YES or NO ????..... How about "YOU STAY OUT OF IT !!!!

My momma once said....
There are two things you shouldn't discuss in public.....RELIGION and POLITICS !!!
Well......Guess I'm violating both in a certain way....
But not really....since I want YOU to make up your own mind !!....as should be done on the issue involved here:
Here's the Original Amendment (Marriage Protection Act):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Marriage_Protection_Amendment

Amendment 1 is on the November 4, 2014 ballot in the state of Tennessee as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure, upon voter approval, would add language to the Tennessee Constitution empowering the legislature to enact, amend or repeal state statutes regarding abortion, including for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to protect the mother's life.
However:

Amendment 1 is not about being pro-life or pro-choice—it’s about defending our right to make private decisions free from government interference.

“

Amendment 1 is carefully worded in order to deliberately confuse voters about the real intention and motives of those behind the amendment. The people and organizations supporting Amendment 1 have clearly said that they believe all abortion should be illegal, no matter what. When many people read the Amendment, they believe that there will be guaranteed exceptions for women who are victims of rape or incest, or when a woman’s health is in danger.In simple terms, Amendment 1 says two things: There is absolutely no right to abortion, and Politicians can pass laws for exceptions in case of rape or incest, or when a woman’s life is in danger, if they choose to. There is no requirement that they do so. There is not even an exception for extreme cases like when a pregnant women needs treatment for cancer.

”

“

What it does— ....the bill is written very deceptively. And the bill effectively turns over all rights to the state legislature. If you look at that bill and look at what it says, it says exactly that. And the way it’s written is very hard to ascertain what it’s about. It’s not only about the abortion… there’s a real distinct difference between the right to birth and the right to life. So we are opposed to that bill in every way. And the reason for that is just simply, we trust people to have good judgments for themselves and we do not think that the state legislature should be the one making those decisions. They’re very personal and they’re very private. And we respect people to have their own judgments. Now we don’t necessarily agree with them—but we respect them, and we do not think that we should turn that over to the government.

”

So here's the current dispute:

 Tennessee Legislative Powers Regarding Abortion, Amendment 1 (2014)

http://ballotpedia.org/Tennessee_Legislative_Powers_Regarding_Abortion,_Amendment_1_(2014)

PLEASE READ BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION....

Here is the difference...
It's not about believing in something different than others, it's about ruthlessly trying to impose your beliefs on others that morally and/or religiously disagree with you.

Even if we don’t agree on abortion, we can all agree that government has no place in our private medical decisions.
Whether it’s to protect exceptions in tragic situations, stop government interference, or protect our privacy rights and freedom, we all have a reason to vote “No” on Amendment 1.

“

We should turn our hearts and our resources to empowering young people with the education and tools necessary to experience the sacred gift of sexuality with health and wholeness. We should value the rights of women and families to follow their conscience when making important decisions about reproductive health care with health-care professionals. We should work to ensure greater dignity and equity for all Tennesseans. The ballot initiative in November rejects a compassionate and just approach to abortion care and reproductive health. That is why I’ll be voting no on the initiative.

”



The "LIBERTARIAN VIEW"- Has it become a ONE-WAY STREET ???

LIVE AND LET LIVE ???....The Libertarian viewpoint may be valid.....but NOT IN REVERSE???

Why must certain Conservatives ..... those opposing "alternative lifestyles" be punished for their beliefs ???
Why is there is a difference between tolerating one set of views....and not those of another set of views ??
Why must one be punished if he or she expresses their dislike of "alternativism"???
Because it is not "politically correct" ???
Who determines what IS politically correct !??

Well, consider the following recent case:

Homosexual Activists Force Top CEO Out Of His Job

"Homosexual activists demand everyone to approve of their agenda, threatening boycotts and protests against anyone refusing to fall in line. They mount campaigns against fast food chains, annual parades, and any other entity they feel does not sufficiently kowtow to their whims."

"The painfully hypocritical aspect of the entire movement, however, is their demand for tolerance and acceptance. While social conservatives are expected to show the utmost deference, they receive absolutely no corresponding respect.
As Mozilla proved, some companies would rather sacrifice a qualified leader than upset these radical activists."

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/leftist-boycott-forces-ceos-ouster/#704u2O1dCFvJRsyC.99

IGNORANCE.....The preferred choice of our INFORMATION AGE ?????

      UNFORTUNATELY....It's a choice many make !

BUT IT SHOULD BE LIMITED..... when "ignorance" results in endangering the public!!!  Driving on public highways;  carrying weapons in public;  voting in responsible elections, etc.

It's just too bad we don't have fair & responsible legislators to make those restrictions properly!

There are so many of the issues of our day....where people choose their "sides" because of the FEAR that government legislators will abuse or "unfairly" adopt applicable laws. ( the "Fear" that "gun restrictions" will prevent responsible citizens from exercising their "Constitutional right" by a government out to "de-arm" the population is the most common one.....but there are many other examples).
 This DISTRUST is certainly earned & entitled due to the historical evidence of such "legislative mis-management" !!  Corruption primarily centered around the Special Interest Groups of powerful corporations who control both dominant political parties so that the "Duopoly" fails to be a legitimate mechanism to operate our political system.

Finding a way to ensure FAIR REPRESENTATION will be the heart of any SOLUTION !!!  That must certainly happen through some kind of  ELECTORAL REFORM !!    There are a number of efforts headed in this direction which deserve everyone's attention.

State adoption of APPROVAL VOTING METHODS ....as well as submission of COS (Convention of States) applications to review any needed amendments (Move to Amend) to the Constitution are TWO of the leading movements already going on!

Join in and "LIKE" my political facebook page to voice your thoughts and constructive ideas.

WHAT WILL IT TAKE .....TO MAKE IT BETTER ???

A POLITICAL & ELECTORAL OVERHAUL......THAT'S WHAT !!!


                          

Watch the movie trailer "Broken System" 

YOU can  also help NOW...TODAY!!
Watch Video NOW

The right to cast a free and secret ballot is the foundation of American democracy.
Yet it has become all too clear that our voting system remains deeply flawed.

This page is used to help coordinate and promote the understanding & education of the three most prominent available real solutions to reforming our current political system.
(We welcome CONSTRUCTIVE comments and discussion, however any misuse of this principle will be immediately deleted.)

It identifies the 3 main areas as:

1. VOTING SYSTEM REFORM (Approval Voting) as opposed to the current Plurality method of voting.

2. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM (Move to Amend) which eliminates "Corporate Personhood" and rejects the concept that "Money is Free Speech"

3. TAX REFORM and the elimination of the IRS (via passage of the Fair Tax):

The House Ways and Means Committee posted a video below showing they understand the problems with our tax code. Now what we need to do is to demand that they solve the problem by passing the Fair Tax HR 25.
The American People deserve a solution that serves the American people -- not the special interests or members of Congress!!
Members of the House Ways and Means Committee can be found at:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/about/members.htm
You can find contact information for your Congressman and House Ways and Means committee at:
http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
Please let your Congressmen, House and Senate, know you want them to pass the Fair Tax HR 25 & S 122!

"Faced with not only the utter failure of the electoral process, the new libertarianism also recognizes the failure of politics too.
 As a result, they are taking the task of liberty into their own hands, forging new enterprises and innovating new strategies to build a new liberty outside official approval -- using the disruptive tools of entrepreneurship to cobble together new and innovative forms of exchange and social association. " 

One of these such tools is currently underway with the COS (Convention of States) Project:

Many of the solutions discussed in this presentation will hopefully be dealt with in an Article V Convention being promoted by this project

We also feel that EDUCATION OF THE VOTER is paramount and should be encouraged whenever and wherever possible. This is an important goal...  however, we realize that this will take a longer time in accomplishing.....just as any improvement in our overall civic morality will also take time!
                                                 

The following is a more detailed outline of our platform:

THE SOLUTIONS:

1. Adopt APPROVAL VOTING via each State Legislature, followed by adoption nationally for all Federal Elections.
This is currently being done.... individually, State-by-State:  i.e.: The Oregon Approval Voting primary has switched up its branding and immediately gets to it by referring to itself as: Fair and Unified Elections Initiative - Oregon 2014
The solution really is THAT EASY!!   It’s not that there aren’t other issues with the way we vote. There are. But we find this to be the most impacting. And so you’ll find that we focus heavily on this topic.

 Approval Voting is a voting method that allows voters to vote for any number of candidates. The candidate with the most votes wins.  Approval Voting is most often discussed in the context of single-winner elections, but variations can also be applied to multi-winner “at large” elections.
In the debate surrounding what electoral mechanisms will make for a more representative democracy, numerous systems have been proposed. The different permutations and names for preferential voting systems:  Ranked choice voting, instant-runoff, open-list voting, and range voting are all ‘approval’ voting systems. Some have been employed throughout the United States in various forms, each with its own pros and cons.  Notably, ranked choice voting is in use in governmental elections worldwide, range-based systems are not. Find out more on range voting here.

In summary, Approval Voting allows voters to choose all the candidates of which they ‘approve.’ In theory, the phenomenon of ‘spoiler’ candidates or vote splitting can be averted. Such is proposed by the Center for Election Science.
(Adoption of ANY winning threshold requirement and/or procedures for Following Runoff Elections can be determined later as needed by each State or District, and Nationally in the case of Federal elections). 

2. Open Ballot Access for ALL qualified Candidates irregardless of party affiliations.

Different courts have always reached different conclusions regarding what sort of restrictions there should be; often in terms of ballot access, public debate inclusion, filing fees, and residency requirements, which are randomly imposed.  This is discriminatory at best.

3. Restrict Campaign Financing and eliminate Corporate "personhood/financing".
We, the People of the United States of America, should and do reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling concerning Citizens United and other related cases; and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.


4. Eliminate the Electoral College.   It is antiquated and no longer serves its intended purpose.

 Critics argue that the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives swing states disproportionate influence in electing the President and Vice President. The Electoral College gives a numeric advantage in the election of the president to the smaller states, as the minimum number of electors for the small states is three compared to one for the election of representatives. On the other hand, the winner-take-all method of voting favors the larger states. A number of constitutional amendments have been proposed seeking to alter the Electoral College or replace it with a direct popular vote.

 A result of the present non- functionality of the Electoral College is that the national popular vote bears no legal or factual significance on determining the outcome of the election. Since the national popular vote is apparently irrelevant, both voters and candidates are assumed to base their campaign strategies around the existence of the Electoral College; any close race has candidates campaigning to maximize electoral votes by capturing coveted swing states, not to maximize national popular vote totals.

5. Adopt improved Voter Qualification requirements. The "right to vote" is NOT explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in certain amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood (in layman's terms) as ONLY prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage.  States may and do deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.

a. Identification & Verification....Voter Identification and verification MUST be properly performed. Currently, many methods are subject to errors, systematic failures as well as fraud.

This must be corrected.

b. Citizenship authentication. Eligibility to vote in the U.S. is determined by both federal and state law. Currently, only citizens can vote in U.S. federal elections. Who is (or who can become) a citizen is governed on a national basis by federal law. In the absence of a federal law or constitutional amendment, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own jurisdiction.

c. Knowledge/Information testing. The description of a class of people known as "low information voters" became a popularized term among conservatives following the 2008 election of Barack Obama. The oft-talked about low-information voters are those people who have little interest or understanding of political affairs, rarely watch the news, and can't name major political figures or national events yet vote anyway on this limited knowledge basis.
It is easy to blame ignorance on stupidity or on the media. But basic information about most political issues is readily available in the media and online. The problem is that most people don’t take the time and effort to do so. That is not because they are stupid, but because there is so little incentive to acquire political information. Since most are convinced that the probability of one vote actually making a difference in the outcome of an election is infinitesimally small.....most people, whose only reason to acquire political information, is to make a better decision at the polls.....tend to remain minimal at best.
There is no easy solution to the problem of political ignorance. Providing more information is unlikely to work, since most people fail to assimilate the information that is already available.

So what's the answer??

Well....if you can license a car driver or issue a permit to carry a gun.... why is the same logic not applied to voting?  For something that is as fundamental to life as the one who passes legislation to affect your well being, ....and to choose who represents you in government .... Why would you want the ill-educated, easily manipulated and misinformed to vote on such matters ???
The logic behind the current voting system is much more dangerous than a gunman or a drunk driver behind the wheel.  Voting effects your life and the country around you in every way possible.  It can not be indiscriminately given or allowed to be abused by the less responsible people in our society.

Should voting be restricted to people with at least a basic knowledge of their government or current affairs???

Could YOU pass a U.S. Citizenship Test??

If you were not born in the United States, the process of becoming a U.S. Citizen is called naturalization.  U.S. immigration law has certain requirements for becoming a citizenship, including: you must be at least 18 years old; you must be a permanent resident for at least 3 years; you need to be able to read, write and speak basic English; and you must have a basic knowledge of how the U.S. government works. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) administers a Citizenship Civics test to determine whether you have a sufficient knowledge of the United States government. This would be a good place to start considering a basic testing requirement prior to voting.

6. Adopt standard Voting System usage.

a. A Public Network Electronic DRE system with memory component and printable backup. (A public network DRE voting system is an election system that uses electronic ballots and transmits vote data from the polling place to another location over a public network. Vote data may be transmitted as individual ballots as they are cast, periodically as batches of ballots throughout the election day, or as one batch at the close of voting.)

7. Adopt standard Vote Counting procedures with acceptable Cryptographic verification. (individual/universal/eligibility)
a. The concept of election verifiability through cryptographic solutions has emerged in the academic literature to introduce transparency and trust in electronic voting systems. It allows voters and election observers to verify that votes have been recorded, tallied and declared correctly, in a manner independent from the hardware and software running the election. Three aspects of verifiability are considered: individual, universal, and eligibility. Individual verifiability allows a voter to check that her own vote is included in the election outcome, universal verifiability allows voters or election observers to check that the election outcome corresponds to the votes cast, and eligibility verifiability allows voters and observers to check that each vote in the election outcome was cast by a uniquely registered voter.

For more detail, one should refer to:
 the Move To Amend : https://movetoamend.org/....
and Fair Tax Links : http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_basics_main

THE NANNY STATE: BRAIN ??? or HEART ???

MY WAY....or the "Highway" ???

Whose job is it to "legislate" social viewpoints ???

Is the "government" responsible for your sense of "morality"??? 

The "Nanny State" thinks they do a better job than "you" do....!! 

Conservative or Liberal?? Does Libertarianism mean Anarchy or Freedom??

Responsible parenting has changed over the years.....Where are we headed?? 

Is this a "Conservative" or "old-fashioned" outlook???   Perhaps, but......I also remember this:

Today.....it is OK to "just be yourself".....no need to conform to the "norms" once expected in civil society.
Technology has been good to us in most respects (available information, learning & such) but blatantly terrible in other respects (laziness & preoccupation with such technology, etc.)

Yes, the style of "parenting" has changed.   Every parent wants what's best for their child.....however, NOW it has become a necessity for the parent to PROVIDE IT rather than for the child to be taught how to EARN IT!!!

"In an era of scepticism and division, standing on rigid principle can be a blunder, it turns out: a tool for firing up partisans, useless for swaying voters in the middle. Though injustice still exists, today’s voters want to be wooed, not hectored."

Economist.com/blogs/lexington

NEVERTHELESS....It is sometimes difficult to remember that one should not decide right or wrong by trying to figure out how "YOU" feel about things.......IT IS REALLY ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD LET OTHERS DECIDE THINGS FOR THEMSELVES.
THAT.....is Libertarianism !!! I personally am a Conservative on most everything, but I believe others have the right to decide things for themselves....NOT BY GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION (the NANNY STATE)! Individual freedom and WITH A SENSE OF RESPONSIBILTY including that of providing the same lesson to your child if you are a parent!!

MONEY...MONEY....MONEY

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY !!!!  
WHAT'S THE SOLUTION???

Pick your choice....WE NEED ONE NOW !!!

Courtesy of Dan Marks:

The current list of amendments that address#CitizensUnited for consideration:

#Sanders / Deutch #Democracy Is For #People#Amendment

SECTION I. Whereas the right to vote in public elections belongs only to natural persons as citizens of the#UnitedStates, so shall the ability to make contributions and expenditures to influence the outcomes of public #elections belong only to natural persons in accordance with this Article.

SECTION II. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to restrict the power of Congress and the States to protect the integrity and fairness of the electoral process, limit the #corrupting #influence of private wealth in public elections, and guarantee the dependence of elected officials on the people alone by taking actions which may include the establishment of systems of public financing for elections, the imposition of requirements to ensure the disclosure of contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of a public election by candidates, individuals, and associations of individuals, and the imposition of content neutral limitations on all such contributions and #expenditures.

SECTION III. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to alter the freedom of the press.

SECTION IV. #Congress and the States shall have the power to enforce this Article through appropriate legislation.

------------------- OR ---------------------

Constitutional Amendment for the Public Financing of Federal Elections

Section 1. All elections for President and members of the United States #HouseofRepresentatives and the United States #Senate shall be publicly financed. No political contributions shall be permitted to any federal candidate, from any other source, including the candidate. No political expenditures shall be permitted in support of any federal candidate, or in opposition to any federal candidate, from any other source, including the candidate. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the #press

Section 2. The Congress shall, by statute, provide limitations on the amounts and timing of the expenditures of such public funds and provide criminal penalties for any violation of this section

Section 3. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

Section 4. This article shall be inoperative unless it is#ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution

------------------- OR ---------------------

#GetMoneyOut of Politics
No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office.

------------------- OR ---------------------

#WolfPAC Amendment
Amendment Proposal Corporations are not people. They have none of the #Constitutional rights of human beings. #Corporations are not allowed to give money to any #politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed.

------------------- OR ---------------------

#Rootstrikers
"No non-citizen shall contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office. United States citizens shall be free to contribute no more than the equivalent of $100 to any federal candidate during any election cycle. Notwithstanding the limits construed to be part of the First Amendment, Congress shall have the power to limit, but not ban, independent political expenditures, so long as such limits are content and viewpoint neutral. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

------------------- OR ---------------------

Human Rights Amendment
Section 1

In all instances wherein the words “person,” persons,” and “people” appear in this constitution, such words shall be construed to define living human beings only.

Section 2

“Money” is defined only as legal tender for the purpose of settling all debts, public and private. Congress shall make no law recognizing the free flow of money as an expression of speech of any kind, or as an expression of any of the rights enumerated in this constitution.

Section 3

Congress shall have power to enforce this article and to regulate federal elections by appropriate legislation.

------------------- OR ---------------------

The #Disclose Act
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections.

------------------- OR ---------------------

#Udall Amendment
SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on ‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and ‘‘(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

‘‘SECTION 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on—‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and ‘‘(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates. ‘‘

SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’

George Will's Libertarian Evolution: Q&A on Obama, Syria, & the Power of...

I have always felt that George Will is one of the brightest, most articulate thinker in today's society.....and now clearly talks about his Libertarian Evolution.

His evolvement has been very similar to my own, and I, therefore, find the need to recommend this interview. It is approx 1 hour, but you can pick the parts that interest you the most. Well worth listening to!!

THE SILENT REVOLUTION HAS BEGUN !!!!!

"Ironically, our political process now serves to amplify rather than temper the extremes."

This, of course, is the exact opposite of what the framers of the Constitution sought to accomplish.

.......Chad Peace

MILLIONS OF VOTERS LEAVING POLITICAL PARTIES....THE SILENT REVOLUTION !!!!

"This is because the two parties, acting often in concert, have acted throughout the Century to subvert external political competition.  Party Central Committees, partisan special interests, and courts overseen by party-appointed judges have steadily reframed election law in such a way that the failure to affiliate with one of the two institutionalized political parties subverts an individual’s ability to have meaningful participation in the political process.

...Even the mainstream media have reorganized around the duopoly and accepted the notion that a virtual pre-

requisite for full voter participation is party affiliation.


Naturally, as the two parties have become more and more secure in their institutionalized status they have also become less responsive to calls for change.

I am not suggesting that political parties should not and do not serve an important roll in organizing, promoting, unifying political sentiment. Rather, my position is that control over the electoral process should derive from the wills of individual voters, not party central committees.

In other words, I am suggesting that parties should be able to influence outcomes through advocacy rather than manipulation.

HERE ARE THE ELECTORAL REFORMS WE ARE SEEKING.......

OPEN BALLOT ACCESS....NON-PARTISAN PRIMARIES...APPROVAL VOTING

THE FAIR TAX.....IT'S TIME TO "TAKE ACTION"

THE FAIR TAX.....

It's time for U.S. taxpayers to take action – Source Newspapers

Called the "Fair Tax," this proposed replacement for the income tax would only tax consumption and spending, while encouraging earning and saving. It certainly bears closer examination as our national economy accumulates debt and continues to lose jobs to foreign competitors.

We simply cannot continue on the path we are on; we must make major reforms of our tax structure. We put our representatives in office to act on our behalf, for our well-being. But they've become beholden to the special interests, and now it is time for us to take corrective action. It is not just our right, it is our responsibility to act. It is a simple task, just send an email or letter, or pick up the phone and call your congressperson and U.S. senators, and tell them that you want them to support major tax-reform now. The FairTax bill, H.B.-25 in the House and S-122, will begin the process of repealing the 16th Amendment and abolishing the IRS.
- Brian Pannebecker

 and then let's look at the "prebate" sent to everyone

The FairTax has been called the most thoroughly researched tax reform plan in recent history. This section offers a quick introduction to the FairTax and tax reform.

Scholarly Research Tells Us That . . .

• The FairTax rate of 23 percent on a total taxable consumption base of $11.244 trillion will generate $2.586 trillion dollars $358 billion more than the taxes it replaces. [1]
• The FairTax has the broadest base and the lowest rate of any single-rate tax reform plan. [2]
• Real wages are 10.3 percent, 9.5 percent, and 9.2 percent higher in years 1, 10, and 25, respectively than would otherwise be the case. [3]
• Disposable personal income is higher than if the current tax system remains in place: 1.7 percent in year 1, 8.7 percent in year 5, and 11.8 percent in year 10. [4]
• The economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be. [4]
• Consumption increases by 2.4 percent more in the first year, which grows to 11.7 percent more by the tenth year than it would be if the current system were to remain in place. [4]
• The increase in consumption is fueled by the 1.7 percent increase in disposable (after-tax) personal income that accompanies the rise in incomes from capital and labor once the FairTax is enacted. [4]
• By the 10th year, consumption increases by 11.7 percent over what it would be if the current tax system remained in place, and disposable income is up by 11.8 percent. [4]
• Over time, the FairTax benefits all income groups. Of 42 household types (classified by income, marital status, age), all have lower average remaining lifetime tax rates under the FairTax than they would experience under the current tax system. [5]
• Implementing the FairTax at a 23 percent rate gives the poorest members of the generation born in 1990 a 13.5 percent improvement in economic well-being; their middle class and rich contemporaries experience a 5 percent and 2 percent improvement, respectively. [6]
• Based on standard measures of tax burden, the FairTax is more progressive than the individual income tax, payroll tax, and the corporate income tax. [7]
• Charitable giving increases by $2.1 billion (about 1 percent) in the first year over what it would be if the current system remained in place, by 2.4 percent in year 10, and by 5 percent in year 20. [8]
• On average, states could cut their sales tax rates by more than half, or 3.2 percentage points from 5.4 to 2.2 percent, if they conformed their state sales tax bases to the FairTax base. [9]
• The FairTax provides the equivalent of a supercharged mortgage interest deduction, reducing the true cost of buying a home by 19 percent. [10]YES! The FairTax doesn't require an out of control government agency used as a political weapon. The ‪#‎IRS‬ is defunded and disbanded while states enforce the ‪#‎FairTax‬ legislation. Sound good?
  
  "Power, money and influence. No one wants to kill the IRS Golden Goose."

"While the income tax exists, the powerful will use IRS to stay in power. (See "The Political Economy of the IRS," and Schweizer's Extortion to understand IRS power.) Neither the IRS nor the income tax can be 'fixed' since an oversight board appointed by the president would be foxes protecting chickens.
As long as Congress can tax income, it will do so with increasing vengeance knowing most Americans have neither the knowledge of their personal tax burden nor adequate information about FairTaxHR25. FairTaxHR25 allows you to see exactly how much taxes you pay. Call Camp 202-225-3561. Demand support for FairTaxHR25."....................Bev Martin

Remember to watch the great video posted on my Blog wall.....it's a good one and well worth your time!!!

"HERE'S MY SOLUTIONS ON IT": COULD APPROVAL VOTING PREVENT ANOTHER ELECTORAL DI...

"HERE'S MY SOLUTIONS ON IT": COULD APPROVAL VOTING PREVENT ANOTHER ELECTORAL DI...: Do we vote fairly??? Is it a democratic process??? NO !!!!!! Here's WHY ............. Approval Voting isn't sexy, or controversi...

COULD APPROVAL VOTING PREVENT ANOTHER ELECTORAL DISASTER ???

Do we vote fairly??? Is it a democratic process??? NO !!!!!!

Here's WHY .............

Approval Voting isn't sexy, or controversial, but it's time the world learned about approval voting.





Here is a scenario:
There are 15 people at a party, but there is nothing to drink. A vote is taken to decide which beverage should be served.

The options are: Milk, Beer, Wine

6 people vote for Milk
5 people vote for Beer
4 people vote for Wine

Then it's settled, Milk will be served at the party! However, the majority of party goers do not want milk. So another vote is taken, but this time people are asked to vote for all of the choices they find acceptable.

6 people vote Milk

5 people vote Beer
4 people vote Wine and Beer

Beer is now the clear winner, but how did this happen? It happened by allowing people to more accurately express their opinion. This is why approval voting is a superior voting method compared to plurality voting.

So .....COULD APPROVAL VOTING PREVENT ANOTHER ELECTORAL DISASTER ???

You betcha !!!     Listen to this:  Steven Brams, professor of political science at NYU talks about the merits of approval voting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZiS3U7EG0M