Constitution, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 478 June 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 477 June 3, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 476 June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475 June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474 May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473 May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472 May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471 May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470 May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469 May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468 May 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 467 May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466 May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465 May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464 May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463 May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462 May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461 May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460 May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459 May 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 458 May 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 457 April 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 456: April 29, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 455: April 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 454: April 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 453: April 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 452: April 23, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 451: April 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 450: April 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 449: April 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 448: April 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 447: April 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 446: April 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 445: April 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 444: April 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 443: April 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 442: April 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 441: April 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 438: March 31, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 437: March 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 436: March 27, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 435: March 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 434: March 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 433: March 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 432: March 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 431: March 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 430: March 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 429: March 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 428: March 17, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 427: March 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 426: March 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 425: March 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 424: March 2, 2015

Story 1: Rick Perry Announces His Candidacy For President in 2016 — Enters A Very Crowded Candidate Field — Run Rick Run — Big Interventionist Government Statist (BIGS) Cheerleader — Voters Beware of Identity Politics  Videos

2016 candidates 2016-candidates announcegraphicperry

potential 2016 candidates_3

perry and plane  perry announcement perry supporter rick perry plane 2perry-for-president-plane-insetperry and wife

Rick Perry Announces Running For President in 2016 | Presidential Bid | FULL SPEECH

Rick Perry Announces Running For President in 2016 | Presidential Bid | FULL SPEECH

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry told a crowd at an airport hangar outside Dallas today that he would seek the presidency a second time, saying he was running because “it’s time for a reset, time to reset the relationship between government and citizen.”

“We have the power to make things new again, to project America’s strength again, and to get our economy going again,” Perry, 65, told those gathered at a public airfield in Addison, Texas, to hear the longtime politician formally announce his campaign. “That is exactly why today I’m running for the presidency of the United States of America.”

Five Things You Might Not Know About Gov. Rick Perry
Perry Poses For Mugshot, Treats Himself To Ice Cream Cone
Perry, whose more than 14 years in office made him the longest-serving governor in Texas history, joins a stronger presidential field than he faced four years ago. Already, nine other Republicans have formally announced presidential candidacies, and at least half a dozen more are expected to jump into the 2016 race.

His speech, the plane he stood in front of and the prominent veterans joining him onstage highlighted his credentials as one of just a few 2016 presidential contenders who have served in the military. He flew planes while in the Air Force for five years in the 1970s.

“I was proud to wear the uniform of our country as an Air Force officer,” Perry said, praising his father, a World War II veteran, and even George Washington’s selflessness. Perry rose to the rank of captain during his time in the military.

Taya Kyle, the widow of Chris Kyle, who inspired the movie “American Sniper,” appeared onstage with Perry along with several other notable veterans, including Marcus Luttrell, a retired Navy SEAL whose book “Lone Survivor” was made into a feature film.

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry made it official on Thursday, joining the already-crowded field of candidates for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

Perry, whose infamous “Oops” moment during the last GOP primary derailed what had been a promising start to his 2012 campaign, announced his latest bid at a rally inside a hot airplane hanger north of Dallas.

“We’re at the end of an era of failed leadership,” Perry told supporters. “We are a resilient country. We’ve been through a civil war, two world wars, the Great Depression — we even made it through Jimmy Carter. We will make it through the Obama years.”

Perry was joined onstage by Taya Kyle, widow of “American Sniper” author Chris Kyle, and retired U.S. Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, author of “Lone Survivor.”

Rick Perry, the former Texas governor whose 2012 campaign for the White House turned into a political disaster that humbled and weakened the most powerful Republican in the state, announced Thursday that he will run for president again in 2016.

Mr. Perry is the latest candidate to officially enter a crowded field of Republican presidential contenders, declared and undeclared, several of whom have Texas ties and have overshadowed him in recent months, including Senator Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush, the brother of former President George W. Bush, Mr. Perry’s predecessor in the governor’s mansion.

“We will make it through the Obama years,” he told a cheering crowd at a small municipal airport here in Addison, a northern suburb of downtown Dallas. Saying, “It’s time,” he declared in an impassioned speech, ”I am running for the presidency of the United States of America.”

The location had to do with his giant stage prop – a C-130 plane, the type he flew serving in the United States Air Force in the 1970s.

The plane – parked behind the stage and emblazoned with “Perry for President” – illustrated one of the ways Mr. Perry plans to distinguish himself from the other Republican candidates, by emphasizing his service in the military and his support from veterans, several of whom joined him on stage, including Marcus Luttrell, the former Navy SEAL whose memoir inspired the movie “Lone Survivor.”

In his speech, Mr. Perry also sought to separate himself from other Republican contenders by casting himself as a leader who has done the work rather than a politician who talks about doing it, pointing to his handling of natural disasters and crisises at the border and his 14-year tenure as governor of a state with the 12th-largest economy in the world.

Rick Perry announces his run for President

Rick Perry announces presidential run

Rick Perry Talks Immigration

14 Reasons Why Rick Perry Would Be A Really, Really Bad President – Alex Jones Tv

Rick Perry’s Border Solution is A Bait and Switch

NAFTA Superhighway Update

Rick Perry Betrays Texas on ‘Superhighway’ Deal with Spain

Rick Perry “very strong” in opposition to border wall

Rick Perry: a border wall is “ludicrous”

More Video: Rick Perry: Border Fence is “Nonsense”

14 REASONS WHY RICK PERRY WOULD BE A REALLY, REALLY BAD PRESIDENT

Bilderberg favorite Perry
Supporters of Texas Governor Rick Perry are not going to like this article at all. Right now, Republicans all over the United States are touting Rick Perry as the “Republican messiah” that is going to come charging in to save America from the presidency of Barack Obama. Many believe that if Rick Perry enters the race, he will instantly become the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Perry certainly looks the part and he knows how to give a good speech, but when ordinary Americans all over the country take a hard look at his record, they may not like what they see. The truth is that Rick Perry is a big-time globalist, he has raised taxes and fees in Texas numerous times, he has massively increased the size of government spending and government debt in Texas, he has been trying to ram the Trans-Texas Corridor down the throats of the Texas people and he tried to force young women all over Texas to be injected with the Gardasil vaccine. No, Rick Perry is not going to save America. In fact, he would likely be very, very similar to both Bush and Obama in a lot of ways.

Right now, Rick Perry is trying to portray himself as a “good conservative” so that if he enters the race he will be accepted by Christian conservatives. If Rick Perry did win the Republican nomination, he would have a great chance of winning the general election because he would very much be an “establishment” candidate.
But before Republicans get too excited about Rick Perry, there are a whole lot of things that they should know about him.

The following are 14 reasons why Rick Perry would be a really, really bad president….

#1 Rick Perry is a “big government” politician. When Rick Perry became the governor of Texas in 2000, the total spending by the Texas state government was approximately $49 billion. Ten years later it was approximately $90 billion. That is not exactly reducing the size of government.

#2 The debt of the state of Texas is out of control. According to usdebtclock.org, the debt to GDP ratio in Texas is 22.9% and the debt per citizen is $10,645. In California (a total financial basket case), the debt to GDP ratio is just 18.7% and the debt per citizen is only $9932. If Rick Perry runs for president these are numbers he will want to keep well hidden.

#3 The total debt of the Texas government has more than doubled since Rick Perry became governor. So what would the U.S. national debt look like after four (or eight) years of Rick Perry?

#4 Rick Perry has spearheaded the effort to lease roads in Texas to foreign companies, to turn roads that are already free to drive on into toll roads, and to develop the Trans-Texas Corridor which would be part of the planned NAFTA superhighway system. If you really do deep research on this whole Trans-Texas Corridor nonsense you will see why no American should ever cast a single vote for Rick Perry.

#5 Rick Perry claims that he has a “track record” of not raising taxes. That is a false claim. Rick Perry has repeatedly raised taxes and fees while he has been governor. Today, Texans are faced with significantly higher taxes and fees than they were before Rick Perry was elected.

#6 Even with the oil boom in Texas, 23 states have a lower unemployment rate than Texas does.

#7 Back in 1988, Rick Perry supported Al Gore for president. In fact, Rick Perry actually served as Al Gore’s campaign chairman in the state of Texas that year.

#8 Between December 2007 and April 2011, weekly wages in the U.S. increased by about 5 percent. In the state of Texas they increased by just 0.6% over that same time period.

#9 Texas now has one of the worst education systems in the nation. The following is from an opinion piece that was actually authored by Barbara Bush earlier this year….

•  We rank 36th in the nation in high school graduation rates. An estimated 3.8 million Texans do not have a high school diploma.

•  We rank 49th in verbal SAT scores, 47th in literacy and 46th in average math SAT scores.

•  We rank 33rd in the nation on teacher salaries.

#10 Rick Perry attended the Bilderberg Group meetings in 2007. Associating himself with that organization should be a red flag for all American voters.

#11 Texas has the highest percentage of workers making minimum wage out of all 50 states.

#12 Rick Perry often gives speeches about illegal immigration, but when you look at the facts, he has been incredibly soft on the issue. If Rick Perry does not plan to secure the border, then he should not be president because illegal immigration is absolutely devastating many areas of the southwest United States.

#13 In 2007, 221,000 residents of Texas were making minimum wage or less. By 2010, that number had risen to 550,000.

#14 Rick Perry actually issued an executive order in 2007 that would have forced almost every single girl in the state of Texas to receive the Gardasil vaccine before entering the sixth grade. Perry would have put parents in a position where they would have had to fill out an application and beg the government not to inject their child with an untested and unproven vaccine. Since then, very serious safety issues regarding this vaccine have come to light. Fortunately, lawmakers in Texas blocked what Perry was trying to do. According to Wikipedia, many were troubled when “apparent financial connections between Merck and Perry were reported by news outlets, such as a $6,000 campaign contribution and Merck’s hiring of former Perry Chief of Staff Mike Toomey to handle its Texas lobbying work.”

Rick Perry has a record that should make all Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and Independents cringe.

He is not the “conservative Republican” that he is trying to claim that he is. He is simply another in a long line of “RINOs” (Republicans in name only).

If Rick Perry becomes president, he will probably be very similar to George W. Bush. He will explode the size of the U.S. government and U.S. government debt, he will find sneaky ways to raise taxes, he will do nothing about the Federal Reserve or corruption in our financial system and he will push the agenda of the globalists at every turn.

Look, the truth is that another four years of Barack Obama would be a complete and total nightmare.

But so would four years of Rick Perry.

America deserves better than the “lesser of two evils”.

Unfortunately, the American people have been dead asleep and have been sending incompetents, con men and charlatans to Washington D.C. for decades.

Hopefully things will be different in 2012.

http://www.infowars.com/14-reasons-why-rick-perry-would-be-a-really-really-bad-president/

The Presidential Contenders: Gov. Mike Pence

Potential 2016 dark-horse candidate: Mike Pence

Is Pence still considering a 2016 presidential run?

Perry launches 2016 bid for White House

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced his 2016 presidential campaign Thursday, hoping the second time’s the charm after his 2012 bid fizzled following a debate gaffe and other challenges.

The three-term Republican governor, who has spent months traveling and studying policy issues in preparation for another run, made it official at an event in Addison, Texas.

“Today, I am running for the presidency of the United States of America,” Perry said.

Perry railed against the economic and foreign policy record of the Obama administration, calling the former a result of tax-and-regulatory policies. On foreign policy, Perry faulted leaders of both parties for making “grave mistakes” in Iraq but said President Obama “failed to secure the peace,” with the Islamic State now seizing cities American troops fought for.

“The truth is we are at the end of an era of failed leadership,” Perry said.

His campaign is likely to run heavily on Perry’s economic record as governor. A “Perry for President” website, which went live Thursday morning ahead of his announcement, includes stats highlighting tax cuts and other policies from his lengthy term. The campaign also released an announcement video.

More on this…

  • Perry: Americans don’t have to settle or apologize

He’s also one of the few military veterans in the field. Parked next to the small stage Thursday was a hulking C-130 the cargo plane, like one he flew for the Air Force.

Perry, though, becomes the 10th Republican to enter the race — and one of several current or former governors in the mix. Underscoring the competition he will face to stand out, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s team confirmed hours before Perry’s announcement that Bush would announce his campaign plans June 15.

Perry, in preparation, has made several visits to the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and will look to erase the memories of his 2012 campaign.

When Perry entered the Republican race last cycle, he was considered to be among the front-runners. Then, at a November 2011 debate in Michigan, he forgot the name of the third federal agency he said he would close if he was elected, then muttered “Oops.” In that moment, he went from powerhouse to punchline and gradually faded from contention.

However, Perry still has the policy record that made him an early force last time.

Perry left office in January after a record 14 years as governor of Texas. Under him, the state generated more than a third of America’s new private-sector jobs since 2001.

While an oil and gas boom fueled much of that economic growth, Perry credits lower taxes, restrained regulation and limits on civil litigation damages. He also pushed offering economic incentives to lure top employers to Texas and repeatedly visited states with Democratic governors to poach jobs.

Perry was thought to be a cinch for four more years as governor in 2014, but instead turned back to White House ambitions. His effort may be complicated this time by a felony indictment on abuse of power and coercion charges, from when he threatened — then carried out — a veto of state funding for public corruption prosecutors. That came when the unit’s Democratic head rebuffed Perry’s demands that she resign following a drunken driving conviction.

Perry calls the case against him a political “witch hunt,” but his repeated efforts to get it tossed on constitutional grounds have so far proved unsuccessful. That raises the prospect he’ll have to leave the campaign trail to head to court in Texas.

Perry blamed lingering pain from back surgery in the summer of 2011 for part of the reason he performed poorly in the 2012 campaign. He has ditched his trademark cowboy boots for more comfortable footwear and wears glasses that give him a serious look.

Perry also traveled extensively overseas and studied policy with experts and economists at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. Lately, Perry has traveled to Iowa, which kicks off presidential nomination voting, more than any GOP White House candidate.

“People realize that what the governor did in the high-profile debate, stumble, everyone has done at some point in their lives,” said Ray Sullivan, Perry’s chief of staff as governor and communications director for his 2012 presidential bid. “I think he’s already earned a second look, particular in Iowa.”

One thing Perry hopes to emulate from 2012 is his fundraising, when he amassed $18 million in the first six weeks.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/04/former-texas-gov-rick-perry-to-join-2016-gop-field/

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence won’t run for president
By JONATHAN TOPAZ 5/19/15 5:13 PM EDT

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence won’t run for president in 2016, a spokeswoman confirmed Tuesday.
The Republican governor said Monday that he would run for a second term next year, which he will likely officially announce at the Indiana Republican Party’s Spring Dinner next month. Indiana law disallows candidates from running for two offices on the same ballot — and a legislative effort to allow Pence to run both for the White House and governor hasn’t gone anywhere.

Asked whether there is now no scenario in which Pence will run for president in 2016, spokeswoman Christy Denault replied: “Correct.”
Pence told POLITICO in February that he was still considering a bid, but that he couldn’t run for both offices. “Indiana law, in terms of a federal office and a state office, doesn’t permit that,” he said.
The governor, 55, spent more than a decade in Congress, at one point serving as chairman of the Republican Study Committee.
President Barack Obama is shown. | AP

For a time, Pence was seen as a strong 2016 contender. An evangelical governor who often touted his balanced budgets and job-creation record, he was considered by some in the party as a candidate who could bring together the establishment and social conservative wings of the party. Many of his former staffers have assumed top roles with GOP mega-donors Charles and David Koch, and the brothers’ Americans for Prosperity political group supported his efforts in office.
But Pence recently suffered a series of missteps, most notably his support for a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a bill that earned national attention following major criticism from the business and gay rights communities. Pence declared in a defensive interview on ABC’s “This Week” that he wouldn’t change the law, which critics argued would allow for businesses to refuse service to gay and lesbian individuals.
Under mounting national pressure — including Apple CEO Tim Cook pledging to boycott Indiana and Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy calling Pence a “bigot” — Pence oversaw a change in the law to ensure it didn’t allow for discrimination. The governor’s approval rating subsequently dropped nearly 20 points in the state.
Pence also earned ridicule for planning to launch a state-run news service funded by taxpayers, a plan his administration quickly scrapped after it was roundly criticized. And Pence’s prospects suffered due to the sudden rise of another Midwestern Republican — Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has quickly emerged as a front-runner embraced by top donors including the Koch brothers and conservative activists.
An elderly supporter of US Republican presidential hopeful John McCain displays her voting choice.

The 2016 gubernatorial election may be a rematch of the close 2012 race between Pence and former Indiana House Speaker John Gregg, who has already declared his candidacy. Former Indiana Democratic Gov. Evan Bayh, who also served two terms in the Senate, said he won’t run in 2016.
Indiana GOP chairman Jeff Cardwell praised Pence’s decision to run for reelection in a statement Monday. “Gov. Mike Pence is a conservative leader and dedicated public servant who always puts Indiana first … We are excited the governor will formally announce his plans to seek re-election during our annual Spring Dinner,” he said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/indiana-gov-mike-pence-wont-run-for-president-in-2016-118110.html

The legend of Al Gore and Rick Perry

A new ad from Ron Paul says Rick Perry was Al Gore's
A new ad from Ron Paul says Rick Perry was Al Gore’s “Texas cheerleader.” We dig into the legend of Perry and Gore and find that while Perry supported Gore, he was not chairman of the campaign, as many have claimed.

It’s a legend of Texas politics and a hatchet for foes of Gov. Rick Perry, front-running candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. The story goes that as a Democratic legislator, Perry chaired Democrat Al Gore’s presidential campaign in Texas.

The legend has been aired routinely for more than 13 years, originally by a Democratic opponent of Perry’s, and in news reports—all but unchallenged by Perry. Even we at PolitiFact Texas repeated the story as fact.

Of late, there’s a July 16, 2011, reference to Perry chairing the Gore effort in Timemagazine, and an Aug. 29, 2011, item in The New Yorker magazine saying Perry “became a Republican after shouldering the thankless task of running Al Gore’s 1988 Presidential campaign in Texas.”

This week, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, likewise bidding for president, premiered an advertisement calling Perry “Al Gore’s Texas cheerleader.”

Cheerleader, maybe.

But interviews with political players in Texas and Tennessee and news articles from 1988 have convinced us that, although Perry endorsed Gore, he was not his Texas chairman.

Ray Sullivan, a spokesman for Perry’s presidential campaign, recently told us by email: “We have no record or recollection of any leadership position” for Perry in Gore’s 1988 campaign.

Asked why Perry did not say as much when a 1998 opponent repeatedly lofted such claims, Sullivan replied: “We did not (have) access to information about the Gore ’88 campaign organization and therefore 10 years later could not definitively say one way or the other.”

Perry says he voted for Republican George H.W. Bush in November 1988, Sullivan said.

Political journalist R.G. Ratcliffe of Texas, who also reports for the Austin American-Statesman, recently declared in a blog post that Perry did not chair the Gore campaign in Texas. That prompted us to take a closer look at the Perry-Gore connection.

Austin consultant George Shipley, who advised Gore’s 1988 campaign, told us in an interview that Perry “made, to my knowledge, one, possibly two press tours, but he was not what I would call that active in the campaign.”

Sherman lawyer Bob Slagle, who supported Gore while chairing the state’s Democratic Party, told us in an interview that Perry “may have been chairman for some area around Haskell County,” Perry’s home county, but he was no more than that.

Similarly, two staff members in Gore’s 1988 effort said Perry was not its Texas chief.

Tennessee lawyer Tom Jurkovich, Gore’s Texas director, told us by email that “we may have named (Perry) to a ‘steering committee’ or as one of several campaign ‘co-chairs,’ typically honorific titles with no real role … (Perry) wasn’t highly involved in the campaign, however, and had zero operational responsibility.”

Mike Kopp of Nashville, who did press outreach for Gore, was more emphatic, saying in an interview: “We didn’t have a chairman in Texas; we didn’t have co-chairs,” either. “We weren’t that organized; we didn’t have that strong a ground game.”

Perry, who switched to the Republican Party in 1989 before winning his first statewide office in 1990, has since said he realized around that time that Gore was not his man. Still, he did not— could not—deny he’d come aboard with 27 fellow Texas House Democrats who endorsed Gore at a Jan. 5, 1988, Texas Capitol press conference.

Perry and the other legislators saw Gore as the best conservative Democrat in a field that included Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, Missouri U.S. Rep. Richard Gephardt and the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

A Jan. 7, 1988, news article in the Abilene Reporter-News quotes Dusty Garison, Perry’s district aide, saying: “Rick thinks it’s important that conservative Texans who have traditionally voted in the Democratic Party not vote in the Republican Party simply because they want to vote for a conservative presidential candidate.” Gore, Garison said, appears to be a candidate who can bring the party back to “mainstream America.”

But Gore’s candidacy faded after he fared poorly in Southern primaries. He wound up third in the March 1988 Texas primary, trailing Dukakis and Jackson.

Garison recently told us in an interview he doesn’t remember Perry having an official position in Gore’s campaign.

Perry’s “chairmanship” appears to have originated as a campaign attack that stuck after it was seemingly confirmed by Perry himself. Sprinkle in Nexis fever—the tendency of journalists to echo news clips they find using the Nexis database—and the legend abides.

A review of news articles archived by the Legislative Reference Library shows that Democrat John Sharp made the charge about Perry’s leadership role in the Gore campaign when Sharp faced Perry in the 1998 race for lieutenant governor.

In March 1998, Perry’s camp pressed Sharp to say whom he’d support in that year’s governor’s race between Gov. George W. Bush and Democrat Garry Mauro. Sullivan was quoted in a March 15, 1998, Dallas Morning News article as saying that while Perry would back Bush, Sharp had “supported Mike Dukakis in 1988, Bill Clinton in 1992, (Democratic Gov.) Ann Richards in 1994 and was preparing to run against Gov. Bush in 1997. In 1998, will John Sharp continue his long opposition to the Bush family in Texas or change his position for political gain?”

“Texans deserve a straight and honest answer,” Sullivan said.

The newspaper reported Sharp’s campaign then claiming that Perry served as a state vice chairman for Gore’s 1988 presidential campaign in the state. In an April 1998 debate with Perry, Sharp charged Perry with being Gore’s “co-campaign manager,” the Fort Worth Star-Telegram then reported.

In a Sept. 15, 1998, Dallas Morning News article, Sharp is quoted making the “co-chairman” claim again. Perry acknowledged that, the story says, but said there was a “push to get a conservative Southerner” elected president.

“Going through that was part of what started me through the process of changing parties in 1989,” he told the newspaper. “I came to my senses.”

It was Perry’s September 1998 acknowledgment that fed our conclusion in a January 2010 fact check that there was some truth to Republican gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina’s claim that Perry had been Gore’s “campaign manager.” We again leaned on the 1998 article in rating Mostly True a similar claim by Rep. Ron Paul.

Sharp now acknowledges he was making a charge he could not prove.

Sharp, who lost a second bid for lieutenant governor in 2002, later helped devise a business tax overhaul at Perry’s behest. He’s poised to become chancellor of the Texas A&M University System.

He recently agreed Perry wasn’t chairman of Gore’s 1988 Texas campaign. When reminded that he said things otherwise on the hustings, Sharp said: “Never could prove it.”

We couldn’t prove it either. We failed to find campaign-related documents potentially listing titles, if any, given to the Texas legislators who came out for Gore.

Interviews suggest campaign leadership titles may have been casually shared.

Hugo Berlanga, a former legislator who was then speaker pro tempore of the Texas House, said in an interview that the members committing to Gore, who was then a U.S. senator, were going to be his Texas co-chairs. “The bottom line, whether he was a coordinator or co chair, (Perry) was involved,” Berlanga said.

Bobby Aikin, also among legislators then for Gore, said in an interview: “I think each one of us claimed to be a co-chair or coordinator or some-such like that.”

So, say so long to the “Chairman Perry” legend?

Sure, barring contradictory evidence.

Finally, we’re re-rating our fact checks that echoed the chairman description.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/sep/07/legend-al-gore-and-rick-perry/

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-478

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 390, December 17, 2014, Story 1: The Republican Political Elitist Establishment (PEE) Candidate Running For President — Another Big Government Spending Progressive — Jeb Bush — Rubio, Romney and Christie Out — Conservatives, Libertarians and Tea Party Support Cruz, Paul, and Walker — Bush Is Another Republican PEE Loser — Videos

Posted on December 18, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Budgetary Policy, Business, Communications, Computers, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Disasters, Economics, Education, Elections, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, History, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Investments, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Media, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Pro Life, Radio, Resources, Security, Social Science, Success, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Unemployment, United States Constitution, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 361: October 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 360: October 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 359: October 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 358: October 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 357: October 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 356: October 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 355: October 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 354: October 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 353: October 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 352: October 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 351: October 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 350: October 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 349: October 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 348: October 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 347: October 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 346: October 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 345: October 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 344: October 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 343: October 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 342: October 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 341: October 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 340: September 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 339: September 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 338: September 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 337: September 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 336: September 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 335: September 23 2014

Pronk Pops Show 334: September 22 2014

Pronk Pops Show 333: September 19 2014

Pronk Pops Show 332: September 18 2014

Pronk Pops Show 331: September 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 330: September 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 329: September 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 328: September 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 327: September 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 326: September 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 325: September 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 324: September 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 323: September 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 322: September 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 321: September 3, 2014

 Story 1: The Republican Political Elitist Establishment (PEE) Candidate Running For President — Another Big Government Spending Progressive — Jeb Bush — Rubio, Romney and Christie Out — Conservatives, Libertarians and Tea Party Support Cruz, Paul, and Walker — Bush Is Another Republican PEE  Loser — Videos

Jeb Bush exploring 2016 presidential run

Jeb Bush to “actively explore” 2016 run for White House

Jeb Bush Hurts Almost Everybody in 2016 Field: Halperin

On Tuesday, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush announced that he will “actively explore” a bid for the White House. While Bush has not yet formed a presidential exploratory committee, he’s “running” for president by any practical definition of the term. If he proves to perform poorly in the “invisible primary,” failing to gather support among donors and influential Republicans, he could withdraw later on, before the first votes are cast in Iowa.

What might those influential Republicans think of Bush? He has sometimes been critical of his fellow Republicans, havingquestioned the GOP’s partisanship and lack of tolerance for dissenting viewpoints. He has also staked out moderate policy positions on some issues, particularly immigration and education reform.

But is Bush in the mold of Jon Huntsman and Rudy Giuliani — candidates who generated lots of buzz among the East Coast media elite but proved too moderate for the Republican base? Or is he more like the past two Republican nominees, Mitt Romney and John McCain, who also were accused of being too moderate but won their party’s nomination?

The short answer: We’ll see, and we’ll want to watch for news of Republicans who endorse Bush’s candidacy or criticize it. But he’s probably more like Romney or McCain than like Huntsman or Giuliani.

Last year, we constructed ideological scores for a set of plausible 2016 Republican candidates based on a combination of three statistical indices: DW-Nominate scores (which are based on a candidate’s voting record in Congress), CFscores (based on who donates to a candidate) and OnTheIssues.org scores (based on public statements made by the candidate). None of these methods is perfect — they disagree on how to classify the libertarian-leaning Republican Rand Paul, for example — but they give us some empirical basis to make comparisons. The closer a candidate’s score is to zero under this method, the more moderate he is. And the closer he is to 100, the more conservative. (Liberal candidates would be listed with negative scores.) Here’s how Bush compares:

silver-datalab-jeb-1

Bush scores at a 37 on this scale, similar to Romney and McCain, each of whom scored a 39. He’s much more conservative than Huntsman, who rates at a 17.

Still, Bush is more like his father, George H.W. Bush, who rates as a 33, than his brother George W. Bush, who scores a 46. And the Republican Party has moved to the right since both Poppy and Dubya were elected. The average Republican member in the 2013-14 Congress rated a 51 on this scale, more in line with potential candidates Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan and Mike Huckabee.

So as a rough cut, Bush is not especially moderate by the standard of recent GOP nominees. But the gap has nevertheless widened between Bush and the rest of his party.

On the two issues where he has most outspokenly deviated from his party, immigration and education, his policy positions are not far removed from those Republican voters declare in polls. But these issues may also take on symbolic significance beyond their immediate policy implications, signaling to Republican voters that a candidate is too moderate or too much a part of the establishment. Earlier this year, my colleague Harry Enten found Republican senators who have adopted Bush’s moderate stance on immigration have been especially likely to receive primary challenges.

And Bush has been more like Hunstman than Romney in explicitly critiquing the direction of his party. That may appeal to general-election voters, but it probably isn’t helpful to him in a Republican primary.

Still, parties have shown some historical tendency to nominate successively more moderate candidates the longer they’ve been out of the White House. That could help Bush. While he’s somewhat to the left of the average Republican politician, there’s also less competition on that side of the GOP spectrum; most Republican senators and governors first elected during the past several election cycles have been quite conservative.

That’s not to say he has the field all to himself. Romney has sometimes been considered a 2016 candidate. So has New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (who rates as being far more moderate than Bush on our scale). New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez has less of a national profile, but also overlaps ideologically with Bush.

Perhaps more important is the relatively early date of Bush’s announcement. If he builds an early advantage in the “invisible primary,” he could deter some of these candidates from running and make it harder for them to gain momentum if they do. The early announcement will also give Bush more time to calibrate his positions while under comparatively little scrutiny.

There will almost certainly be some credible candidates to Bush’s right, like Ryan or Rubio or Bobby Jindal or Scott Walker. Roughly 31 percent of Republican primary voters describe themselves as moderate or liberal, potentially enough to leave Bush as one of two or three remaining viable nominees after the first few states vote in 2016. That’s when he’d have to do his best campaigning — by pivoting to his right, or by convincing Republicans that his electability outweighs ideological purity. Bush may face more vigorous competition on his right in 2016 than Romney did in the likes of former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry in 2012. And to the extent that Republican voters have shifted slightly further to the right over the past four to eight years, that could make his task harder at the margins.

Betting markets put Bush’s chances of winning the Republican nomination at 20 percent to 25 percent, which seems as reasonable an estimate as any. You can get there by assuming there’s a 50 percent chance that he survives the “invisible primary” and the early-voting states intact and a 40 percent to 50 percent chance that he wins the nomination if he does. It’s a strategy that worked well enough for McCain and Romney.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/jeb-bush-president-republican-primary-2016/

 

Don’t assume Jeb Bush will be the Republican nominee in 2016

By Chris Cillizza

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush hands out holiday food baskets to those in need outside the Little Havana offices of CAMACOL, the Latin American Chamber of Commerce, on Dec. 17 in Miami. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
The New York Times tweeted this on Wednesday night:
The piece it linked to — by Nate Cohn, a great talent, who I once tried to hire! –is somewhat more circumspect than the tweet about Jeb Bush’s chances at the Republican presidential nomination but does make the case that, if past is prologue, there is a proven blueprint for Bush to be the nominee. Here’s the key graph:

It’s a path that starts by consolidating the establishment wing of the party in the invisible primary. It ends by winning a protracted fight against an underfunded conservative opponent who can’t break through in the delegate-rich blue states that are often needed to win the party’s nomination, even though the party struggles to win them in presidential elections.

Cohn is absolutely right. A look back at recent contested Republican presidential primary fights suggests that the race typically boils down to one candidate from the establishment lane and one from the tea party/activist conservative lane — with the establishment candidate winning. As he notes, in 2012 Mitt Romney was the clear establishment favorite — especially after Chris Christie said “no,” again, in the fall of 2011 — and wound up beating back a challenge from surprise conservative lane pick Rick Santorum. Four years earlier, John McCain beat out Romney for the establishment mantle and then bested conservative lane pick Mike Huckabee for the nomination. In 2000, the establishment pick also was a sort-of conservative pick (George W. Bush) and he wound up beating McCain, running as sort of the un-candidate, for the nomination.
(Worth noting: The Republican Party of 2000 is not the Republican Party of today or anything close to it. Back then, the tea party didn’t exist and social conservatives were far more powerful. Also, there was a path to a tonal moderate to win the nomination. That is no longer possible — see Rudy Giuliani in 2008. Much more on that below.)

One thing that I think Cohn undervalues in his calculations regarding Jeb Bush’s chances are a) how much the other candidates running matter to the final outcome and b) how much the GOP has changed even from four years ago.

On the first point, I think that the potential 2016 field is significantly stronger — in both the establishment and conservative lanes — than it was in 2008 or 2012. Ted Cruz, say what you will about him, is a gifted speaker and debater who has proven over the past two years an ability to build a national following. The establishment lane is chock full (or could be chock full) of talented and well-known pols: Bush, Christie, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker, to name four. Neither the 2008 mor 2012 field had as much talent.

You might notice I left Rand Paul off that list. That was on purpose. Because the senator from Kentucky is the bridge between points number one and two. He is a candidate who is unlike anyone in either the 2008 or 2012 field in that he is a sort of “cause” candidate — people believe deeply in his libertarian message the same way they did for his father in each of the past two races — and also a plausible winner in that he probably can raise the more than $100 million necessary for the primary and doesn’t scare the hell out of the establishment the way his dad did or Cruz does.

Which gets me to how the Republican Party has changed — and why simply casting the race as the establishment vs. the tea party may be an oversimplification. Yes, the “establishment” lane still very much exists — composed, primarily, of the professional political class, major donors — especially on the East Coast — and fiscal conservatives. But assuming that the “other” lane is the tea party misses some of the nuance that exists within the party. Cruz is a tea partyer, for sure, and one who unites the fiscal and social ends of that movement. But, while Paul is identified at times with the tea party (and has embraced such labeling when it’s politically beneficial) he actually is far more closely aligned with the growing libertarian strain within the GOP.

The GOP is less bifurcated — establishment/social conservatives, establishment/tea party — than in any of the past four presidential campaigns, largely because of the rise of these libertarians but also the result, in some measure, to the waning influence of the tea party. (Its influence may wax again but for the moment, not.)

That reality creates what I think is the most likely scenario in the fight for the GOP nomination in 2016: It won’t be a battle between, say, Bush and whoever the tea party puts up. It is more likely to be a battle between whoever the establishment nominates and Paul, whose hybrid appeal to libertarians, tea partyers and a slice of the fiscally conservative establishment is unlike anyone else in the potential field. And, unlike past conservative lane choices who have never had the fundraising or organization heft to challenge the establishment pick, Paul just might. His activity in the 2016 race suggests he is not Huckabee or Santorum on those fronts.

That’s not to say Paul will be the nominee. But it is to say that the idea that Bush can unite the establishment and, as a result, be the odds-on favorite as the nominee is based on an outdated read of the current state of the party.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/12/18/dont-assume-jeb-bush-will-be-the-republican-nominee-in-2016/

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 66, March 26, 2012: Segment 2: Obama’s war on Texas woman, children and religious freedom–Videos

Posted on March 26, 2012. Filed under: Abortion, American History, Books, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Genocide, Government, Government Spending, History, Media, Philosophy, Politics, Pro Abortion, Pro Life, Public Sector Unions, Regulation, Science, Videos, Violence, War | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 66: March 26, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 65: March 9, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 64: February 29, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 63: February 22, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 62: February 15, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 61: February 8, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 60:February 1, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-66

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 2: Obama’s war on Texas woman, children and religious freedom–Videos

Women’s health affected by political decision

Battle Over Women’s Health in Texas

Texas Health Providers

Video: Kathleen Sebelius visits Houston

Marcia Ball Is Seeing Red

Abby Johnson

Women’s Health Care Caught in Texas Vs. Gov’t Showdown

Dispute may cut health services for TX women

Bitter debate over Planned Parenthood participation in health program

“Don’t Mess With Texas Women” Planned Parenthood rally, Austin, Texas

Women’s Health Program – YNN

Gov. Rick Perry on Planned Parenthood and Women’s Health in Texas

Joe Pojman, Ph.D., Executive Director

Beverly Nuckols MD, FAAFP, Family Physician

Carol Everett

John Zerwas on Abortion and Women’s Health Programs

BLACK DIGNITY.org – What is the #1 cause of death in the African-American community?

We Have a Cure for the Leading Cause of Death in America

How “The Pill” works as an Abortifacient

Baby Screams for help during an abortion procedure! THIS VIDEO WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER!

President Barack Obama’s popularity with women is falling in the polls as gas prices rise and unemployment remains high. Unless this is reversed quickly, Obama is going to lose in November.

For weeks now, Obama, the Democratic Party and their supporters in the media peddled the propaganda of a Republican Party war on women. This distraction is simply not working.

Laura Ingraham Exposes the Phony War On Women

Obama’s War On Women

Why? Propaganda works when people trust or believe you. Many Americans simply do not trust or believe Obama, anymore. Case in point is the Texas Woman Health Program (WHP).

The Obama administration announced on March 15 that it will be terminating federal Medicaid funding of WHP. An estimated 130,000 of the state’s poorest low-income women who are between 18 and 44 and who do not otherwise qualify for Medicaid are covered by the program. Established in 2006, this research and demonstration program provides family planning services, physical exams, gynecological exams, breast and cervical cancer screening, diabetes testing, Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) screenings and contraceptive services. Texas is the first state to have the federal funding cancelled for this type of demonstration program.

Many Texans think if there is a war on women, Obama started the war.

Texas law prohibits public funding of health care provider clinics with affiliates that offer abortions. According to the Texas Health and Human Service Commission (THHSC) website:

“Section 32.0248, Human Resources Code, prohibits payment of WHP funds to a provider that performs elective abortions. A provider that performs elective abortions (through either surgical or medical methods) for any patient is ineligible to serve WHP clients and cannot be reimbursed for those services. This prohibition has been in effect since Sept. 1, 2005. The Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) may recoup WHP funds that it determines were paid to providers that have performed elective abortions.”

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued Opinion No. GA-0844 letter dated Feb. 17, 2011 on the Constitutionality of subsection 32.0248(h), Human Resources Code, which prohibits the THHSC from contracting under the WHP with entities that perform or promote elective abortions or with affiliates of such entities. The opinion summary stated:

“Human Resources Code section 32.0248(h), which applies to women’s health care demonstration project services, provides that the Health and Human Services Commission may not contract with entities that are affiliates of entities that perform or promote elective abortions. This provision is not preempted by federal law.”

The opinion letter points out that Medicaid was established under Title XIX of the Social Security Act and under Title 42, section 1396a(p) of the United States Code:

“(1) In addition to any other authority, a State may exclude any individual or entity for purposes of participating under the State plan under this subchapter for any reason for which the Secretary could exclude the individual or entity from participation in a program under subchapter XVIII of this chapter under section 1320a-7, 1320a-7a, or 1395cc (b) (2) of this title.”

Without these restrictions on abortions, the WHP would not exist because the Texas Legislature would have not have created and funded the program.

There are more than 2,500 qualified providers that offer health care but do not promote or provide elective abortions, according to the THHSC. Planned Parenthood is a qualified provider with 44 clinics in Texas, making it the largest abortion chain in Texas. Federal regulation mandates that patients can pick any qualified provider participating in Medicaid. Texas requested a waiver from the regulation for the first time in 2011.

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius decided to decline Texas’ waiver request solely because Texas law prohibits taxpayer dollars from being allocated to entities that perform or promote elective abortions. On March 16, the Texas attorney general, Gregg Abbot, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, challenging Sebelius’ decision. The lawsuit alleges that:

“The Secretary’s action violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and “not in accordance with law.” See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). It also violates the Constitution of the United States by seeking to commandeer and coerce the States’ lawmaking processes into awarding taxpayer subsidies to elective abortion providers.”

The program is funded 10 percent by the state and 90 percent by the federal government. Administrative costs are split 50 percent by the state and 50 percent by the federal government. For 2012 Texas provided $3.3 million and the federal government $29.8 million for the WHP.

This funding will be phased out over the next three months, according to Cindy Mann, Director for Medicaid and State Operations, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). This federal division is responsible for overseeing and administering the Medicaid law for HHS. She said, “We don’t have a choice. Medicaid law is clear: Patients, not the state, are able to choose the doctors and health care providers that can best serve them.” Texas Gov. Rick Perry vowed that Texas will find state funding to replace the $30 million from the federal government.

Planned Parenthood has endorsed and supports Obama for president. In an election year, the funding of Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinics apparently takes priority over the health care needs of Texas woman. For additional background information about Planned Parenthood see the sidebar commentary below.

On Jan. 20 HHS mandated that nonprofit religious employers that provide a health care plan for their employees must provide free contraceptives, sterilization procedures and abortifacients (abortion-inducing drugs) without the insured paying a co-pay, co-insurance or deductible.

Most group insurance employer-based plans do cover so-called “reproductive services,” namely contraceptives, sterilization procedures, abortifacients and abortions. However, employers in the past were allowed to select a health insurance plan that excluded these reproductive services.

The Obama administration is now forcing all employers including nonprofit religious employers to provide these services even if it is against the religious beliefs and convictions of employers and their employees. This includes both group insurance employer-based plans as well as employer self-funded plans where the employer funds or pays for all claims and a third party such as an insurance company is administering the plan.

The issue is not whether “reproductive services” are included in health insurance plans, but religious freedom. Obama’s war on women, children and religious freedom is a direct assault on the American people, their religious beliefs and the U.S. Constitution.

The American dream cannot long survive if we abandon our poor, murder our children and lose our faith. Obama and his progressive supporters need to be reminded of the words of Martin Luther King Jr. who said “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.”

[Raymond Thomas Pronk is host of the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Wednesdays and author of the companion blog http://www.pronkpops.wordpress.com]

Planned Parenthood’s Inconvenient Truth

Planned Parenthood has a deep dark secret—an inconvenient truth.

The American Birth Control League (ABCL) was founded in 1921 by Margret Sanger (1879-1966). ABCL together with other groups became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.

Sanger was a progressive proponent of population control and eugenics. Eugenics is a racist ideology and pseudoscience that believes the human race can be improved by encouraging the reproduction of the “fit” (positive eugenics) and discouraging the reproduction of the “unfit” with genetic defects or undesirable traits (negative eugenics).

The essence of the eugenics movement was control by an enlightened elite over the masses in determining who was fit and who was unfit. Sanger was insistent that contraception not be called family planning but birth control. Sanger said, “birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defective.” A popular slogan of the eugenics movement was “Quality not quantity.”

A master race could be created by controlling who had children and who did not. This could be achieved by birth control through the use of condoms, contraceptives, sterilization and segregation. When birth control fails, abortion could be used to stop the birth of “unfit” babies.

In 1939 Sanger initiated the Negro Project with the goal of slowing and reversing the growth of the black population in America. Planned Parenthood cannot deny the inconvenient truth that its founder was a eugenicist.

“Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility” by Angela Franks provides a detailed history and analysis of Sanger’s eugenic ideology. Edwin Black’s “The War against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race” chronicles the history of the eugenics movement and its funding by the Carnegie, Harriman and Rockefeller fortunes.

Three excellent documentaries that can be viewed on YouTube are “Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America,” “How Planned Parenthood Works” and “Racism: A History.”

Margaret Sanger and Her Reproductive Revolution

Four excellent documentaries that can be viewed on YouTube are Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America, How Planned Parenthood Works and Racism: A History, and BLACK GENOCIDE — The Negro Project — Pastor Clenard Childress, Jr.:

Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 1/13)

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 2/13)

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 3/13)

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 4/13)

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 5/13)

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 6/13)

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 7/13)

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 8/13)

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 9/13)

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 10/13)

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 11/13)

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 12/13)

Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 13/13)

How Planned Parenthood Works

How Planned Parenthood Works (1 of 4)

How Planned Parenthood Works (2 of 4)

How Planned Parenthood Works (3 of 4)

How Planned Parenthood Works (4 of 4)

Racism: A History

Racism: A History [2007] – 1/3

Racism: A History [2007] – 2/3

Racism: A History [2007] – 3/3

BLACK GENOCIDE — The Negro Project — Pastor Clenard Childress, Jr.

Alveda King hits President Obama, Jesse Jackson and Occupy

Planned Parenthood has been successful in achieving Sanger’s Negro Project goals. More than 54 million babies have been aborted since the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States according to numberofabortions.com website. The two leading sources of information about abortions are the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute, once part of Planned Parenthood.

Since 1973 more than 15 million black, 10 million Hispanic and 20 million white babies have been aborted. Across America Planned Parenthood clinics have aborted more than 6 million babies since 1973. Planned Parenthood’s primary target market has always been the poor, especially blacks and Hispanics. Minority babies are disproportionately targets for abortion.

Credit: http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/

Notes: “Other” includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans and those of mixed race. These numbers add to 101% because of a small overlap among the Hispanic, black and other categories.

Credit: Guttmacher Institute, 2008, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/11/3/gpr110302.html

Killing babies for profit is big business and Planned Parenthood is the industry leader. Planned Parenthood markets its abortion services to both federal and state governments. Like any big business, its executives lobby and make campaign contributions to progressive politicians of both political parties who support their eugenics population control agenda.

Every abortion or baby killed saves the federal government and state governments thousands of dollars annually in education, health care and welfare expenditures for poor black, Hispanic and white babies who did not make it out of their mother’s womb alive.

Today abortion is no longer rare but commonplace. Abortion is a public private partnership. Abortion is not an equal opportunity killer. Abortion is womb lynching. Abortion is death by government—genocide.

[Raymond Thomas Pronk is host of the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Wednesdays and author of the companion blog http://www.pronkpops.wordpress.com]

Background Articles and Videos

HHS Messes with Texas
Obama’s real agenda is clear: abortion.

By Patrick Brennan

“…Recently, Texas conservatives have taken dramatic strides to ensure that federal women’s health-care funding didn’t specifically fund or encourage abortion — and thus dealt serious blows to the abortion industry in Texas. Over the past year, with legal help from advocacy groups such as Texas Right to Life, the Texas legislature has continually redirected “family planning” funds away from health-care providers that provide or refer for abortions to other clinics.

The legislature’s rules and funding priorities have reduced the federal funding for abortion providers in Texas by 37 percent over the past year, resulting in the closure of twelve Planned Parenthood branches. The funding has been merely redirected, and thus has in no way restricted poor women’s access to necessary and preventive care (as abortion proponents might have claimed).

But the redirections have put a serious financial strain on abortion providers. Planned Parenthood and other groups are thus loath to see more of their federal dollars snatched away, and, as Graham puts it, consider any more restrictions as “salt in the wound.” It looks now as if the federal government is stepping in specifically in order to bail them out. The state of Texas has done an exemplary job of proving that liberal concern for “women’s health” has as much to do with support for abortion providers as it does with ensuring equity and access.

HHS’s recent contraception mandate, its most infamous policy, isn’t primarily concerned with “women’s health,” despite claims to the contrary. Claims that free coverage of birth control is an essential health benefit because women take it for other hormonal or prescriptive reasons ring hollow, since, if the administration were actually so concerned with protecting particular women’s health issues, it could require coverage of all the relevant treatments, such as other treatments for certain kinds of cancer, rather than just those that happen to double as contraception. The HHS mandate is thus, on closer inspection, another politically tinged program trumpeted as a groundbreaking expansion of women’s health care. …”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/294129/hhs-messes-texas-patrick-brennan

Eugenics: The End of Humanity with Host Aaron Dykes – Infowars Nightly News

Eugenics In America

Eugenics Movement in US w/ Wanda Franz

Barack Obama and Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project”

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder

Obama: Babies are a “punishment”

Barack Obama Promises to Sign FOCA

“…Last year before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Barack Obama told pro-abortion activists: “The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”

FOCA would establish the right to abortion as a fundamental right (like the right to free speech) and wipe away every restriction on abortion nationwide.

It will eradicate state and federal abortion laws that the majority of Americans support and prevent states from enacting similar protective measures in the future. …”

Barack Obama Addresses Planned Parenthood

OBAMA SUPPORTED INFANTICIDE IN 02 AS SENATOR…

Obama And Infanticide – Part 1 – 45 Minutes / Documentary Video / Why Was There The Need For The Born

Obama And Infanticide – Part 2 – 23 Minutes / Documentary Video / The Evidence Against Obama / Illinois

Abortion Inc: Promoting Black Genocide in US?

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 66, March 26, 2012: Segment 0: Ron Paul Ad: Etch A Sketch President and Big Government Progressive Neocons–No More Games–No More Unbalanced Big Government Budgets–No More Bailouts–No More Unemployment–No More Wars-No More Phony Conservatives–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 66, March 26, 2012: Segment 1: Jesse Jackson–“If it is growing, it is living.”–“Abortion is genocide.”–Blacks Are Under Attack— By Planned Parenthood–Eugenics–Black Genocide–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 1: ‘Three of a Kind’–Big Government Neoconservative Progressives: Newt Gingrich–Serial Hypocrite; Rick Santorum–Counterfeit Conservative; Mitt Romney–Flip Flopper–vs. Ron Paul–Libertarian Conservative–Videos

Posted on January 18, 2012. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Business, Computers, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, History, Housing, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Investments, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Pro Life, Radio, Tax Policy, Videos, Violence, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 58:January 18, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 57:December 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 56:November 30, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 55:November 23, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 54:November 16, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 53:November 9, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 52:November 2, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 1: ‘Three of a Kind’–Big Government Neoconservative Progressives: Newt Gingrich–Serial Hypocrite; Rick Santorum–Counterfeit Conservative; Mitt Romney–Flip Flopper–vs. Ron Paul–Libertarian Conservative–Videos

Ron Paul: Three of a Kind

AYN RAND’s message to AMERICA

Ayn Rand on Socialism and Dictatorship in America

George Carlin -“Who Really Controls America”

“If the practice persists of covering government deficits with the issue of notes, then the day will come without fail, sooner or later, when the monetary systems of those nations pursuing this course will break down completely. The purchasing power of the monetary unit will decline more and more, until finally it disappears completely.”

~Ludwig von Mises, On the Manipulation of Money and Credit, page 5.

There are four neoconservative progressives still in the race for the Republican Party Presidential nomination–Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry.

Perry will be the next to drop out of the race, most likely in the next two weeks, if not sooner.

The only libertarian conservative in the race is Ron Paul.

Many progressives do not care who wins–Obama, Romney, Gingrich and Santorium– big government progressives are all acceptable to many progressive Democrats and Republicans.

The neoconservative progressives and the Republican Party establishment prefer Mitt Romney over the others.

The conservative base simply does not support Romney and many are waking up to the fact that Gingrich and Santorium are both big government neoconservative progressives as well.

Talk radio show hosts are divided as well.

However, most talk radio show hosts are united in their opposition to libertarian conservative Ron Paul.

It seems these so-called “conservatives” are Republicans first.

Actually these talk radio show hosts are neoconservative progressives forced out of the closet or bunker.

These hosts may talk “conservative” but support Republican Presidential candidates that are also talk “conservative” but walk big government neoconservative progressives.

The Bulwarks of the Conservative Movement

Making Sense of the Conservative Movement

What’s the Modern Definition of a Conservative?

Ronald Reagan Tapped Into Unspoken Conservatives

This includes Bennett, Beck, Limbaugh, Levin, Hewett and Medved just to name a few.

These talk radio show hosts differ only as to which big government Republican neoconservative progressives they support.

True conservatives must either support and vote for Paul or once again see another big government neoconservative progressive in the White House–Teddy Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H. W.Bush and George W. Bush were all big government progressives and not conservatives.

I have been in the conservative movement since Barry Goldwater.

I will no longer vote for any progressive of either party.

I will never vote for a neoconservative progressives, they are war mongers that get Americans and the innocent in other countries killed.

The neoconservatives have blood on their hands.

The time has come for conservatives to form a new political party consisting of four types of conservatives: economic/libertarian conservatives, traditional conservatives, religious/social conservatives and national defense/anti-communist conservatives.

Party Name: American Citizens Alliance Party

Tag-line: Faith, Family, Friends and Freedom First.

For all practical purposes the progressives in both parties have won.

The progressives control the leadership of both political parties.

In the next three months both parties will again propose another unbalanced budget exceeding $3.5 trillion with a deficit greater than $1 trillion.

This is not fiscally responsible.

This is the victory of big government progressivism advocating warfare and welfare state intervention over limited government conservatism advocating a peace and prosperity economy with a non-intervention state.

The battle is between the collectivists vs. the individualists.

It will take at least 100 years to undo what the progressives have done to this country.

I will support and vote for Ron Paul.

Let the neoconservatives and progressives and their friends in the media and talk radio fool the ignorant in their audiences.

The American people will and are waking up and will revolt.

Abandon both the Democratic and Republican Parties that have been well penetrated and captured by progressive statists–collectivists all.

Focus on building a new political party.

Support and vote for Ron Paul

“An essential point in the social philosophy of interventionism is the existence of an inexhaustible fund which can be squeezed forever.”

“The whole system of interventionism collapses when this fountain is drained off: The Santa Claus principle liquidates itself.”

~Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, pages 854 and 858

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy

Big Government Conservatism

Serial Hypocrisy – The Real Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich: Selling Access

SA@TAC – Newt Gingrich is Not a Conservative

Who is Newt’s favorite President?

SA@TheDC – Does Newt Gingrich Want the Constitution to ‘Die?’

Ron Paul Ad – Rick Santorum “A Record of Betrayal”

Rick Santorum’s Big Government Problem

Ron Paul Ad – BIG DOG

Rand Paul Exposes Rick Santorum as a Fake Conservative

Rush Limbaugh Admits Mitt Romney is a GOP Disaster if nominated

Still Voting For ‘Mitt Romney’?

Rush Limbaugh: Mitt Romney ‘Is Not A Conservative’

When Mitt Romney Came To Town — Full, complete version

George Carlin – Divide and Conquer

Ron Paul Ad – Believe

Ron Paul Ad – Consistent

Ron Paul Ad – Secure

Ron Paul Ad TRUST

Ron Paul Ad – Plan

Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!

Why Ron Paul is Obama’s Toughest Competitor

We the People vs. Mitt Romney

Rothbard on Neoconservatives

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

Conservative vs. Neoconservative

SA@TAC – Taking the ‘Neo’ Out of ‘Conservative’

SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’

Nick Gillespie Discusses Ron Paul, Libertarianism & Iowa on C-SPAN

SA@TAC – Constant Conservative Ron Paul

TEA Party Movement Hijacked by Big Government NEO-Cons – Who will win?

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul: South Carolina Voter Fraud (Ron Paul can End the Push for WW3)

The Real Newt Gingrich

Rothbard destroys a common statist argument

Neoconservativism

“…Neoconservatism is a variant of the political ideology of conservatism which rejects the utopianism and egalitarianism of modern liberalism but sees a role for the welfare state.[1] Their main emphasis since 1990 has been using American power to foster democracy abroad, especially in the Middle East. They were notably visible in Republican administrations of George H.W. Bush (1989-93) and George W. Bush (2001-2009).

Neoconservatism was developed by former liberals, who in the late 1960s began to oppose many of the policies and principles associated with President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs.[2]

Terminology

The term “neoconservative” was popularized in the United States in 1973 by Socialist leader Michael Harrington,, who applied it his opposition to the policy ideas of Daniel Bell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Irving Kristol.[3]

The “neoconservative” label was embraced by Irving Kristol in his 1979 article “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative.'”[4] His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[5] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled “The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy”.[6][7] In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the neoconservatives were driven by “the notion that liberalism” had failed and “no longer knew what it was talking about, ” according to E. J. Dionne,[8]

The term neoconservative, which originally was used by a socialist to criticize the politics of Social Democrats, USA,[9] has since 1980 been used as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had “moved to the right”.[4][10] The term “neoconservative” was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush,[11][12] with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.[13] The term neocon is often used as pejorative in this context.

History

Through the 1950s and early 1960s the future neoconservatives had supported the American Civil Rights Movement, integration, and Martin Luther King, Jr..[14] From the 1950s to the 1960s, there was broad support among liberals to support military action to prevent a communist victory in Vietnam.[15]

Neoconservatism was triggered by the repudiation of coalition politics by the American New Left:

  • Black Power, which denounced coalition-politics and racial integration as “selling out” and “Uncle Tomism” and which frequently gave rise to anti-semitic outbursts,
  • anti-anticommunism, which seemed indifferent to the fate of Southern Vietnam, and which in the late 1960s included substantial support for Marxist Leninist movements, and
  • the “new politics” of the New left, which upheld students and alienated minorities as the agents of social change (replacing the majority of the population and the labor movement).[16] Irving Kristol edited the journal The Public Interest (1965–2005), featuring economists and political scientists, focused on ways that government planning in the liberal state had produced unintended harmful consequences.[17]

Norman Podhoretz’s magazine Commentary of the American Jewish Committee, originally a journal of the liberal left, became a major voice for neoconservatives in the 1970s. Commentary published an article by Jeanne Kirkpatrick, an early and prototypical neoconservative, albeit not a New Yorker.

New York Intellectuals

Many neoconservatives had been on the left in the 1930s and 1940s, where they opposed Stalinism. After WWII, they continued to oppose Stalinism and to support democracy during the Cold War. Of these, many were emerged from intellectual milieu of New York City.[26]

Michael Lind’s view

Michael Lind wrote:

“Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party’s tactics, including preventive warfare such as Israel’s 1981 raid on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for “democracy.” They call their revolutionary ideology “Wilsonianism” (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as the Palestinians.””The major link between the conservative think tanks and the Israel lobby is the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa), which co-opts many non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel.”[27]

Lind’s “amalgamation of the defense intellectuals with the traditions and theories of ‘the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement’ [in Lind’s words]” was criticized in 2003 by University of Michigan professor Alan M. Wald,[28] who had discussed Trotskyism in his history of “the New York intellectuals”.[29][30] Most were socialists, social-democrats, or liberal Democrats into the 1960s, when they were confronted with the New Left and rethought their positions. Many supported Senator Henry M. Jackson, a liberal Democrat in domestic affairs who criticized the human-rights violations of the Soviet Union in the 1970s.[31]

Rejecting the American New Left and McGovern’s New Politics

Kirkpatrick’s political evolution was similar to those of other socialists, social-democrats, and liberals who became neoconservatives. They rejected the counterculture of the 1960s New Left, and what they saw as anti-Americanism in the non-interventionism of the movement against the Vietnam War. When the anti-war element took control of the party in 1972 and nominated George McGovern, the democrats among them followed the lead of Washington Senator Henry Jackson and revolted. Historian Justin Vaïsse calls this the “Second Age” of Neoconservatism, with its emphasis on the Cold War.[32]

As the policies of the New Left pushed the Democrats to the Left, these intellectuals became disillusioned with President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society domestic programs. The influential 1970 bestseller The Real Majority by Ben Wattenberg expressed that the “real majority” of the electorate supported economic liberalism but social conservatism, and warned Democrats it could be disastrous to take liberal stances on certain social and crime issues.[33]

Many supported Democratic senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson in his unsuccessful 1972 and 1976 campaigns for president. Among those who worked for Jackson were future neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Richard Perle. In the late 1970s neoconservative support moved to Ronald Reagan, the Republican hawk who promised to confront Soviet expansionism.

In another (2004) article, Michael Lind also wrote [34]

Neoconservatism… originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry (‘Scoop’) Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves ‘paleoliberals.’ [After the end of the Cold War]… many ‘paleoliberals’ drifted back to the Democratic center… Today’s neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.

Leo Strauss and his students

Neoconservatism draws on several intellectual traditions. The students of political science Professor Leo Strauss (1899–1973) comprised one major group. Eugene Sheppard notes that, “Much scholarship tends to understand Strauss as an inspirational founder of American neoconservatism.”[35] Strauss was a refugee from Nazi Germany who taught at the New School for Social Research in New York (1939–49) and the University of Chicago (1949–1958).[36]

Strauss asserted that “the crisis of the West consists in the West’s having become uncertain of its purpose.” Resolution lay in a restoration of the vital ideas and faith that in the past had sustained the moral purpose of the West. Classical Greek political philosophy and the Judeo-Christian heritage are the pillars of the Great Tradition in Strauss’s work.[37] Strauss laid great emphasis on spirit of the Greek classics and West (1991) argues that for Strauss the American Founding Fathers were correct in their understanding of the classics in their principles of justice. For Strauss, political community is defined by convictions about justice and happiness rather than by sovereignty and force. He repudiated the philosophy of John Locke as a bridge to 20th-century historicism and nihilism, and defended liberal democracy as closer to the spirit of the classics than other modern regimes. For Strauss, the American awareness of ineradicable evil in human nature, and hence the need for morality, was a beneficial outgrowth of the premodern Western tradition.[38] O’Neill (2009) notes that Strauss wrote little about American topics but his students wrote a great deal, and that Strauss’s influence led his students to reject historicism and positivism. Instead they promoted an Aristotelian perspective on America that produced a qualified defense of its liberal constitutionalism.[39] Strauss influenced Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, editor John Podhoretz, and military strategist Paul Wolfowitz.[40][41]

1990s

During the 1990s, neoconservatives were once again in the opposition side of the foreign policy establishment, both under the Republican Administration of President George H. W. Bush and that of his Democratic successor, President Bill Clinton. Many critics charged that the neoconservatives lost their influence following the collapse of the Soviet Union.[42]

The movement was galvanized by the decision of George H. W. Bush and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War in 1991. Many neoconservatives viewed this policy, and the decision not to support indigenous dissident groups such as the Kurds and Shiites in their 1991-1992 resistance to Hussein, as a betrayal of democratic principles.[citation needed]

Ironically, some of those same targets of criticism would later become fierce advocates of neoconservative policies. In 1992, referring to the first Gulf War, then United States Secretary of Defense and future Vice President Dick Cheney said:

I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We’d be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home…. And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam [Hussein] worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[43]

Within a few years of the Gulf War in Iraq, many neoconservatives were pushing to oust Saddam Hussein. On February 19, 1998, an open letter to President Clinton appeared, signed by dozens of pundits, many identified with neoconservatism and, later, related groups such as the PNAC, urging decisive action to remove Saddam from power.[44]

Neoconservatives were also members of the blue team, which argued for a confrontational policy toward the People’s Republic of China and strong military and diplomatic support for Taiwan.

In the late 1990s Irving Kristol and other writers in neoconservative magazines began touting anti-Darwinist views, in support of intelligent design. Since these neoconservatives were largely of secular backgrounds, a few commentators have speculated that this – along with support for religion generally – may have been a case of a “noble lie”, intended to protect public morality, or even tactical politics, to attract religious supporters.[45] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Progressivism

“…Progressivism is an umbrella term for a political ideology advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes through the state. Progressivism is often viewed by its advocates to be in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies.

The Progressive Movement began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women.

The term progressivism emerged in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and, despite being associated with left-wing politics, to the various more radical streams of communism or anarchism.

Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism was embraced in the administrations of American Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson.[1] Moreover, in the United States and Canada, the term “progressive” has occasionally been used by groups not particularly left-wing. The Progressive Democrats in the Republic of Ireland took the name “progressivism” despite being considered centre-right or classical liberal. The European Progressive Democrats was a mainly heterogeneous political group in the European Union. For most of the period from 1942–2003, the largest conservative party in Canada was the Progressive Conservative Party. …”

“…United States

In the United States there have been several periods where progressive political parties have developed. The first of these was around the turn of the 20th century.[6] This period notably included the emergence of the Progressive Party, founded in 1912 by President Theodore Roosevelt. This progressive party was the most successful third party in modern American history. The Progressive Party founded in 1924 and the Progressive Party founded in 1948 were less successful than the 1912 version. There are also two notable state progressive parties: the Wisconsin Progressive Party and the Vermont Progressive Party. The latter is still in operation and currently has several high ranking positions in state government.

Today, most progressive politicians in the United States associate with the Democratic Party or the Green Party of the United States. In the US Congress there exists the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is often in opposition to the more conservative Democrats, who form the Blue Dogs caucus. Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold,[7] Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, John Conyers, John Lewis, and Paul Wellstone.[citation needed] ….”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Libertarianism

“…Libertarianism is a term describing philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, voluntary association and respect of property rights. Based on these, libertarians advocate a society with small or no government power.

Overview

Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchists advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchists advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some libertarians go further, such as by supporting minimal public assistance for the poor.[1] Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead.[2][3][4] Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and those that support common ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a libertarian socialist economic system. In some parts of the world, the term “libertarianism” is synonymous with Left anarchism.[5]

Libertarians can broadly be characterized as holding four ethical views: consequentialism, deontological theories, contractarianism, and class-struggle normative beliefs. The main divide is between consequentialist libertarianism—which is support for a large degree of “liberty” because it leads to favorable consequences, such as prosperity or efficiency—and deontological libertarianism (also known as “rights-theorist libertarianism,” “natural rights libertarianism,” or “libertarian moralism”), which is a philosophy based on belief in moral self-ownership and opposition to “initiation of force” and fraud.[6] [7] Others combine a hybrid of consequentialist and deontologist thinking.[8] Another view, contractarian libertarianism, holds that any legitimate authority of government derives not from the consent of the governed, but from contract or mutual agreement,[9][10][11] though this can be seen as reducible to consequentialism or deontologism depending on what grounds contracts are justified. Some Libertarian Socialists with backgrounds influenced by Marxism reject deontological and consequential approaches and use normative class-struggle methodologies rooted in Hegelian thought to justify direct action in pursuit of liberty.[12]

In the United States, the term libertarian is commonly associated with those who have conservative positions on economic issues and liberal positions on social issues.[13]

Alternative definitions

Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as “any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals”, whether “voluntary association” takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[14]

Etymology

The use of the word “libertarian” to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[15] Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for left-wing anarchism since the 1890s.[16] Libertarian socialists, such as Noam Chomsky and Colin Ward, assert that many still consider the term libertarianism a synonym of anarchism in countries other than the US.[5]

History

Origins

During the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, “liberal” ideas flourished in Europe and North America. Libertarians of various schools were influenced by classical liberal ideas.[17][Full citation needed] The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[18] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to “necessitarian” (or determinist) views.[19][20]

The first anarchist journal to use the term “libertarian” was La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social and it was published in New York City between 1858 and 1861 by French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque. “The next recorded use of the term was in Europe, when “libertarian communism” was used at a French regional anarchist Congress at Le Havre (16-22 November, 1880). January the following year saw a French manifesto issued on “Libertarian or Anarchist Communism.” Finally, 1895 saw leading anarchists Sébastien Faure and Louise Michel publish La Libertaire in France.” The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications. In this tradition, the term “libertarianism” in “libertarian socialism” is generally used as a synonym for anarchism, which some say is the original meaning of the term; hence “libertarian socialism” is equivalent to “socialist anarchism” to these scholars.[21] In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. The association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States.[22]

Twentieth century

During the early 20th century modern liberalism in the United States began to take a more state-oriented approach to economic regulation. While conservatism in Europe continued to mean conserving hierarchical class structures through state control of society and the economy, some conservatives in the United States began to refer to conserving traditions of liberty. This was especially true of the Old Right, who opposed the New Deal and U.S. military interventions in World War I and World War II. Those who held to the earlier liberal views began to call themselves market liberals, classic liberals or libertarians to distinguish themselves. The Austrian School of economics, influenced by Frédéric Bastiat and later by Ludwig von Mises, also had an impact on what is now right-libertarianism.

In the 1950s many with “Old Right” or classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as “libertarian.” Arizona United States Senator Barry Goldwater’s right-libertarian leaning challenge to authority also influenced the US libertarian movement.[23]

During the 1960s, the Vietnam War divided right-libertarians, anarchist libertarians, and conservatives.[citation needed] Right-libertarians and left-libertarians opposed to the war joined the draft resistance and peace movements and began founding their own publications, like Murray Rothbard’s The Libertarian Forum[24] and organizations like the Radical Libertarian Alliance[25] and the Society for Individual Liberty.[26]

In 1971, a small group of Americans led by David Nolan formed the U.S. Libertarian Party. Attracting former Democrats, Republicans and independents, the party has run a presidential candidate every election year since 1972. Over the years, dozens of capitalism-supporting libertarian political parties have been formed worldwide. Educational organizations like the Center for Libertarian Studies and the Cato Institute were formed in the 1970s, and others have been created since then.

Right-libertarianism gained a significant measure of recognition in academia with the publication of Harvard University professor Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974. The book won a National Book Award in 1975.[27][28] Nozick disavowed some of his theory late in life.[29] Academics as well as proponents of the free market perspectives note that free-market capitalist libertarianism has been successfully propagated beyond the United States since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties.[30]

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Libertarianism in the United States

“…Libertarianism in the United States is a movement promoting limited government and individual liberties.[1] Although libertarianism exists in two major forms worldwide, right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism,[2] right-leaning libertarianism tends to be the dominant form in the United States. The right-leaning Libertarian Party, the third largest political party in the United States[3] as of 2008 with 235,500 registered voters,[citation needed] asserts the following to be core beliefs of Libertarianism:

Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.[4][5]

History

In the 1950s many with classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as “libertarian.”[6] Academics as well as proponents of the free market perspectives note that free-market libertarianism has been successfully propagated beyond the US since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties[7][8] and that libertarianism is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position.[9][10] However, Libertarian socialists Noam Chomsky, Colin Ward and others argue that the term “libertarianism” is globally considered a synonym for anarchism and that the United States is unique in widely associating it with free market ideology.[11][12][13]

Arizona United States Senator Barry Goldwater’s libertarian-oriented challenge to authority had a major impact on the libertarian movement,[14] through his book The Conscience of a Conservative and his run for president in 1964.[15] Goldwater’s speech writer, Karl Hess, became a leading libertarian writer and activist.[16]

The Vietnam War split the uneasy alliance between growing numbers of self-identified libertarians, anarchist libertarians, and more traditional conservatives who believed in limiting liberty to uphold moral virtues. Libertarians opposed to the war joined the draft resistance and peace movements and organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society. They began founding their own publications, like Murray Rothbard’s The Libertarian Forum[17][18] and organizations like the Radical Libertarian Alliance.[19]

The split was aggravated at the 1969 Young Americans for Freedom convention, when more than 300 libertarians organized to take control of the organization from conservatives. The burning of a draft card in protest to a conservative proposal against draft resistance sparked physical confrontations among convention attendees, a walkout by a large number of libertarians, the creation of libertarian organizations like the Society for Individual Liberty, and efforts to recruit potential libertarians from conservative organizations.[20] The split was finalized in 1971 when conservative leader William F. Buckley, Jr., in a 1971 New York Times article, attempted to divorce libertarianism from the freedom movement. He wrote: “The ideological licentiousness that rages through America today makes anarchy attractive to the simple-minded. Even to the ingeniously simple-minded.”[21]

In 1971, David Nolan and a few friends formed the Libertarian Party.[22] Attracting former Democrats, Republicans and independents, it has run a presidential candidate every election year since 1972. By 2006, polls showed that 15 percent of American voters identified themselves as libertarian.[23] Over the years, dozens of libertarian political parties have been formed worldwide. Educational organizations like the Center for Libertarian Studies and the Cato Institute were formed in the 1970s, and others have been created since then.[24]

Philosophical libertarianism gained a significant measure of recognition in academia with the publication of Harvard University professor Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974. The book won a National Book Award in 1975.[25] According to libertarian essayist Roy Childs, “Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia single-handedly established the legitimacy of libertarianism as a political theory in the world of academia.”[26]

Texas congressman Ron Paul’s campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination was largely oriented towards libertarianism. Paul is affiliated with the libertarian-leaning Republican Liberty Caucus and founded the Campaign for Liberty, a libertarian-leaning membership and lobbying organization.

Organizations

Well-known libertarian organizations include the Center for Libertarian Studies, the Cato Institute, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), the International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL) and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The Libertarian Party of the United States is the world’s first such party.

The activist Free State Project, formed in 2001, works to bring 20,000 libertarians to the state of New Hampshire to influence state policy. In March 2009, the project website showed that more than 650 were resident there and more than 9,150 had pledged to move there.[27] Less successful similar projects include the Free West Alliance and Free State Wyoming.

Leaders

Politicians

United States Congressman Ron Paul and United States Senator Barry Goldwater popularized libertarian economics and anti-statist rhetoric in the United States and passed some reforms. United States President Ronald Reagan tried to appeal to them in a speech, though many libertarians are ambivalent about Reagan’s legacy.[28]

Intellectuals

Individuals influential to libertarianism in the United States include Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises, William F. Buckley, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_States

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 0: American People Are Waking Up–Time For A New Political Party–Ron Paul First President–Are You A 3 Percenter?–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 1: ‘Three of a Kind’–Big Government Neoconservative Progressives: Newt Gingrich–Serial Hypocrite; Rick Santorum–Counterfeit Conservative; Mitt Romney–Flip Flopper–vs. Ron Paul–Libertarian Conservative–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 2: Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look–James Kirchick–Gay Neoconservative!–The Hit Man Behind The Smear Attack On Ron Paul–Blacks, Jews, and Libertarians For Ron Paul Respond–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 58, January 18, 2012: Segment 3: Jobs Report: Labor Participation Rate Flat Lines At 64% While Unemployment Rate Declines To 8.5%–200,000 Jobs Increase–Work Force 50,000 Decrease!–Videos


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 57, December 7, 2011: Segment 1: Vote Your Conscience–Vote Your Heart–Vote Ron Paul–Faith, Family, Friends, Freedom, First–Peace and Prosperity–President Paul–Videos

Posted on December 4, 2011. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, Health Care Insurance, History, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Politics, Pro Life, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Regulation, Resources, Security, Tax Policy, Technology, Unions, Videos, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 57:December 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 56:November 30, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 55:November 23, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 54:November 16, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 53:November 9, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 52:November 2, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

“I want to use all my strength, to resist the notion that I can run your lives, or run the economy, or run the world. I want to use that strength to repeal and reject that notion, and stand up and defend the principles of liberty.”

~Congressman Ron Paul

Ron Paul Money Bomb Dec. 16, 2011 – Pledge Now!

Ron Paul  – “The one who can beat Obama”

Ron Paul Ad – Consistent

Ron Paul Ad – Secure

Ron Paul Ad TRUST

Ron Paul Ad – Life

Ron Paul Ad – Plan

Thanksgiving Family Forum – Ron Paul Highlights

Ron Paul’s Full Speech at the Value Voters Summit 2011 

 

Vintage Dr Ron Paul for Congress Political Infomercial

Ron Paul The Media Should Be Exposing Newt… Not Me

Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

Ron Paul: There Are No “Cuts”

Ron Paul: Yes, We Can Cut $1 Trillion Immediately

Ron Paul’s Plan for Monetary Freedom

The Amazingly Accurate Predictions of Ron Paul

Ron Paul Predicted 9/11 a Decade Ago!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fox Fails to Make Ron Paul Look Like A Fool!

Newt Gingrich Agrees w/ Ron Paul on Closing Overseas Bases

Ron Paul’s What If ? Remastered 

END THIS WAR!! Golden State – Bombs (The Ron Paul song)

This Video Changed My Life: ‘Ron Paul: Stop Dreaming’ 

Ron Paul:  A New Hope 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 55, November 23, 2011: Segment 1: Republican Presidential Debate On National Security–November 22, 2011–CNN, Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute–Videos

Posted on November 23, 2011. Filed under: Budgetary Policy, Business, Coal, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, Health Care Insurance, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Labor Economics, Legal Immigration, Monetary Policy, Oil, Philosophy, Pistols, Politics, Polls, Pro Life, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Resources, Rifles, Tax Policy, Unions, Videos, Violence, War, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 55:November 23, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 54:November 16, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 53:November 9, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 52:November 2, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 51:October 26, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 1: Republican Presidential Debate On National Security–November 22, 2011–CNN, Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute–Videos

CNN National Security GOP Debate 11/22/2011

Republican Debate On National Security 2011 pt.1

Republican Debate On National Security 2011 pt.2

Republican Debate On National Security 2011 pt.3

Republican Debate On National Security 2011 pt.4

Republican Debate On National Security 2011 pt.5

Republican Debate On National Security 2011 pt.6

Republican Debate On National Security 2011 pt.7

Ron Paul Highlights in 11/22/2011 Debate

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 4: A Ron Paul tax reform plan: no income taxes or IRS — FairTax Less!–“When The Impossible Became The Inevitable”–Videos

Posted on November 2, 2011. Filed under: American History, Books, Budgetary Policy, Business, Coal, College, Computers, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, Health Care Insurance, History, Housing, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Regulation, Resources, Social Networking, Solar, Tax Policy, Unions, Videos, Violence, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 52:November 2, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 51:October 26, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 50:October 19, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 49:October 12, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 48:October 5, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 4: A Ron Paul tax reform plan: no income taxes or IRS — FairTax Less!–“When The Impossible Became The Inevitable”–Videos

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

Date Sample Cain Romney Perry Gingrich Paul Bachmann Santorum Huntsman Spread
RCP Average 10/13 – 10/31 26.0 24.0 10.0 9.4 8.2 3.8 1.8 1.2 Cain +2.0
Quinnipiac 10/25 – 10/31 869 RV 30 23 8 10 7 4 1 2 Cain +7
FOX News 10/23 – 10/25 328 RV 24 20 10 12 9 3 3 0 Cain +4
CBS News/NY Times 10/19 – 10/24 455 RV 25 21 6 10 8 2 1 1 Cain +4
CNN/Opinion Research 10/14 – 10/16 416 A 25 26 13 8 9 6 2 1 Romney +1
Associated Press/GfK 10/13 – 10/17 431 A 26 30 13 7 8 4 2 2 Romney +4

See All 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination Polling Data

When The Impossible Became The Inevitable

Ronald Reagan-Remarks on Signing the Tax Reform Act (October 22, 1986)

Ron Paul on Taxes

Ron Paul – Repeal The 16th Amndment

The Fair Tax

Taxes and the Republican Party by the Southern Avenger

Tax Code Roulette | THE PLAIN TRUTH by Judge Napolitano 10/25/11

Flat, Fair, VAT, or Gone? What Should be done with the Federal Income Tax- CPAC 2011 Pt.1

The FairTax… For a better America

Lugar Cosponsors the FairTax

The FairTax Versus the Obama ‘Jobs Plan’

Rob Woodall Floor Speech: The FairTax will bring jobs back to America

Pence on the Fair Tax

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 1

What is the FairTax legislation?

Why is the FairTax better than a flat income tax?

What is the impact of the FairTax on business?

How does the “prebate” work?

people bring home their whole paychecks how can prices fall?

Will the FairTax lead to a massive underground economy?

Is the FairTax rate really 23%?

How will used goods be taxed?

FairTax

Herman Cain on Fixing Deficit/Jobs/Fair Tax: “Replace Income and Payroll Tax”

Herman Cain Explains the Fair Tax

Johnson: What makes you a better Libertarian choice than Ron Paul?

Reagan on Taxes

Reagan; Taxes and Budget Deficit: Revenue 19% of GDP; Spending is 23%; Revenue is sufficient

Reagan on Balanced Budget

Ronald Reagan – Tax Reform Act Remarks

Ron Paul needs to come out with his own comprehensive tax reform plan. I recommend the FairTax as a starting point with some significant changes.

The FairTax is a national retail sales consumption tax that would replace the following federal taxes:

  • Personal income tax
  • Payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare
  • Capital gains tax
  • Alternative Minimum Tax
  • Self-employment tax
  • Corporate income tax
  • Gift taxes
  • Estate taxes

When you buy goods or services, income and payroll taxes are included or embedded in the price. When these taxes are eliminated, the price of the goods or services would decline.

Thus when the FairTax replaces these taxes, the price of the good or service with the new FairTax included should result in the price of the good or service remaining about the same.

The proposed FairTax rate is 23 percent when the tax is included in the unit price of the good or service. For example, a loaf of bread with a selling price of $1 would include 23 cents for the FairTax.

Since Paul wants to significantly limit the size and scope of the federal government, I propose he reduce the FairTax rate to 20 percent for 2013.

The FairTax Less rate would be reduced by 1 percent a year for the next four years so that by 2017 the rate would be 16 percent.

A declining FairTax Less rate combined with a declining balanced budget will force a reduction of government spending outlays.

It should take four to eight years before the 16th Amendment (income tax) is repealed and the balanced budget amendment passes.

Therefore, I would like to see the repeal of the 16th Amendment and the passage of a balanced budget Amendment be immediately initiated in the House of Representatives and Senate.

If this is done, by 2017 the American people will never again want to go back to the complex and time-consuming income tax.

Instead, the American people will be demanding smaller government and an even lower FairTax Less rate.

Also, Paul needs to advocate a FairTax Less plan to complement his Plan to Restore America to a peace and prosperity economy by cutting government spending by $1 trillion in his first year as president and balance the budget in his third year.

The advantage is that a single FairTax Less rate of 20 percent would beat Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. Cain’s plan would have a flat 9 percent business tax, a flat 9 percent personal income tax and a 9 percent national retail sales tax. The total tax rate paid would be 27 percent under Cain’s plan.

A single FairTax Less rate of 20 percent would easily defeat Perry’s optional flat tax of 20 percent personal income tax and a 15.3 percent payroll tax for Social Security or Medicare for a total of 30.3 percent. This does not include the 20 percent corporate income tax that would bring the total taxes paid to over 50 percent.

Only when the American people consume or spend their money on new goods and services would they pay the FairTax Less rate of 20 percent.

The American people would have a strong economic incentive to work, save and invest their money.

More savings would lead to more investment and in turn more jobs as businesses grow and prosper.

It’s time for Ron Paul to announce his support for a FairTax Less plan.

The dynamic combination of Paul’s Plan to Restore America and the FairTax Less plan would result in a peace and prosperity economy.

The U.S. would be the only nation on earth with no taxes on capital and labor!

The FairTax Less plan would attract trillions of dollars of new investment into the U.S. from around the world.

RESTORE AMERICA NOW! Ron Paul 2012 – Plan!

The FairTax: It’s Time

[Raymond Thomas Pronk is host of the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Wednesdays and author of the companion blog www.pronkpops.wordpress.com]

Background Articles and Videos

“…What is the FairTax plan?

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 13) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

The FairTax:

  • Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
  • Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
  • Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
  • Allows American products to compete fairly
  • Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
  • Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
  • Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
  • Abolishes the IRS

We offer a library of information throughout this Web site about the features and benefits of the FairTax plan. Please explore! …”

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 1

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 2

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 3

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 4

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 5

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 6

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 7

Why is the FairTax better than a flat income tax?

Dan Mitchell explains the fair tax

Q&A on the FAIRTAX pt.1

Q&A on the FAIRTAX pt.2

Americans For Fair Taxation

“…Americans For Fair Taxation (AFFT), also known as FairTax.org, states it is the United States’ largest, single-issue grassroots organization and taxpayers union dedicated to fundamental tax code replacement.[1] The Houston, Texas-based non-partisan political advocacy group is made up of volunteers who are working to get the Fair Tax Act (H.R. 25/S. 1025) enacted in the United States; a plan to replace all federal payroll and income taxes (both corporate and personal) with a national retail sales tax and monthly tax “prebate” to households of citizens and legal resident aliens. Americans for Fair Taxation state they subscribe to the ideals of simplicity, fairness, and freedom which they believe are embodied in the FairTax.[2][3] The organization claims to have signed up over 800,000 supporters.[4]

AFFT was founded in 1994 by three Houston businessmen, Jack Trotter, Bob McNair, and Leo Linbeck, who each pledged $1.5 million as seed money to hire tax experts to identify what they perceived as faults with the current tax system, to determine what American citizens would like to see in tax reform, and then to design the best system of taxation.[2] The three went on to raise an additional $17 million to fund focus groups with citizens around the country and tax policy studies.[2]

Some of the experts funded include:
  • Professors David Burton and Dan Mastromarco, University of Maryland and The Argus Group
  • Laurence Kotlikoff, Boston University
  • Stephen Moore, The Cato Institute
  • Professor Dale Jorgenson, Harvard University
  • Bill Beach (economist), the Heritage Foundation
  • Jim Poterba, The National Bureau of Economic Research
  • Professor George Zodrow, Rice University and the Baker Institute for Public Policy
  • Professor Joseph Kahn, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_For_Fair_Taxation

FairTax.org

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax

Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax (play /ˈfaɪkə/) is a United States payroll (or employment) tax[1] imposed by the federal government on both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare[2] —federal programs that provide benefits for retirees, the disabled, and children of deceased workers. Social Security benefits include old-age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI); Medicare provides hospital insurance benefits. The amount that one pays in payroll taxes throughout one’s working career is indirectly tied to the social security benefits annuity that one receives as a retiree.[citation needed] This has led some to claim that the payroll tax is not a tax because its collection is tied to a benefit.[3] The United States Supreme Court decided in Flemming v. Nestor (1960) that no one has an accrued property right to benefits from Social Security.

The Federal Insurance Contributions Act is currently codified at Title 26, Subtitle C, Chapter 21 of the United States Code.[4]

Overview

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-quarters of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.[5] The FICA tax is considered a regressive tax on income (with no standard deduction or personal exemption deduction) and is imposed (for the years 2009 and 2010) only on the first $106,800 of gross wages. The tax is not imposed on investment income (such as interest and dividends).

“Regular” employees (most wage-earners)

For 2008, the employee’s share of the Social Security portion of the tax is 6.2%[6] of gross compensation up to a limit of $102,000 of compensation (resulting in a maximum of $6,324.00 in tax). For 2009 and 2010, the employee’s share is 6.2% of gross compensation up to a limit of $106,800 of compensation (resulting in a maximum Social Security tax of $6,621.60).[7] This limit, known as the Social Security Wage Base, goes up each year based on average national wages and, in general, at a faster rate than the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). For the calendar year 2011, the employee’s share has been temporarily reduced to 4.2% of gross compensation, with a limit of $106,800.[8] The employee’s share of the Medicare portion is 1.45% of wages, with no limit on the amount of wage subject to the Medicare tax.[6]

The employer is also liable for 6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare taxes,[9] making the total Social Security tax 12.4% of wages, and the total Medicare tax 2.9%. (Self-employed people are responsible for the entire FICA percentage of 15.3% (= 12.4% + 2.9%), since they are in a sense both the employer and the employed; however, see the section on self-employed people for more details.)

If a worker starts a new job halfway through the year and has already earned the wage base limit with the old employer for Social Security purposes, the new employer is not allowed to stop withholding until the wage base limit has been earned with the new employer without regard to the wage base limit earned under the old employer. There are some limited cases, such as a successor-predecessor transfer, in which the payments that have already been withheld can be counted toward the year-to-date total.

If a worker has overpaid toward Social Security by having more than one job or by having switched jobs during the year, that worker can file a request to have that overpayment counted as tax paid when he or she files a Federal income tax return. If the taxpayer is due a refund, then the FICA overpayment is refunded.

Self-employed people

A tax similar to the FICA tax is imposed on the earnings of self-employed individuals, such as independent contractors and members of a partnership. This tax is imposed not by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act but instead by the Self-Employment Contributions Act of 1954, which is codified as Chapter 2 of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 1401 through 26 U.S.C. § 1403 (the “SE Tax Act”). Under the SE Tax Act, self-employed people are responsible for the entire percentage of 15.3% (= 12.4% [Soc. Sec.] + 2.9% [Medicare]); however, the 15.3% multiplier is applied to 92.35% of the business’s net earnings from self-employment, rather than 100% of the gross earnings; the difference, 7.65%, is half of the 15.3%, and makes the calculation fair in comparison to that of regular (non-self-employed) employees. It does this by adjusting for the fact that employees’ 7.65% share of their SE tax is multiplied against a number (their gross income) that does not include the putative “employer’s half” of the self-employment tax. In other words, it makes the calculation fair because employees don’t get taxed on their employers’ contribution of the second half of FICA, therefore self-employed people shouldn’t get taxed on the second half of the self-employment tax. Similarly, self-employed people also deduct half of their self-employment tax (schedule SE) from their gross income on the way to arriving at their adjusted gross income (AGI). This levels the amount paid by self-employed persons in comparison to regular employees, who don’t pay general income tax on their employers’ contribution of the second half of FICA, just as they didn’t pay FICA tax on it either.[10][11]

These calculations are made on Schedule SE: Self-Employment Tax, although that is not readily apparent to novice self-employed taxpayers, owing to the schedule’s rather opaque name, which makes it sound like it is part of the general federal income tax. Some taxpayers have complained that Schedule SE’s title should be changed to something such as “Self-Employment FICA Tax”, so that its separateness from the general income tax is apparent,[12] perhaps not realizing that the SE tax is not imposed by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) at all, and that neither SE taxes nor FICA taxes are “income taxes” imposed under Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Exemption for certain full-time students

A special case in FICA regulations includes exemptions for student workers. Students enrolled at least half-time in a university and working part-time for the same university are exempted from FICA payroll taxes, so long as their relationship with the university is primarily an educational one.[13] Medical residents working full-time are not considered students and are not exempt from FICA payroll taxes, according to a US Supreme Court ruling in 2011.[14] In order to be exempt from FICA payroll taxes, a student’s work must be “incident to” pursuit of a course of study, which is rarely the case with full-time employment.[14]

History

Prior to the Great Depression, the following presented difficulties for working-class Americans: [15]

  • The U.S. had no federal-government-mandated retirement savings; consequently, for those people who had not voluntarily saved money throughout their working lives, the end of their work careers was the end of all income.
  • Similarly, the U.S. had no federal-government-mandated disability income insurance to provide for citizens disabled by injuries (of any kind—non-work-related); consequently, for most people, a disabling injury meant no more income (since most people have little to no income except earned income from work).
  • In addition, there was no federal-government-mandated disability income insurance to provide for people unable to ever work during their lives, such as anyone born with severe mental retardation.
  • Further, the U.S. had no federal-government-mandated health insurance for the elderly; consequently, for many people, the end of their work careers was the end of their ability to pay for medical care.
  • Finally, the U.S. had no federal-government-mandated health insurance for all those who are not elderly; consequently, many people, especially those with pre-existing conditions, have no ability to pay for medical care.

In the 1930s, the New Deal introduced Social Security to rectify the first three problems (retirement, injury-induced disability, or congenital disability). It introduced the FICA tax as the means to pay for Social Security.

In the 1960s, Medicare was introduced to rectify the fourth problem (health care for the elderly). The FICA tax was increased in order to pay for this expense.

Criticism

Social Security regressivity debate

The Social Security component of the FICA tax is regressive, meaning the effective tax rate regresses (decreases) as income increases.[16] The Social Security component is actually a flat tax for wage levels under the Social Security Wage Base (see “Regular” employees above). But since no tax is owed on wages above the Wage Base limit, the total tax rate declines as wages increase beyond that limit. In other words, for wage levels above the limit, the absolute dollar amount of tax owed remains constant; since this number (the numerator) remains constant while the wage level (the denominator) increases, the effective tax rate steadily decreases as wage levels increase beyond the Wage Base limit.

FICA is also not collected on unearned income, including interest on savings deposits, stock dividends, and capital gains such as profits from the sale of stock or real estate. The proportion of total income which is exempt from FICA as “unearned income” tends to rise with higher income brackets.

Some argue that since Social Security taxes are eventually returned to taxpayers, with interest, in the form of Social Security benefits, the regressiveness of the tax is effectively negated.[citation needed] That is, the taxpayer gets back what he or she put into the Social Security system. Others, including the Congressional Budget Office, point out that the Social Security system as a whole is progressive; individuals with lower lifetime average wages receive a larger benefit (as a percentage of their lifetime average wage income) than do individuals with higher lifetime average wages.[17][18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Ron Paul’s Economic Plan for Restoring America to Peace and Prosperity–Videos

The FairTax (National Consumption Sales Tax) vs. The Flat Tax (One Rate Federal Income Tax)–Who Pays The Most Federal Individual Income Tax? Videos

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 0: 50 Year American Tax Revolution: When The Impossible Became The Inevitable–Flat Tax or FairTax–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 1: Newt Gingrich’s Optional 15% Flat Tax Plus 15.3% Social SecurityTax–More Taxes Than Cain’s-9-9-9 (27%) Tax Plan But Less Than Perry’s Optional 20% Flat Tax Plus 15.3% Social SecurityTax–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment: 2: Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan: 9% Business Income Flat Tax, 9% Personal Income Flat Tax, 9% National Retail Consumption Tax–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 3: Perry proposes optional flat 20 percent income tax and cap on government spending–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 4: A Ron Paul tax reform plan: no income taxes or IRS — FairTax Less!–”When The Impossible Became The Inevitable”–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 3: Perry proposes optional flat 20 percent income tax and cap on government spending–Videos

Posted on November 1, 2011. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Business, College, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, Health Care Insurance, History, Housing, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Investments, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Pro Life, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Resources, Science, Security, Social Science, Success, Tax Policy, Technology, Unions, Videos, Violence, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 52:November 2, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 51:October 26, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 50:October 19, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 49:October 12, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 48:October 5, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 3: Perry proposes optional flat 20 percent income tax and cap on government spending–Videos

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

Date Sample Cain Romney Perry Gingrich Paul Bachmann Santorum Huntsman Spread
RCP Average 10/13 – 10/31 26.0 24.0 10.0 9.4 8.2 3.8 1.8 1.2 Cain +2.0
Quinnipiac 10/25 – 10/31 869 RV 30 23 8 10 7 4 1 2 Cain +7
FOX News 10/23 – 10/25 328 RV 24 20 10 12 9 3 3 0 Cain +4
CBS News/NY Times 10/19 – 10/24 455 RV 25 21 6 10 8 2 1 1 Cain +4
CNN/Opinion Research 10/14 – 10/16 416 A 25 26 13 8 9 6 2 1 Romney +1
Associated Press/GfK 10/13 – 10/17 431 A 26 30 13 7 8 4 2 2 Romney +4

See All 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination Polling Data

Rick Perry ad: Cut, Balance and Grow

Rick Perry Announces His Plan to Cut, Balance & Grow

With 20% Flat-Tax Plan, Perry Eyes Distinction From GOP Field

Rick Perry CNBC

Perry wants flat tax… Almost

Political Checklist: Perry’s Flat Tax Plan and Obama’s Solo Plan

Steve Forbes Endorses Rick Perry and His Plan to Cut, Balance, and Grow

The FairTax Is Better Than Any Flat Tax!

What is the FairTax?

Why is the FairTax better than a flat income tax?

The FairTax: It’s Time

Perry’s Cornerstone Speech Highlights–Was he drunk, snorting cocaine or just Rick trying to be funny?

In Grey Court, South Carolina, on Oct.25, GOP presidential hopeful Rick Perry unveiled his plan for the U.S economy, “Cut, Balance and Grow.” The Texas governor’s proposed an optional flat income tax rate of 20 percent to replace the existing federal income tax system. Taxpayers would have the option to pay either the new flat 20 percent rate or continue paying income taxes based on the existing complex system.

Perry said, “It takes money from spendthrift bureaucrats and returns it to families. It puts fewer job-killing regulations on employers and more restrictions on politicians. It gives more freedom to Americans to control their own destiny. And just as importantly, the Cut, Balance and Grow plan paves the way for the job creation, balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility we need to get America working again.”

The individual standard tax exemption would be increased to $12,500, plus each dependent would also have a $12,500 tax exemption. A family of four earning $50,000 per year would be exempt from income taxes. Perry’s tax reform plan would also keep the mortgage interest, state taxes and charitable deductions for families earning less than $500,000.

Dividend, interest and capital gains taxes, the Alternative Minimum tax and estate taxes would all be eliminated. Social Security benefits would no longer be taxed.

Perry would not change Social Security and Medicare benefits for those currently receiving or soon-to-be receiving these benefits. However, Perry would gradually increase the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare.

Young workers would be permitted to invest part of their Social Security payroll taxes in investment private accounts.

Americans eligible for Medicare would receive either a credit or payment to purchase a health insurance plan of their choice. Currently, the government pays benefits directly.

Companies doing business abroad would be encouraged to return their profits to the U.S. with a one-time reduced tax of 5.25 percent. With this tax incentive, more than $1 trillion in profits is estimated would be returned to the U.S. This would create several million new jobs as the profits are invested in the U.S. The corporate rate would be reduced from the second highest in the world at 35 percent to a more competitive 20 percent.

By design the Perry plan would deeply cut tax rates and in turn this may lead to lower tax revenues. In order to avoid large deficits, where government spending outlays exceed tax revenues, the federal budget would need to be massively cut, including discretionary spending and non-discretionary entitlement spending.

In terms of federal government spending, Perry’s plan theoretically would balance the budget in 2020, end all earmarks, reform entitlement spending for Social Security and Medicare, and limit government spending outlays to 18 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Perry would propose to amend the Constitution to require balanced budgets.

Steve Forbes, who twice ran for the Republican presidential nomination on a proposed 17 percent flat tax, is Perry’s chief adviser for the optional flat tax plan.

Club for Growth president Chris Chocola said “Rick Perry’s plan for tax reform would be massively pro-growth.”

Perry’s plan is already being compared and contrasted with his two leading rivals for the nomination, Herman Cain and Mitt Romney. Cain’s 9-9-9 tax reform plan would scrap the existing income tax code and replace it and payroll taxes with a flat 9 percent business tax, a flat 9 percent individual tax and a 9 percent national sales consumption tax on the sale of new goods and services.

Cain’s plan is a hybrid of both flat income taxes and a consumption tax. The 9-9-9 plan was designed to be a bridge to the FairTax, which is a national sales tax that would replace all federal income, payroll, capital gains, Alternative Minimum Tax, gift and estate taxes.

Romney has proposed a plan that would cut the tax rates for corporations and personal savings and investment. Romney would eliminate taxes on dividend, interest and capital gains for individuals earning less than $200,000. In the past, Romney has favored a flat tax provided it did not hurt the middle class.

Perry’s tax reform plan is positioned between the bolder Cain plan and the more modest Romney plan. Ron Paul has yet to explicitly disclose his own tax reform plan. Paul has stated he would eliminate the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), permanently close five departments and cut spending by $1 trillion in the first year. This would seem to indicate he might support the FairTax with a lower rate, such as 20 percent or less-call it FairTax Less.

[Raymond Thomas Pronk is host of the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Wednesdays and author of the companion blog www.pronkpops.wordpress.com]

Background Articles and Videos

Rush Limbaugh Talks About Rick Perry’s Flat Tax Plan

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Progressive Republican Rick Perry’s Flat Tax Reform Distraction From More Illegal Immigration–Videos

Ron Paul’s Economic Plan for Restoring America to Peace and Prosperity–Videos

The FairTax (National Consumption Sales Tax) vs. The Flat Tax (One Rate Federal Income Tax)–Who Pays The Most Federal Individual Income Tax? Videos

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 0: 50 Year American Tax Revolution: When The Impossible Became The Inevitable–Flat Tax or FairTax–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 1: Newt Gingrich’s Optional 15% Flat Tax Plus 15.3% Social SecurityTax–More Taxes Than Cain’s-9-9-9 (27%) Tax Plan But Less Than Perry’s Optional 20% Flat Tax Plus 15.3% Social SecurityTax–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment: 2: Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan: 9% Business Income Flat Tax, 9% Personal Income Flat Tax, 9% National Retail Consumption Tax–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 3: Perry proposes optional flat 20 percent income tax and cap on government spending–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 4: A Ron Paul tax reform plan: no income taxes or IRS — FairTax Less!–”When The Impossible Became The Inevitable”–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment: 2: Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan: 9% Business Income Flat Tax, 9% Personal Income Flat Tax, 9% National Retail Consumption Tax–Videos

Posted on November 1, 2011. Filed under: American History, Books, Budgetary Policy, Business, College, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, Health Care Insurance, History, Housing, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Investments, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Pro Life, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Regulation, Resources, Tax Policy, Unions, Videos, Violence, War, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 52:November 2, 2011 

Pronk Pops Show 51:October 26, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 50:October 19, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 49:October 12, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 48:October 5, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment: 2: Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan: 9% Business Income Flat Tax, 9% Personal Income Flat Tax, 9% National Retail Consumption Tax–Videos

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

Date Sample Cain Romney Perry Gingrich Paul Bachmann Santorum Huntsman Spread
RCP Average 10/13 – 10/31 26.0 24.0 10.0 9.4 8.2 3.8 1.8 1.2 Cain +2.0
Quinnipiac 10/25 – 10/31 869 RV 30 23 8 10 7 4 1 2 Cain +7
FOX News 10/23 – 10/25 328 RV 24 20 10 12 9 3 3 0 Cain +4
CBS News/NY Times 10/19 – 10/24 455 RV 25 21 6 10 8 2 1 1 Cain +4
CNN/Opinion Research 10/14 – 10/16 416 A 25 26 13 8 9 6 2 1 Romney +1
Associated Press/GfK 10/13 – 10/17 431 A 26 30 13 7 8 4 2 2 Romney +4

See All 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination Polling Data

Herman Cain on Taxes

Herman Cain on Fixing Deficit/Jobs/Fair Tax: “Replace Income and Payroll Tax”

Herman Cain on Fair Tax Dick Morris TV: Lunch ALERT!

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Tax Plan

AEI Panel Discussion on Herman Cain’s Tax Plan 10-31-11 (1 of 2)

AEI Panel Discussion on Herman Cain’s Tax Plan 10-31-11 (2 of 2)

9-9-9: A Vision for Economic Growth

Herman Cain breaks down his 9-9-9 plan

Herman Cain Explains His ‘9-9-9 Plan’

Now is the time for action!

Herman Cain Phase2 The FairTax

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul vs Herman Cain on Fed Reserve

Herman Cain lied to Ron Paul regarding Federal Reserve Audit

Alex Jones Calls Out Uncle Tom Herman Cain

Mark Block addresses smoking role in latest Cain video

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 0: 50 Year American Tax Revolution: When The Impossible Became The Inevitable–Flat Tax or FairTax–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 1: Newt Gingrich’s Optional 15% Flat Tax Plus 15.3% Social SecurityTax–More Taxes Than Cain’s-9-9-9 (27%) Tax Plan But Less Than Perry’s Optional 20% Flat Tax Plus 15.3% Social SecurityTax–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment: 2: Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan: 9% Business Income Flat Tax, 9% Personal Income Flat Tax, 9% National Retail Consumption Tax–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 3: Perry proposes optional flat 20 percent income tax and cap on government spending–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 4: A Ron Paul tax reform plan: no income taxes or IRS — FairTax Less!–”When The Impossible Became The Inevitable”–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 1: Newt Gingrich’s Optional 15% Flat Tax Plus 15.3% Social SecurityTax–More Taxes Than Cain’s-9-9-9 (27%) Tax Plan But Less Than Perry’s Optional 20% Flat Tax Plus 15.3% Social SecurityTax–Videos

Posted on November 1, 2011. Filed under: American History, Books, Budgetary Policy, Business, Coal, College, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, Health Care Insurance, History, Housing, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Investments, Labor Economics, Monetary Policy, Oil, Philosophy, Politics, Pro Life, Public Sector Unions, Regulation, Resources, Science, Security, Tax Policy, Technology, Unions, Videos, Violence, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 52:November 2, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 51:October 26, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 50:October 19, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 49:October 12, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 48:October 5, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 1: Newt Gingrich’s Optional 15% Flat Tax Plus 15.3% Social SecurityTax–More Taxes Than Cain’s-9-9-9 (27%) Tax Plan But Less Than Perry’s Optional 20% Flat Tax Plus 15.3% Social SecurityTax–Videos

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination

Date Sample Cain Romney Perry Gingrich Paul Bachmann Santorum Huntsman Spread
RCP Average 10/13 – 10/31 26.0 24.0 10.0 9.4 8.2 3.8 1.8 1.2 Cain +2.0
Quinnipiac 10/25 – 10/31 869 RV 30 23 8 10 7 4 1 2 Cain +7
FOX News 10/23 – 10/25 328 RV 24 20 10 12 9 3 3 0 Cain +4
CBS News/NY Times 10/19 – 10/24 455 RV 25 21 6 10 8 2 1 1 Cain +4
CNN/Opinion Research 10/14 – 10/16 416 A 25 26 13 8 9 6 2 1 Romney +1
Associated Press/GfK 10/13 – 10/17 431 A 26 30 13 7 8 4 2 2 Romney +4

See All 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination Polling Data

Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich: My Opponent is Barack Obama

Newt Gingrich on the Fair Tax

21st Century Contract with America

PART 1: LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

Executive Summary

  1. Repeal Obamacare and pass a replacement that saves lives and money by empowering patients and doctors, not bureaucrats and politicians.
  2. Return to robust job creation with a bold set of tax cuts and regulatory reforms that will free American entrepreneurs to invest and hire, as well as by reforming the Federal Reserve and creating a training requirement for extended federal unemployment benefits to encourage work and improve the quality of our workforce.
  3. Unleash America’s full energy production potential in oil, natural gas, coal, biofuels, wind, nuclear oil shale and more, creating jobs, stimulating a sustainable manufacturing boom, lowering gasoline and other energy prices, increasing government revenues, and bolstering national security.
  4. Save Medicare and Social Security by giving Americans more choices and tools to live longer, healthier lives with greater financial independence.
  5. Balance the federal budget by freeing job-creators to grow the economy, reforming entitlements, and implementing waste cutting and productivity improvement systems such as Lean Six Sigma to eliminate waste and fraud. Pass a balanced budget amendment to keep it balanced.
  6. Control the border by January 1, 2014 and establish English as the official language of government; reform the legal visa system, and make it much easier to deport criminals and gang members while making it easier for law abiding visitors to come to the US.
  7. Revitalize our national security system to meet 21st century threats by restructuring and adequately funding our security agencies to function within a grand strategy for victory over those who seek to kill us or limit American power.
  8. Maximize the speed and impact of medical breakthroughs by removing unnecessary obstacles that block new treatments from reaching patients and emphasizing research spending towards urgent national priorities, like brain science with its impact on Alzheimer’s, autism, Parkinson’s, mental health and other conditions knowledge of the brain will help solve.
  9. Restore the proper role of the judicial branch by using the clearly delineated powers available to the president and Congress to correct, limit, or replace judges who violate the Constitution.
  10. Enforce the Tenth Amendment by starting an orderly transfer of power and responsibility from the federal government back “to the states, respectively, or to the people,” as the Constitution requires. Over the next year, state and local officials and citizens will be asked to identify the areas which can be transferred back home.

2. Return to robust job creation with a bold set of tax cuts and regulatory reforms that will free American entrepreneurs to invest and hire, as well as by reforming the Federal Reserve and creating a training requirement for extended federal unemployment benefits to encourage work and improve the quality of our workforce.

Government does not create jobs. The American people create jobs.

Ronald Reagan understood this truth. His bold series of tax cuts and deregulatory measures upon taking office ended the economic stagnation of the 1970s for good by freeing American businesses to create nearly 20 million new jobs in less than a decade. In September 1983 alone the Reagan recovery led the American people to create 1,100,000 new jobs, more jobs than the first eight months of 2011 combined.

We understood these principles when we won the first Republican majority in the House in 40 years in 1994. Balanced budgets, streamlined government and the biggest capital gains tax cut in history led to unemployment falling to under 4% by 2000.

My administration will build on this time-tested model: A profound restructuring and reduction of the tax and regulatory burden on Americans, with the very achievable goal of 4% unemployment and millions of new jobs within only a few years.

JOBS AND PROSPERITY PLAN: LOWERING TAXES

First, I pledge to veto any tax increase. American families and businesses deserve certainty and predictability, and I will work to make permanent all current rates of taxation that would otherwise increase automatically in 2013.

My Jobs and Prosperity plan will then make four major tax cuts:

    • Reduce the Corporate Tax to 12.5%. Reducing the corporate income tax, currently the second highest in the developed world, will make America the number one destination in the world for foreign investment and the millions of jobs that will accompany this designation. Most of the $1.4 trillion in profits locked up overseas by the current 35% tax rate will come home to be reinvested and distributed at a 12.5% rate.
    • Abolish the Capital Gains Tax. Lowering the cost of investment means hundreds of thousands of more jobs will be created. It happens every time we lower the capital gains tax. At a zero percent rate, hundreds of billions of dollars in new investments will pour into the United States to create new firms and build new factories.
    • Abolish the Death Tax. This law is economically misguided and morally indefensible, and it is time for the government to stop destroying family wealth. Abolishing the death tax ensures family-owned businesses can focus on creating jobs and growing rather than on dealing with tax law.
    • 100% Expensing. We want American workers to have the most modern and most productive equipment in the world, and we can encourage this development by allowing companies to write off all their new equipment in one year.

JOBS AND PROSPERITY PLAN: TAX SIMPLIFICATION WITH AN OPTIONAL FLAT TAX

My legislation will also include an optional flat tax of 15% or less. All tax filers would be given the option to pay their income taxes subject to current income tax provisions or to pay under a lower single rate of taxation with limited deductions. A revenue neutral flat tax reform would save hundreds of billions of dollars in compliance costs each year and would eliminate the need for taxes on savings, dividends, and capital gains.

This optional flat tax system will create a new personal deduction of $12,000 for every American. This deduction is well above the current poverty level, ensuring that this new system does not unfairly target the poor. The current $1,000 tax credit for each child aged sixteen or younger would also apply, as would the current earned income tax credit (EITC).

An optional flat tax reform will be simple: tax returns can be done on one sheet of paper. Subtract from income a standard deduction and deductions for charity and home ownership, multiply the result by the fixed single rate of taxation of at most 15%, and the process is over.

Gone will be the stressful hours spent figuring out whether your military service or marital status will adversely affect your return. No more headaches trying to determine where estimated tax payments go. Tax preparation fees could be money spent on something more rewarding.

Such an optional flat tax system would create a new standard deduction, which would be above the established poverty level, meaning an optional flat tax would not unfairly target the poor.

An optional flat tax would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. And if a person had twice as much income as another, he or she would be taxed twice as much. Furthermore, a single rate tax structure would eliminate taxes on savings, capital gains, and dividends. Saving would increase and businesses would expand to create new jobs.

This concept of an optional flat tax would give American taxpayers an opportunity to choose simplicity versus complexity and a single rate over a lot of deductions.

Because the flat tax is optional, it does not raise taxes on a single person or unfairly impact seniors, lower income workers, or the poor.

http://www.newt.org/contract/legislative-proposals#Two

Let’s Bump Plans: A Comparison of Gingrich and Perry’s Flat Tax Plans

http://www.newt.org/news/lets-bump-plans-comparison-gingrich-and-perrys-flat-tax-plans

Gingrich’s Plan Far Bolder than Perry’s Plan and Will Lead to Far More Robust Job Creation and Capital Investment in United States

Gingrich Perry Verdict: Gingrich Plan Better
Rate 15% 20% Gingrich has advocated for several years an optional flat tax rate of 15%, which when coupled with Gingrich’s bold entitlement and regulatory reforms, will usher in another era of booming economic growth and new, higher-paying jobs. The Perry rate of 20% is higher than the 17% that Steve Forbes proposed in his 1996 and 2000 presidential campaign.
Who Gets to Make Deductions for Charitable Giving and Home Ownership?? Everyone Families making less than $500,000/year By creating two separate classes of taxpayers, the Perry plan buys into the same class warfare that characterizes the Obama and Romney economic plans. The fact that there are still two brackets – even under a supposed “flat tax” plan – calls into question whether this is really a flat tax at all.
State and Local Tax Deductions Not deductible in optional flat tax plan Deductible in optional flat tax plan The Gingrich plan has a lower rate so less need for state and local deductions. The deduction is a federal subsidy for states to adopt higher state and local taxes. Removing the subsidy would lead states to reduce state and local taxes, or adopt their own flat tax reforms. The Perry plan erodes states’ competitive advantages by making state and local taxes deductible in his optional flat tax plan.
Who Benefits from Elimination of Capital Gains Tax? Everyone Depends whether capital gains is long term or short term. Perry’s plan eliminates cap gains only for long term. The Gingrich plan maximizes the capital investment and job creation that will accompany the elimination of this tax. The Perry plan only goes halfway, and by levying up to 35% tax on short-term capital gains, it will discourage investment, venture capital, and new jobs creation.
Corporate Income Tax 12.5% 20% The Gingrich plan will create a boom of new American entrepreneurship by dramatically cutting the corporate tax rate to one of the lowest in the developed world. The Perry plan relies upon a short term “tax holiday,” then only drops the corporate tax rate to 20% — only average in the developed world, and still over 20% higher than our closest economic competitor Canada, which has a rate of only 16.5%. Gingrich rate makes U.S. more competitive than Canada.
Payroll Taxes Eventually replace payroll tax with personal accounts, financing better results No change in existing payroll tax Gingrich supports personal savings investment and insurance accounts that would eventually be expanded to finance all of the benefits now financed by the payroll tax, allowing that tax ultimately to be phased out altogether.
Family Deductions Under Flat Tax Plan $12,000 personal deduction for every individual. Both the EITC and the Child Tax Credit are preserved in Gingrich’s optional flat tax system. $12,500 personal deduction for every individual. No information provided. Preserving the EITC and Child Tax Credit are critical to ensure that the optional flat tax system does not unfairly target low-income Americans. Gingrich passed the first child tax credit as Speaker in 1997, and will preserve this credit and the EITC under his optional flat tax system.
Record in Achieving Dramatic Jobs and Economic Recovery at the National Level? Yes. Substantial. See record at right. None. Speaker Gingrich’s Record (1995-1999):• Eleven Million New Jobs
• Four Straight Balanced Budgets for the First Time Since the 1920s.
• Unemployment rate of 4.2%.
• Federal Spending Held to the Slowest Growth Rate Since the Early 1950s (avg. of 2.9% a year).
• Venture capital investments grew 500% in three years and manufacturing sector grew to 17.43 million jobs.
• Bipartisan Welfare Reform that Lifted Millions from Poverty.
• Over $400 Billion of National Debt Paid Down
Gingrich Romney Verdict: Gingrich Plan Better
Personal Income Tax Choice of current system or 15% flat tax with personal, homeowner, and charitable deductions Maintain current tax rates The Gingrich plan gives Americans a choice to continue to file under the existing system, or to eliminate compliance costs and hours of paperwork by filing with a flat rate of 15%. The Romney plan hopes to make taxes “flatter” in the future, but offers no immediate choice and no immediate relief.
Capital Gains Tax for Individuals Eliminate tax completely Depends how much money the taxpayer makes. Romney’s plan eliminates capital gains taxes for those making less than $200,000/year, but maintains the current system, with rates of up to 35%, for the rest. The Gingrich plan maximizes the capital investment and job creation that will accompany the elimination of this tax, and acknowledges that a tax reform is only fair if all Americans receive relief. The Romney plan determines that some Americans should pay no taxes on a particular investment, while other Americans should pay taxes of up to 35% on the same investment.
Capital Gains Tax for Corporations Eliminate tax completely Maintain current system The Gingrich plan is modeled on the success of the 1997 capital gains cut, which spurred job creation and a 500% increase in venture capital in just 3 years. The Romney plan maintains the corporate capital gains tax, an unequivocal burden on American job-creators who need to be freed to grow, prosper, and compete in a 21st century global economy.
Corporate Income Tax 12.5% 25% The Gingrich plan will create a boom of new American entrepreneurship by dramatically cutting the corporate tax rate to one of the lowest in the developed world. The Romney plan will still be average-to-high compared to the rest of the developed world, and still over 50% higher than our closest economic competitor Canada, which has a rate of only 16.5%. Gingrich rate makes U.S. more competitive than Canada.
Payroll Tax Eventually replace payroll tax with personal accounts, financing better results No information Gingrich supports personal savings investment and insurance accounts that would eventually be expanded to finance all of the benefits now financed by the payroll tax, allowing that tax ultimately to be phased out altogether.
Medicare reform Choice between the traditional system or opportunity to purchase private insurance with premium support No information Under the Gingrich Plan, any American who wants to enjoy the existing Medicare system will be able to do so. Americans can also opt to transition to a more personalized system in the private sector with greater options for better care, where they would receive premium support to purchase private insurance.

http://www.newt.org/news/lets-bump-plans-comparison-gingrich-and-romneys-tax-plans

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 0: 50 Year American Tax Revolution: When The Impossible Became The Inevitable–Flat Tax or FairTax–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 1: Newt Gingrich’s Optional 15% Flat Tax Plus 15.3% Social SecurityTax–More Taxes Than Cain’s-9-9-9 (27%) Tax Plan But Less Than Perry’s Optional 20% Flat Tax Plus 15.3% Social SecurityTax–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment: 2: Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan: 9% Business Income Flat Tax, 9% Personal Income Flat Tax, 9% National Retail Consumption Tax–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 3: Perry proposes optional flat 20 percent income tax and cap on government spending–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 4: A Ron Paul tax reform plan: no income taxes or IRS — FairTax Less!–”When The Impossible Became The Inevitable”–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

« Previous Entries

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...