Fair Tax Simple, Easy Way to Solve Tax Problems

By: Matt Sunderlin

It seems these days that healthcare reform is the issue everyone is talking about. Sure, we’re fighting two wars (well, a war-and-a-half), we’re clawing our way out of an economic recession, and the national debt continues to spiral out of control, but apparently the top priority is somehow convincing Uncle Sam to pay for Grandpa’s hip replacement. Fine and dandy.

The fundamental question, though, is: where does that money come from? Before you storm off, remember that this is not an article on healthcare reform. Powers know we’ve seen enough of those already. No, the purpose of this article is to discuss something underlying every other major national issue today: tax reform. Healthcare is merely the trillion-dollar icing on the cake.

The primary purpose of taxation is to provide revenue for government. The U.S. tax system fares poorly here—by its own admission, the IRS is able to collect only about 85 percent of taxes owed, leading to shortfalls in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Additionally, since tax liability is based on income, any income that comes from sources difficult to document, such as cash-only businesses, is effectively untaxed; such enterprises total about $1.5 trillion per year, meaning additional hundreds of billions in lost revenue.

The U.S. tax code is even a burden on economic growth. While many large corporations can limit their taxable income by moving offshore—taking jobs with them in the process—and investing in foreign tax shelters, small and medium businesses cannot afford to do so. For every $100 paid in taxes, small businesses pay over $724 in tax code-compliance costs. This is a total of $500 billion wasted every year, a number which grows at the rate of eight percent annually. And due to punishing corporate tax rates of nearly 40 percent, starting a new business on US soil is all but discouraged.

These numbers are not encouraging. Most troublesome of all, however, are the projections from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, which state that if current trends continue, federal revenues by 2040 will be insufficient to cover the interest on the national debt, much less pay for anything else. (This report was issued before the current healthcare bill was proposed; doubtless, trillions more in Federal expenditures will only accelerate the crisis.) Clearly, it is important to find a solution, and it is probably not too difficult to determine that doubling the income tax is a bad idea.

Enter a bill known as “FairTax.” First proposed by Congressman John Linder (R-GA) in 1999, FairTax would replace all federal income taxes with a national sales tax, levied on purchase of consumer goods and services, without exception. To counter the inevitable objection that this would unfairly increase the cost-of-living for those least able to pay, the FairTax bill provides for a monthly payment to households to preemptively refund all subsistence spending up to the poverty level.

Revenue generation is greatly enhanced under FairTax. Because tax is assessed as a percentage of spending, not income, it’s much more difficult to avoid the system or avoid tax liability once inside it. Avoiding a sales tax on items you purchase every day is much more difficult than simply lying about the size of your income and hoping the IRS is too overworked to find you. And because everyone eventually buys goods and services, even the $1.5 trillion cash-only economy will be taxed—hot dog stands are hardly self-sufficient, after all.

The elimination of corporate taxes, which are mostly passed on to consumers via higher prices anyway, is the true genius of FairTax. The lack of corporate taxes provides a powerful incentive for U.S. companies to come back from overseas and for foreign companies to follow them—along with their attendant jobs and investment capital. This not only enriches the U.S. economy, but since more and better jobs allow more people to consume more, the tax base is expanded.

The profit motive is what makes the economy run; any system that tries to dampen the profit motive therefore also dampens the economy, and an income tax is no exception. So the next time you hear President Obama, or another of your elected officials, talk about funding healthcare reform or some other expensive new entitlement program by increasing corporate taxes, or through a “tax on the wealthy,” do yourselves a favor and point them at FairTax, instead. After all, the US income tax started as a tax on the top 0.5 percent of earners, and look where it is now.

Corrections Spending out of Control

By: Andrea Bommarito

Here are some numbers to think about. $2.08 billion: This is how much money the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) spends annually. $1.9 billion: This is the portion of those expenditures that come from the general fund. And finally, 538 percent: This is how much corrections spending has increased in the last 34 years. If the MDOC continues spending as they are, it is projected that they will reach over $2.6 billion in spending by 2012. As of right now, Michigan is one of only four states where the state spends more on corrections than higher education.

Many groups and businesses across the state support structural reforms to our state budget to increase savings. One of these groups, the Detroit Regional Chamber, has presented a goal to the state to cut correctional spending by $500 million.

Oakland County Sherriff and Republican gubernatorial candidate, Mike Bouchard, has already introduced a few ways that MDOC can cut spending. He has even facilitated some of these practices in his county jails. At a press conference last month he outlined his actions.

“As Sheriff in Oakland County, I competitively bid for inmate food services in the jail,” Bouchard said. “This stand-alone item saves Oakland County taxpayers $1.6 million every year.”

If this process was facilitated in the 49 prisons statewide, we could save nearly $40 million annually.

Another way that Bouchard and the state of Michigan can cut MDOC spending is by re-introducing the ‘good time’ credit, where inmates can be released earlier by receiving these credits. It was previously used in the state until the late 1970s. To receive these ‘good time’ credits, inmates would have to receive their GED, Associates Degree or any other achievement that would increase the probability that the inmate would be a productive member of society. If 3,000 inmates gained these credits and were released early, the corrections department would save nearly $100 million.

By introducing and facilitating just these two practices in our prison systems, we can save the MDOC and the state almost $140 million annually. Bouchard is largely in favor of instating these programs across the state.

“I suggested to the Granholm/Cherry administration that they do the same with the corrections department as I did with my Oakland County jails,” Bouchard said. “I never even received a no thank you letter.”

With the right leadership and programs we can cut spending and help to return Michigan to its prosperous days.

Public Option won’t Work, will Lead to Single Payer

By: Ameek Sodhi

Congress has adjourned for their August recess. Apparently, they needed a break from all the hard work they’ve been doing. The ticket item when they return will be one that affects each and every American: healthcare reform. It is one- sixth of our economy, and Congress is about to dive right into its deepest problems. But before they get carried away, let’s look at all options to make the most rational and economically sound decision about the American Healthcare System.

I will give Democrats credit for wanting to pass reform in the first place. The system is clearly broken and needs fixing. All the statistics they cite regarding costs being unsustainable in the future are all correct. Good job. Regardless of their recognition of a broken system, nationalizing healthcare will not fix the problem. Let’s start with the cornerstone of any left-wing bill that will emerge from this debate: The Public Option. It will lead to a single payer system, and it won’t work. Let me explain.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, healthcare costs $10 to produce, while $3 for administrative costs. That’s $13 for private insurance healthcare. The Public Option would come on the market and sell healthcare for say, $8 less than it costs to produce the equipment used for the procedures, let alone the doctor’s salary. How could government do such a thing? They would subsidize the $5 hole with tax dollars every year. It’s how France, England, and other countries with Socialized medicine finance their healthcare systems.

President Obama wants to get one-third of the costs to pay for this health care overhaul from taxpayers over the next ten years. It will be a subsidy to this Public Option, and it will drive private insurance out of business. The claim that you can keep your insurance if you like it does not make sense because private insurers can’t sell insurance for $8. They’ll lose money. But what’s so wrong about shutting out private insurance? Can’t government magically run health care for less money?

The CBO report tells a different tale. All the noise from the left about this report baffles me. The nonpartisan CBO’s head was appointed by the most liberal congress in decades, so criticism that the report was unfair or biased does not float very well. God Bless the guy for having the guts to present the report when he was expected to carry through for the liberals who put him in power. The report said, quite frankly, that health care costs will increase, not decrease, under the proposed legislation in Congress. It could not have been clearer. The skyrocketing costs, that we all agree are out of control, will get worse. And because of that, the deficit will increase to the tune of over 200 billion dollars. The Lewin Group along with the CATO Institute have concluded similar findings in their estimates. I find it very, very hard for anyone to defend this plan as it stands now, given the mountain of evidence against it.

None of the proposals given by Congress, thus far at least, address the fundamental problem with our healthcare system: cost.

It’s also worth considering why other countries spend less on healthcare. Other countries spend less because their citizens are waiting in line for an x-ray. People in America survive cancer 15% more than in other advanced countries because they don’t die in line waiting for chemotherapy. And, it’s important to note they eat much healthier than we do. That makes a big difference.

There is a reason people fly from all over the world to Boston, New York and Cincinnati. We have the most advanced care in the world. Let’s not mess with the world class quality we offer. The problem is that costs are much too high. So let’s fix that since it’s the main problem.

The first issue in addressing cost is that we should allow competition of insurers between state lines. As it stands now, someone in one state cannot get health insurance from an insurer in another. Insurance companies in states with higher costs feel no pressure to reduce costs because there is no competition from less expensive insurers across state lines. Let’s change that by allowing competition across states. Those same high cost insurers in certain states will be forced to reduce their prices; otherwise their consumers will simply drop their plans and buy insurance plans from less expensive out-of-state companies. Free market competition will make prices go down and quality go up because these insurers will have work to harder for less cost to keep their customers happy.

We can also do a lot to improve the employer-based structure we have now. We should allow small businesses and individuals to join pools, so that risk is spread out and therefore everyone’s costs will come down. Also, incentive based programs in companies have proven to be very effective. Some companies already pay their employees to get healthier and actually save money on healthcare costs as their employees are less prone to get preventable sicknesses. Remember, a large part of the reason we’re relatively unhealthy compared to other countries is that we eat very unhealthy.

Finally, it makes sense that all of the procedures, outcomes, and records be more transparent electronically. It would make it easier for individuals, businesses and doctors to make the most cost-effective healthcare decisions. The market works best when buyers and sellers have the most up to date and complete information. Healthcare should be no different.

Overall, I think there is a lot we can do to fix the healthcare system in our country. I hope congress looks at its own estimates and at all possible paths before it commits our tax dollars towards this effort.

Where’s the Trust

By: Jacob Bodnar

If you oppose the idea of a government run health care “option” I’d like you to scroll down just a little bit.

That’s right, just flick that finger across the wheel on the mouse and move on in the article, nothing to see here, I only need to speak with the supporters of ObamaCare for a minute.

Okay, ObamaCare supporters, I have a simple question that requires a serious and well thought out answer. You clearly support a government “option” for health care. Most of you probably support the idea of a single payer health care system as well.

If that’s the case I have one question, what makes you trust the government?

Let me elaborate a little. What makes you believe that Obama and the democrats are telling the truth? Why do you buy into the notion that a government option will not end the private health insurance market? What have they done to deserve your trust in them?

Answer honestly, because from where I‘m sitting, there is virtually no one in Washington that I trust. It doesn’t matter what side of the aisle they are on; no one has kept my trust.

When we elect politicians they inherently have our trust. By filling in the bubble next to their name we are giving them our full backing. We assume what they have said during the campaign will come to fruition. Once they are in Washington, they can either maintain that trust or destroy it.

Most have decided to destroy it.

And it’s not as if keeping the public’s trust is difficult. It’s not like solving a Rubik’s Cube. All politicians have to do is follow through on their promises. If they say they are going to do something; do it. If they say they are not going to do something; don’t do it. It’s very simple.

Trust is the cornerstone of our democracy. We elect leaders because we trust they’ll vote how the constituency sees fit. We trust they will read the entire bill and fully comprehend legislation. And we trust that they will represent the people, not special interest.

There was a time when people could trust their elected leaders. However, it is now the norm to make promises with no intention of keeping them. It is an ailment that has no prejudice of political party. Take oil for example. Every president since Carter has promised a lesser dependence on foreign oil, and it still has not decreased; that spans three democrats and three republicans.

This week the organization Tax Payers for Common Sense released their earmark numbers for 2009, and guess what, our elected leaders requested even more earmarks than last year. This is despite Nancy Pelosi saying in 2006, “There has to be transparency. I’d just as soon do away with all (earmarks), but that probably isn’t realistic.”

I will give the democrats credit for forcing senators to put their names on their pork, but it certainly hasn’t done anything.

But it is not just the democrats who have disregarded the trust of the American people; republicans are equally responsible for the disgusting taste our government gives us. After all, it was GOP broken promises that vaulted the democrats into control in 2006.

Under President George W. Bush, Americans’ level of trust and confidence in the executive branch sunk to 42% according to Gallup. The democratically controlled congress was not much better, sitting at 47%.

That same Gallup poll showed that democrats were most likely to distrust the republican controlled executive branch, while republicans were most likely to trust it. It was the reverse for the democratically controlled legislative branch.

Bearing those poll numbers in mind, it is no surprise that republicans are putting health care town hall protesters on a pedestal. They are using them for political advantage. The republicans must realize, the health care protesters are not voicing their frustration about democrats; they are voicing their frustration about government.

We are entering into a ferocious game of party ping-pong that not even Forrest Gump could win. We elected democrats because republicans did not keep their promises. Now we are thinking of electing republicans because democrats are not keeping their promises. I will bet in four years we will once again be considering democrats because, once again, republicans will have not kept their promises.

So, let’s try something new.

Let’s start voting for people, not parties. Ideology will still play a part, but let’s give more credit to individuals who keep their promises and say what they mean, regardless of party affiliation. If that means a lifelong republican voter pulls the lever for a democrat, so be it. I’ll take a trusted public official over a democrat or republican hack any day.

And that is exactly what they are; hacks. They’re the first to point out the broken promises in the opposing party, and the last to admit their own broken promises. Not surprisingly, these hacks have misread the frustration at recent town halls. The outrage displayed is about more than just health care, it’s about trust.

And until we the people start voting for candidates we trust and stop voting for the lesser of two evils, we will be stuck in this nightmare game of party ping-pong for decades.

Free Market Health Care over Government Run

By: Louie Glinzak

The news seems saturated each day with the health care debate, and rightfully so. We continue to hear about the push by Democrats in Washington to get a vote on health care before they leave for recess. We hear about the flaws of the health care bill, the amount that it will hamper small business, and how it will cost the United States an obscene amount of money. Republicans have sounded the alarm on all of these issues, and they’ve done a tremendous job.

But that is all they have done.

Do not get me wrong; I wholeheartedly agree with Republicans that the proposed health care reform is a bad idea. However, when 56% of Americans favor passing a major health care reform bill this year, according to a Gallup poll conducted July 14, , Republicans need to put something on the table. Especially when another Gallup poll conducted on July 21, shows that 50% of Americans disapprove of the way President Obama is handling healthcare policy (44% approve).

However, this doesn’t mean Republicans have to sprint the opposite way of Obama. President Obama’s press conference last night brought up a few good points Republicans should push for. Insurance companies should not be able to drop coverage if a person gets too sick, and Americans need to be able to keep their insurance if they leave or change jobs. Republicans must incorporate these ideas into their plan as well.

It is time for the Republicans to offer a new plan.

The Republican plan should not advocate for any form of healthcare controlled or subsidized by the government. Instead, Republicans should push for a plan that champions the Austrian economic principles that they hold so dear and President Reagan so greatly articulated.

Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal published a column in the Wall Street Journal recently articulating a proposed health care plan; both the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute offered proposed health care plans as well. Republicans need to analyze all of these proposed plans and put something together that will lower health care costs, ensure competition amongst the insurance companies, and prevent a government takeover of health care: things a majority of Americans want to see. As a result, costs will be lowered and health care coverage will be expanded.

A free market approach to health care, one that ensures competition for customers, is necessary.

Some argue this is not possible, too ideological merely because it has never been done, but in reality it is easy to implement. Free market health care can be paralleled to the way car insurance in the United States works. Customers should be able to choose their health care provider based on who can tailor to their individual needs the best and provide the best quality of insurance at the most competitive rates. We should be able to choose how much health coverage we actually want. If you are a healthy person who rarely visits the doctor or hospital, why pay for coverage that would require you to pay premiums that cover medications you never need or visits you never use? However, if unforeseen situations occur, a person should be able to expand their coverage to cover medications and visits they did not need before, bearing in mind this will cost more money.

Just like car insurance companies reward drivers for not being reckless, being in accidents, or receiving traffic violations by decreasing rates, health care insurance companies should reward people for lowering their cholesterol, losing weight if a person is overweight, or maintaining good health.

Health care reform should also include medical lawsuit procedure reform. By reforming medical lawsuits, doctors would be able to continue to give the public the care they are currently receiving and perhaps get more high school graduates to pursue the path of medicine. Other aspects that should be considered are providing vouchers for those who are on Medicaid and Medicare. The voucher will let Medicaid and Medicare recipients choose their health care provider and once again, find one that is best tailored to their individual needs. Vouchers will also further competition between health care insurance providers, drive costs down even more, and save the government money.

A free-market health care approach will save employers enormous amounts of money and will also help the economy. One-third of health care spending, or 6% of the GDP, is waste. This 6% would be saved under a free-market health care approach. Furthermore, the Office of Management and Budget stated that it costs workers $10,000 a year in take-home-pay for their employer sponsored insurance. Free market health care will save the employer and the employee money. And finally, the Office of Management and Budget said eliminating the $10,000 that it costs workers is effectivelya $532 billion tax cut each year. Free-market health care puts more money in peoples’ pockets.

These are just a few points that can be incorporated in a Republican version of health care reform. Much more still needs to be articulated in order for this vision of health care reform to be successful.

Free-market health care saves the government money and employers money, while at the same time putting more money in peoples’ pockets. And in our present economic times, who would not want more disposable income?

Intention Deficit Disorder

By: Jacob Bodnar

Since the passing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the private work force has lost 652,000 jobs in March, 519,000 in April, 322,000 in May, and most recently 467,000 in June. That’s a total of 1,960,000 jobs lost since February.

Common sense tells you employment numbers like that don’t indicate a recovering economy. Add that to the current 9.5% unemployment rate and you would have to be a fool to think the economy is on the rebound.

Well folks, say hello to our leader, Barack Obama, the fool-in-chief of the United States of America.

In a recent interview Obama said the February stimulus plan has “worked as intended.” I guess if massive job loss and rising unemployment were the intentions of the stimulus plan than Washington hit their mark.

Obama backed up his point with the following statement, “It [the recovery plan] has already extended unemployment insurance and health insurance to those who have lost their jobs in this recession. It has delivered $43 billion in tax relief to American working families and business.”

There’s one itty bitty problem with Obama’s statement, this “recovery” act was billed as a jobs saver. During a statement at the signing of the bill Vice President Joe Biden said, “Starting today, our administration will be working day and night to provide more aid for the unemployed, create immediate jobs, building our roads and our bridges, make long-term investments in a smarter energy grid, and so much more.”

I guess they got tired of working “day and night.”

Jobs is a favorite political buzz word in Washington, during the President and Vice President’s remarks at the signing of the stimulus package, they mentioned the word “job” 16 times. Don’t try and tell me the alleged intentions of this bill were anything but jobs. It seems that the White House has come down with a case of intention deficit disorder; they don’t really know what the intention of the bill is or ever was. The signing of the bill and the spending of billions of dollars just created the illusion that Washington was doing something.

The reason Obama veered away from saying creating jobs was the bill’s intention is because no jobs are being created. As stated before, since the signing of the bill, the private workforce has cut 1,960,000 jobs. Furthermore the White House predicted that without the recovery plan unemployment would peak at 9% in quarter one of 2010. Instead unemployment is up to 9.5% at the beginning of quarter two in 2009.

As a matter of fact since February the real unemployment rate has been above the White House projection with and without the stimulus plan. Big mouth Joe Biden said that “everyone guessed wrong” on the unemployment numbers but that shouldn’t stop people from trusting the White House with doling out $787 billion to help stop the bleeding unemployment.

The fact is politicians are incompetent when it comes to spending money. They’ve proven that by racking up $10 trillion in debt. We shouldn’t trust them with correctly predicting unemployment and we sure as hell shouldn’t trust them with spending $787 billion. I wouldn’t trust them with a $25 Visa gift card.

Unfortunately we gave them a $787 billion gift card, and they have already screwed up big time while spending it.

For starters only $73.36 billion of the $787 billion in stimulus cash has been spent. That amounts to a measly 9%. Watch out where you are walking folks, you might get hit in the head by a shovel from one of those “shovel ready projects.” If they were so flippin’ “shovel ready” why haven’t the shovels been digging something up? It’s been five months already.

But if you think all of that stimulus money is going towards filling potholes and resurfacing roads you’d be wrong. Some of that money is going towards signage for the projects. And not signs that say “watch out for shovels at the site of this shovel ready project,” but rather signs that say “Putting Americans to Work. Project Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” The signs even feature the nifty Recovery.gov logo the White House dreamed up. They’re very groovy.

Unfortunately for the taxpayers they are also very expensive. According to ABC News, each sign costs $500 in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, $1,700 in Georgia, $2,000 in Pennsylvania and New York, and $3,000 in New Jersey. The Garden State is especially signage happy; they’ve been allocated $225,000 in stimulus funds, 5% of which have gone to signs.

I wish signs were the end of Washington’s stupid stimulus spending, but alas it is not.

The dormant and virtually worthless website, Recovery.gov, is getting a makeover. But don’t jump out of your seat with excitement just yet, the project isn’t suppose to be completed until around January 2010 (add five months for the inevitable government error and we are looking at May 2010). The real kicker is the cost. It has been reported that the makeover will cost $18 million.

$18 million for a website that displays information about where stimulus money is going, good lord can it tell me my future too? How many kids am I going to have Recovery.gov?

I’m sure I’m not the only one that thinks that $18 million could be better spent. As a matter of fact $18 million could fill a whopping 600,000 pot holes, then we would really need to be dodging shovels.

But for right now put your hard hat down. So long as Washington thinks they can buy their way out of this economic mess we will continue to see unemployment rise. Temporary “shovel ready jobs” are no way to correct an economic downturn. Obama will continue to row against the current and when people begin asking “where are the jobs” he’ll be void of an answer.

Unfortunately there’s no cure for Intention Deficit Disorder.

Five Bailout Myths

By: Ameek Sodhi

Bush’s tax cuts got us in this mess
This is the most widespread myth out there about the global recession. Two things are important to understand. First, this recession was caused by a housing bubble bursting and banks stuck with toxic assets on their balance sheets. The current downturn has nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Second, there seems to be a common demonizing of Bush’s tax cuts just because they are unpopular. To set the record straight, his tax cuts got us out of a recession he inherited from President Clinton. The tax cuts worked quickly and were effective in recovering the economy.
Read more

Tuition on the Rocks

By: Seth Beifel

Middle ground was reached at ASMSU as the Academic Assembly passed a bill recommending a 2% increase cap on tuition for the 2009-2010 school year.

The effort was spearheaded by assembly members Christopher Noffze and Mitchell Rivard. The bill compromised on two tuition perspectives brought up during the March 5 meeting. One side wanted a complete tuition freeze, while the other understood the necessity of increasing tuition and only called for a modest increase.

Rivard, who attempted to pass the tuition freeze bill, said the university needs to remain accountable to students and “tighten the belt.” He also said that the university needs to examine the current budget “line-by-line” to judge the effectiveness of programs. Rivard pointed to cafeterias as an avenue for spending cuts.
Read more

The Success of the Tax Day Tea Parties

By: Louie Glinzak

It is without a doubt that we can say yesterday’s Tax Day Tea Parties did not go unnoticed. Many tea parties were enthusiastically attended including the one that was just down the road from MSU at the Capitol Building in Lansing. Estimation on the number of attendees is over 5,000. Frustration with the Obama Administration, Congress, the poor economy, and bailouts were finally heard.

However, and it is expected especially after the success that the Tax Day Tea Parties had, they are receiving some criticism.

Opponents to the rallies claim that those who partook in the rallies really are represented and the historical context of the Boston Tea Party has no parallels to the Tax Day Tea Parties. In the end, it was one big media stunt.

The truth is that the opponents are truly afraid of the ground the conservative movement is beginning to make and they are trying their best to discredit it.

The Tax Day Tea Party proved it is a force to be reckoned with. Over 19,000 people participated across the state of Michigan. This was not just a message to President Obama, Vice-President Biden, or Speaker Pelosi; this was also a message to Governor Granholm and Michigan Democrats that they have been governing the wrong way for too many years.

Opponents of the Tax Day Tea Parties claim everyone is represented. And by the looks of things they may be right. We all have Congressmen and Senators in Washington DC who represent us, even if they do not align with our political stance, and President Obama was also elected by a majority vote. Since we do have representatives in Washington DC, this surely must mean there is not taxation without representation.

Surely our representatives and our President, who claimed he would listen to the will of the people, really do listen to the people and act upon the desire of their constituents. So when the majority of Americans actually disproved of the bailout, the federal government definitely acted upon our desires, right?

Americans truly are not being represented in the ways they desire. Yes, this does happen occasionally but it is inexcusable for it to happen in the mists of the economic crisis we are currently in when our representatives vote on what may be the most crucial vote of our economic future.

And yes you can tell me that the beauty of our government is that we get the opportunity to vote out any incumbent who we do not agree with, but the fact of the matter is the majority of Americans disproved of the federal bailouts and poll after poll indicated this, yet a majority of our representatives voted in favor of the bill.

Maybe the Tax Day Tea Parties were a media stunt. What’s wrong with that? The movement received a lot of attention, and the objective to such media stunts is to receive a lot of media coverage and get noticed by the public. The fact is that the Tax Day Tea Parties did meet this objective very successfully. So democrats can call it a media stunt all they want, but it was a successful media stunt that our nation has not seen in quite some time.

Wednesday’s Tax Day Tea Parties do have parallels to the Boston Tea Party. Under both events, people were tired of governmental taxation. Today we are tired of being taxed when the economy is on a downswing and we are tired of our government not listening to us in the mists of what may be one of the most important decisions it has made. Furthermore, we have a President who thinks he can bully us and Congress around to the point where they will vote on legislation they have not even read. This is irresponsible government and it must come to an end.

President Obama is not going to have the prominence that he has with the hearts and minds of the American people much longer. People are tired and they are hungry for something to be done, and if the government is not going to do it the people are going to voice their opinion so the government knows what they truly want.

Students Rally for Tuition Cap

A small group of students gathered outside the Hannah Administration Building on Thursday April 16 to pressure the administration to adhere to a tuition cap.

Click here for pictures from the event

VIDEO REPORT (full story in the next edition of The Spartan Review)
Get the Flash Player to see this player.

Next Page »