Make April 15th Just Another Day

The following article is reprinted from 2010. The “change” that was supposed to take place, repealing 16th Amendment, didn’t happen. I am reprinting it and dating it 2012 because the circumstance concerning the way we are taxed has remained the same, like Social Security — all talk and no reform. If Fair Tax is implemented and the 16th Amendment is repealed or changed to read “consumption” instead of “income”, we won’t be having citizens like Mitt Romney cheating on his taxes, paying only 15% income tax while others of his annual income are paying the progressive rate. “Let’s make April 15th just another day and all the paperwork disappear. …

April 15th is around the corner. Many of us have performed the required paperwork or paid someone else to do it. Some, because of various reasons, mostly complications and knowing that they will probably owe more taxes than they paid will be asking for extensions, et cetera. This is the time of year that the income tax system is hated the most – yet citizens do not protest by letter or phone call to their representatives and senators to end the unconstitutional tax system they just grumble and complain amongst themselves, which does nothing. And when those who have been keeping up on what is going on mention that the Fair Tax Act, introduced into Congress by Rep. John Linder at the beginning of the congressional year in 2005,  most remark that it will never happen. My reply to such lunacy is that it is true – if Americans don’t exercise their right to address their representatives and senators – the power of the people. In addition, I wonder why they voted for someone who doesn’t listen to their constituents.
I have written about this more times than I can remember, and it must have some substance because there are bloggers and others who are against it. And I guess, changing the tax system means nothing to citizens who do not move into the next higher tax bracket in their life time, are not self employed or own a business, receive as much as they paid out of their payroll as a refund at the end of the year or more than they paid out of their payroll at the end of the year. In those latter cases, the politicians have them where they want them – on government dole, dependent upon a government that delights in income redistribution.
The state of affairs that the American economy is in hasn’t awakened citizens up concerning government being a major cause of the dilemma. Government elected officials never takes it upon themselves to correct the mistakes or problems caused by their actions because it is easier to blame it on some other entity – oil and gas companies or just “evil” corporations in general. And, yes, government does perform like the George Orwell Animal Farm, at times following the idea behind the following quoted passage from Orwell’s book: novel,

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

After all what national leader and government legislature would choose an individual to be the chief of the nation’s treasury department that didn’t follow the government’s rules on taxation expected of all Americans?
The Sherman Antitrust Act was the first United States Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies and is a counterpart to the antitrust law. Wikipedia entry:

The Act provides: “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal”.[2] The Act also provides: “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ]”[3] The Act put responsibility upon government attorneys and district courts to pursue and investigate trusts, companies and organizations suspected of violating the Act. The Clayton Act (1914) extended the right to sue under the antitrust laws to “any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws.”[4] Under the Clayton Act, private parties may sue in U.S. district court and should they prevail, they may be awarded treble damages and the cost of suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees. [5]

The author of this act was Senator John Sherman, an Ohio Republican and the act was passed in 1890. It has remained on the books despite its unconstitutionality because it delegates legislative powers to the court. Today we call this legislating from the bench. It also provided the courts with de facto power and violates the Fifth Amendment concerning rights of business owners, and those powers have been misused and the courts have made exceptions.
Since 1922, when it was created, the National Football League has been exempt from the articles of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The NFL is allowed to operate its franchise as individual businesses but one large corporate entity and each team gets an equal share of revenue.
Microsoft, a well-known computer entity, was founded in Albuquerque, New Mexico on April 4th, 1975 by Bill Gates and Paul Allen. It became, along with Apple Corporation, the father of the home computer operating system market with the introduction of MS-DOS in the middle 1980s. Almost through its entire history, Microsoft had been accused of being monopolistic and anti-competitive business practices. During the Clinton administration these allegations were brought to federal court under the direction of Janet Reno, US District Attorney, known for her actions against the Waco, Texas community a siege against a religious group, false allegations against Richard Jewel,  lawsuit against tobacco companies, Standoff against the Montana Freeman, and the tragic Gonzalez case and just a general public menace.
The argument turned into a federal case began in California where competitive businesses complained that Microsoft was performing business practices against the antitrust laws, here and abroad. Recently, in January of 2009, Opera Software ASA filed a complaint to the European Commission stating that Microsoft’s inclusion of Internet Explorer with Windows-based personal computers is a violation of European competition laws. This is pretty much what happened to Microsoft in the 1990s in the United States.
Users of Microsoft operating systems in their computers know that they can use an alternate program instead of the packaged one produced by MS called Internet Explorer as their browser – and it has been that way as long as I can remember. Personally, I do not use IE, but instead use the Mozilla produced Firefox browser.
The main cause of complaint by the various business entities is that Microsoft offers free software and upgrades when others are charging for it. Hollywood jointed the anti-Microsoft rally that includes the Apple computer story in a film entitled Pirates of Silicon Valley, about the rise of Apple and Microsoft.
After a long period of court appearances, the Justice Department ordered monitoring the corporation as part of the antitrust suit settlement initiated by the Clinton administration. Many consumers believe that this action where the company was split into two business units has caused Microsoft software development to not be as good as it used to be. Case in point would be the latest OS – Vista that takes the place of XP. The gist of the new OS creation was security. Microsoft, because of its huge worldwide influence, making it one of the largest corporations in the world, has been a target by hackers and anti-corporation-minded individuals. The findings of Civil Action No. 98 – United States of America vs. Microsoft Corporation (officiated by former, scandal-ridden Attorney General of New York, Eliot Spitzer) at US Documents website.
David Henderson wrote back in 1998 quite plainly of the circumstances surrounding the Microsoft legal attack by the Clinton administration and several state and foreign governments:

the reality is that one of antitrust’s major uses has been to penalize successful competitors. Sometimes the suits are brought by federal enforcers of antitrust laws. More often they are brought by bitter losers in the competitive process. According to Georgetown University’s Steven Salop, a top antitrust official in the Carter administration’s Federal Trade Commission, and New York University’s Lawrence J. White, chief economist in the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division under Ronald Reagan, the second most common kind of private antitrust suit is one brought by competitors. And competitors are unlikely to bother suing rivals that keep their output low and prices high. Microsoft is the ultimate competitor, setting the price of its browser, Internet Explorer, at zero. True to historical form, Microsoft’s main competitor in the browser market, Netscape, is upset at such low-price competition and is applauding the Clinton administration’s lawsuit. Netscape’s support of the suit is prima facie evidence that the suit is anti competitive. … the standard economic argument about extending monopolies is inapplicable to Microsoft’s case. Why? Microsoft doesn’t charge anything for Product B, Internet Explorer. Of course, the company benefits from giving it away: Microsoft wants to make it easy for computer manufacturers to install the browser so that PC buyers will use Windows applications instead of software written for Netscape Navigator and will use goods and services sold over the Internet by Microsoft and its partners. Is this monopolistic? No more so than a shopping-mall owner’s providing free parking and then collecting higher rents from retailers that value the increased shopping.So how to account for the fact that Mr. Bork is working for Netscape and egging on the Justice Department? I can’t. It is inconsistent with everything he has stood for. To his credit, Mr. Bork explicitly rejects the government’s reasoning. In the May 22 Wall Street Journal, he wrote: “This is not a case about ‘leveraging’ or ‘tie-ins,’ as it is frequently described, even by government lawyers who understand the case.” So what is the lawsuit about? Mr. Bork says Microsoft is engaged in predatory pricing, giving its browser away to knock Netscape out of the market. But economists have shown that predatory pricing doesn’t typically make sense, because the losses are often larger to the predator than to the prey and because, once the predator raises prices, anyone who has bought the prey’s assets at fire-sale prices becomes a low-cost competitor. …
No one disputes that Microsoft, right now, has a lock on the market for operating systems. But Mr. Gates and company got it the old-fashioned way: they earned it. Microsoft is reaping the rewards of its innovation, and the only way it will be able to maintain its “monopoly” is by constantly innovating and keeping prices low

In 1895, the Supreme Court was in consideration as to whether the income tax statute originally instituted by the Abraham Lincoln administration as a temporary tax to finance the American Civil War. Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861 which instituted an income tax. So many problems occurred with the details of the income tax that it was until the next year after the Tax Act of 1862 was passed that it began to become useful. The income tax of 1862 required those who earned up to $10,000 to pay the government three percent of their income and those who made under $10,000 pay five percent. A $600 standard deduction was included. Eventually it was repealed in 1872 after several amendments.
In the 1890s, the federal government had been taxing imported and exported goods and taxes upon sale of specific products as a means to finance the government. Those in government decided that that system was not taxing enough from the wealthy class and looked for ways to distribute the tax burden. The national graduated income tax was born in 1894, but in 1895 the income tax was found to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. The law levied a tax of 2% on all annual incomes over $4,000. Like the Sherman Act, the income tax as adopted in an atmosphere of class warfare that was also surfacing in European nations and which later spawned the socialist movement inspired by Karl Marx.
Justice Stephen J. Field provided warning in his opinion on the income tax case known as Pollack v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. of 1895:

The present assault upon capital is but the beginning, it will be but a stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war constantly growing in intensity and bitterness.

In the Politically Incorrect Guide to The Constitution by Kevin R. C. Gutzman:
States had regulated economic activity since colonial days in ways that the Court now deemed “unconstitutional”. … In the twentieth century, the Court’s appetite for such power would only grow.
In order to create a permanent income tax, the Constitution of the United States requires the 16th Amendment to be rescinded.
History of the 1900s:

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. This amendment eliminated the need to base federal taxes on state population by stating: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” In October of 1913, the same year the 16th Amendment was ratified, the federal government enacted its first permanent income tax law. Also in 1913, the first Form 1040 was created. Today, the IRS collects more than $1.2 billion in taxes and processes more than 133 million returns annually.

There are two versions of the Fair Tax Act presently languishing in Congress: HR 25 in the House, and S 296 in the US Senate. There is also a private organization that is lobbying on behalf of those who want to end the income tax forever by repealing the 16th Amendment and replacing it with the Fair Tax Act – the Fair Tax organization. On its website, the proposed replacement is explained briefly:

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 probate 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 296) 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.

Of course the last point would encourage any taxpaying American to get rid of the income tax system. The IRS government agency has been given too much power. There will still be an IRS agency, but it will be reduced to nothing more than an accounting office under the Secretary of Treasury and the executive branch of government.
As with other things, there are those who speak out against the Fair Tax Act, FairTax website addresses these as FairTax myths:
The 23% rate is misleading. It’s actually 30%. FairTax publishes a detailed counter against this claim, which includes a graph. Basically, compared to the present system the tax burden would be 23%; however, initially it was drafted to begin at 20% and graduate down until it reached its permanent rate of 15%. Whatever the rate, Congress must ensure that it is a fixed rate that cannot be changed without a two-thirds majority, just the amount required to create, change or nullify an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This would be an important aspect of the final legislation to be passed. Also, the 16th Amendment must be repealed in synchronization with the advent of the Fair Tax Act, so there wouldn’t be two tax systems in place at one time.
It’s not enforceable and evasion will be rampant. Obviously people who state this haven’t read the text nor understand the proposed legislation. Under the present system there are more people trying to cheat the income tax system than there would be in the Fair Tax system. Presently states are using the sales tax system, a consumption tax (and some are also using the income tax system, which should be unconstitutional just in the fact that they are taxing the same money – double taxing. The retail industry becomes the “tax collector” ringing up the tax each time a purchase is made – something that is already occurring. FairTax explains:

More than 80% of all tax returns are eliminated under the FairTax–every individual filing. What remains are retail outlets collecting the FairTax. Of these, 80 percent of all retail sales now occur at large retail chains like Wal-Mart. The point is oversight will still reside under the Treasury Department but the government’s responsibility will be over a far smaller “universe” of tax collection points making compliance oversight far less costly and far more effective than the current system which costs $265 billion a year in compliance costs and still comes up $350 billion a year short of what is owed.

The FairTax will not be revenue neutral (i.e. bring in the same revenue as the current system at 23%. While the rate of taxation would be a flat tax for everyone, the wealthier Americans have more to spend, and therefore will increase the revenue. I believe that one of the main worries of bureaucrats in Washington about this proposal is that they would not be able to slap taxes during economic slumps to make up for lost revenues without addressing the problem that the average American faces – rebudgeting, which means spending less during economic duress. Is the government exempt from proper budgeting like the rest of us? Should those that run our government tell Americans to change their budgets while they continue on their spending spree? FairTax explains:

The FairTax rate of 23% (when calculated inclusively like income tax rates) has been thoroughly researched to provide all the revenues now collected under both the income tax system and through FICA payroll taxes. Reports otherwise are largely based on the President’s Advisory Panel on Tax Reform which declared the rate would have to be much higher. What the Panel failed to make clear in an amazingly shameless sleight-of-hand is that they never studied the FairTax legislation as it exists in pending legislation. They ignored $22 million of FairTax research and, instead, quietly devised their own national consumption tax which they loaded with the exemptions and deductions they felt were “politically realistic”. They also failed to calculate the effects of elimination of the FICA tax on annual taxpayer burdens or on the distributional effects of the FairTax across the income spectrum. Upon completion–and after declaring a national consumption tax flawed–they then refused to publish their underlying assumptions.

The FairTax is not politically viable. The Fair Tax Act is nonpartisan. In fact, President Obama has claimed that he wants bipartisanship and a better government, so why isn’t he drilling Congress to prepare a carefully worded and sensible tax system law to replace something that is intrusive and unfair? FairTax countered:

Great public policy changes do not happen easily. We believe, however, in the promise of the Founding Fathers that this is a nation, “of, by and for the people”. In the last year we have seen more Congressional co-sponsors come on board faster than ever before. We have seen five of eight GOP candidates and one Democratic candidate embrace the FairTax. With increased media coverage, as at least one candidate has made this a central plank of his campaign, more and more Americans have come to understand the powerful benefits the FairTax offers the nation. They are, in turn, joining our growing citizen army and are beginning to communicate their wishes to their elected officials. All of this progress is a consequence of the body politic first learning about and then accepting the FairTax. As our ranks grow such pressure will increase on Members of Congress and at some point, the voice of the people will eclipse the voices of the relatively small number of Washingtonians who profit working the income tax system at great cost to the nation. Enactment of the FairTax will require an activist citizenry and a resurgence of what has been too often forgotten–public policy can and should be driven by the public. All that is required is that we all dare to be fair and remind our elected officials that they work for their constituents–not for the narrow self-interests of the tax writing committee, the lucrative tax lobby business or the academicians who have built careers around the complexity of the tax code.

The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people. This myth is blasted at FairTax:

The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent — a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases.
Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow and frustrates attempts at upward mobility through hard work and savings, thus harming low-income taxpayers the most.
In contrast, the FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates for all, but especially for lower-income families and individuals. In addition to receiving the monthly FairTax prebate, these taxpayers are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more business taxes hidden in the price of goods and services, and used goods are tax free.
How can the FairTax generate lower net tax rates for everyone and still pay for the same real government expenditures? The answer is two-fold. Firstly, the tax base is dramatically widened by including consumer spending from the underground economy (estimated at $1.5 trillion annually), and by including illegal immigrants, those who escape their fair share today through loopholes and gimmicks. In addition, 40 million foreign tourists a year will become American taxpayers as consumers here.  Secondly, not everyone’s average net tax burden falls.  For households whose major economic resource is accumulated wealth, the FairTax will deliver a net tax hike compared to the current system. Consider, for example, your typical billionaire, of which
America now has more than 400.  These fortunate few are invested primarily in equities on which they pay taxes at a 15 percent rate, whether their income comes in the form of capital gains or dividends.  In addition to having the income from their wealth taxed at a low rate, the principal of their wealth is completely untaxed either directly or indirectly.  Assuming they and their heirs spend only the income earned on the wealth each year, the tax rate today is 15 percent.  In contrast, under the FairTax, the effective tax rate is 23 percent.  Hence, the very wealthy will pay more taxes when the FairTax is enacted. In a nutshell, those who spend more will pay more but low, moderate and middle income taxpayers will benefit from the greatest gains in reduced tax liabilities.

Visit the FairTax website and read about it. Check out Why the FairTax Will Work. Purchase or obtain a copy to read from your local library – The FairTax Book by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder. I provide an excerpt from the book concerning the Gestapo-type tactics of the IRS, which is not a public-serving government entity, but designed to serve the government [two true stories provided, on pages 140-142]:

On March 22, 1985, the Associated Press sent a story down the wires headlined “IRS Tries To Penalize Chemical Company $46,000 for Being a Dime Short“. … So … did the IRS call and ask for their dime like any reasonable businessman would have done? … The IRS sent Rohm & Haas a letter telling them that they now owed $46,806.37 in penalties … all for being one dime short on the remittance of payroll taxes. It took many months, and no small amount spent on legal fees, to get the IRS to drop the penalty. …

The next story is far more tragic and is the ultimate example of a horrible tax system that ruins people’s lives each and every year, in some level of unfairness:

In the late 1970s, an insurance executive named Alex Council received a sizable bonus at work and got involved in a tax shelter. His tax accountant told him it was a legitimate option, but the IRS disagreed. Council’s liability for taxes due on the bonus expired at the end of three years. Nonetheless, after the statute of limitations had expired, the IRS sent the Councils a notice demanding more than $180,000 in unpaid taxes on the bonus, a figure including penalties and interest. The Council’s accountant notified the IRS that the statute of limitations had expired on the Council’s tax liability. Two years later, the IRS wrote back to claim that they had mailed a certified letter to the Councils prior to the expiration of the statute notifying them of the deficiency. … Not only did the IRS refuse to provide copies and a receipt for the letter, they wouldn’t even tell the Councils where the letter had been sent until yet another two years had passed. …when the IRS finally coughed up the address to which they supposedly had sent the delinquency notice. You guessed it. Wrong address!
Now you would think this would pretty much be the end of things, wouldn’t you? … When this matter found its way to the federal court system, the IRS informed the court that it was the Council’s responsibility to prove they hadn’t received the notice. … Apparently the old innocent-until-proven guilty idea never really caught on with the tax collector. As you might guess, the Councils couldn’t prove they didn’t receive the notice, so the IRS slapped a lien on their construction business for almost $300,00. The lien destroyed Alex Council’s credit rating, and his business collapsed. Alex Council left his wife the following letter:
My Dearest Kay,
I have taken my life in order to provide capital for you. The IRS and its liens which have been taken against our property illegally by a runaway agency of our government have dried up all sources of credit for us. So I have made the only decision I can. It’s purely a business decision. I hope you can understand that. I love you completely.
PS: You will find my body on the north side of the house.

More such true stories are in the chapter entitled Income Tax Outrages.

With the size and complexity of the income tax system, it is no wonder that honest Americans can run afoul or overpay what is owed in taxes with the present government that runs our country. The government elite are slick – all year they take money out of what we earned and at the end of the year, after unnecessary paperwork, tantalize us with a refund check. Well that is the average person. Businesses spend exorbitant amounts of money on payroll and other accounting because of the income tax system. This is money they could provide better health care programs for their employees and use profits to put back into the business entity in order to grow. The government itself spends at least $75 million a year just to provide the paperwork and pamphlets required to file this unfair tax system. President Reagan once stood before Congress holding a five pound stack of paper that was the income tax code and told them that we need to get rid of it. The Fair Tax Act would provide about 500 pages of written material and no more than 1,000 pages, if amendments are added before passing. There would be little expenditure by the government or the private sector for paperwork under the Fair Tax Act.
The 16th Amendment is upheld and the Tenth Amendment is ignored, and has been since the FDR administration who promised free trade and limited government. Sound familiar? And like those that followed, except for a couple of presidents, that was preached but never enacted. That certainly applies to President Obama’s administration that is using the FDR administration as their guideline and making the same mistakes made by the Carter, Clinton and GW Bush administrations – change cannot happen without real reform. And we certainly cannot foot the entire blame on the presidents, as often happens, because Congress has the authority for real change and drafting reformation policies – but the President has the option to sign or veto proposed legislation. He is also in charge with the executive branch agencies that are important to the American way of life – and the IRS is one of them.
If you want April 15th to just be another day on the calendar – than you must take action and constantly present the argument for ridding Americans of an unfair and intrusive tax system that is not good for good government and certainly not good for the people. Don’t tell me “It ain’t gonna happen” – the bureaucrats are counting on that attitude. Perform your duty as an American citizen – insist that the income tax system be replaced with a flat consumption tax that is better for everyone, and fair. Our government, as all governments, require funding in order to operate and perform the responsibilities set forth in the US Constitution; however, it is time that those we elect become responsible with our money and quit stealing funds that we earn. The Fair Tax Act will allow Americans to literally decide how much taxes they can afford, by how much they spend. The Fair Tax Act will not tax homes or things like food. Read the details, and if you have suggestions to make it a better legislation, write to John Linder after visiting his website promoting his sponsored bill. Be sure to read the Senate version as well, and insist that congressional members carefully read and prepare this important bill considering all the effects and actions required. During this economic depression, it would behoove Americans to insist that a better taxation system be established and maintained, and forever dissolve any ideas of taxation upon income – unconstitutional anyway. And at the same time, discourage the President and all congressional members in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants – another economic boondoggle. I will address the China situation concerning American economic repression and money it owes to the Communist giant who should have been forced to change its policies and clean up its human rights actions before becoming part of the World Trade Organization, which I had protested during the Clinton administration to my representative in Congress at the time. I will discuss this in an upcoming article and about things that Americans should know when it concerns trade and China and its threat to our national security.
Robert A. Hall, former Marine and Patriot wrote in an essay on March 6th, 2009:

I believe in limited government. Government is at best a necessary evil, which tends to drift toward tyranny if not checked, as Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party, noted. Every power that the government has is at the expense of liberty. Government is necessary to defend the nation, to provide infrastructure, and to protect us from each other. But as the repository of most force, it is also always a threat to freedom.

Read the rest at his site.

Americans for Fair Taxation

Congress Must Pass the Fair Tax – Free Republic
Text of HR 25 – GovTrack
Social Security Reform and the Fair Tax Act – Kevin Colby
Paul Broun Announces Co-Sponsorship of HR 25, Fair Tax Act – Lincoln Journal
Tag, Lighthouse Patriot Journal – Bob McCarty Writes
Energy Independence and the Fair Tax Act – Lighthouse Patriot Journal
Fair Tax Offers ‘Jumper Cables” for the Economy – Bob McCarty Writes
About the FairTax – FairTax organization
The Truth About Abraham Lincoln – Ohio Republic