Straight Talk, Senator Clinton? We just can’t get a straight answer.

She has issues about issues.

By Mike Duncan

Senator Hillary Clinton has been running for president pretty much since she was first elected to the Senate. But after all of that time, after all of the trips, press conferences, debates, and ads, what do Michiganders really know about Clinton’s plans?

On issue after issue, she has avoided taking strong positions, has contradicted herself, or has simply refused to answer any questions. Despite the almost constant news coverage, the only thing any of us really know for sure about Senator Clinton’s plans is that she wants to live in the White House again.
That’s not good enough. It’s not enough to be ambitious. It’s not enough to want to be president. The people deserve presidential candidates who want to be elected for a reason. We deserve candidates who take principled stands on important policy questions — yes, even the controversial ones. We deserve a president who has a vision for our future.

Senator Clinton may have many policy plans — but if she does, she hasn’t been eager to talk about them. So we’re left to guess: Did she or did she not have a plan to reform the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was set to hit 23 million Americans with unexpected tax increases this year? First, she said she had a plan. Then she said she’d defer to the chairman of the House tax-writing committee. Then, when he announced a plan that would raise taxes by a record-breaking $1.3 trillion, Clinton refused to give a straight answer whether she supported his plan or what she would do next.

That’s not the first time she has tried to have it both ways when it comes to the economy. How would Senator Clinton help Michiganders who need assistance? Just last week, she said that she wanted to “put money in people’s hands.” That sounds all well and good, except that one of the centerpieces of her campaign is taking money out of people’s hands. Not only did she vote in the Senate for the largest tax increase in history, but she has actually said on the campaign trail that she’s “going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” The people of Michigan don’t need the government to take more of their money. They need a strong economy, so they can earn and keep more money for their families.

How about health care? Senator Clinton tried this once before in 1993, with a plan to have the government take over our health care system, with accountants and bureaucrats in Washington making decisions about care instead of patients and doctors. Her new plan isn’t quite identical, but the guiding philosophies behind it are the same: more government, higher taxes, and less choice. Her plan will increase the power bureaucrats exercise over the health-care system, instead of doctors and patients. And though Senator Clinton insists the plan would create “no new bureaucracy,” it manages to spend $110 billion per year just to start. That’s a lot of money, and Senator Clinton admits that she will raise taxes in order to pay for it, but even by her own calculations, that would only cover part of the cost. Where will the rest come from? She won’t say.

On national-security issues, Senator Clinton seems more interested in appealing to left-wing activists than in offering serious answers to issues that directly affect our nation’s safety and security. It wasn’t long ago that she was telling audiences she opposed setting a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Now, she not only supports a deadline, but she says she always did. In spring of 2006, Clinton said that she would “of course” support funding for the troops. But less than three weeks later, she joined only 13 other senators to vote against funding our troops. Three weeks was all it took to change her mind.

That’s just a start. Senator Clinton won’t give a straight answer on whether or not she has a plan to reform Social Security — or even whether she believes the impending bankruptcy of our national retirement system is a ‘crisis.’ She has gone back and forth on whether she does or doesn’t support giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. Clinton tells us she is the most experienced candidate, but refuses to release millions upon millions of pages of documents from her tenure in the White House to back up her claims.

A presidential election is not just about telling the American people what they want to hear. It’s about trust and leadership. If Senator Clinton won’t level with Michiganders — or any voters — about what she would do in the White House, if she doesn’t want to take positions on the hard issues now, how can we trust her to lead our nation?

— Mike Duncan is chairman of the Republican National Committee.

You can read the article here


Taxes out of control: What has our congress done for us lately??

An interesting read was sent to me from a good friend and thought I’d pass it along. Startling if you ponder it; Let me know what you think:


The next time you hear a politician use the  word ‘billion’ in a casual manner, think about  whether you want the ‘politicians’ spending  YOUR tax money.

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend,  but one advertising agency did a good job of  putting that figure into some perspective.

A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.

C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.

D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and

20 minutes ago, at the rate our government is spending it.

While this thought is still fresh in our brain, let’s take a look at New Orleans.  It’s amazing what you can learn with some simple division. .

Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D), is presently asking the Congress for $250 BILLION to rebuild New Orleans.  Interesting number, what does it mean?

A. Well, if you are one of 484,674 residents of  New Orleans (every man, woman, child), you  each gets $516,528.

B. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in  New Orleans, your home gets $1,329,787.

C. Or, if you are a family of four, your family   gets $2,066,012.

Washington, D.C. HELLO!!! … Are all your calculators broken??

Tax his land,
Tax his wage,
Tax his bed in which he lays.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes are the rule.
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirts,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he tries to think.

Tax his booze,
Tax his beers,
If he cries,
Tax his tears.

Tax his bills,
Tax his gas,
Tax his notes,
Tax his cash.

Tax him good and let him know
That after taxes, he has no dough.

If he hollers,
Tax him more,
Tax hi m until he’s good and sore.

Tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in which he lays.
Put these words upon his tomb,
‘Taxes drove me to my doom!’
And when he’s gone,
We won’t relax,
We’ll still be after the inheritance TAX!!

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Perm it Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax),
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax),
Liquor Tax,
Luxury Tax,
Marriage License Tax,
Medicare Tax,
Property Tax,
Real Estate Tax,
Service charge taxes,
Social Security Tax,
Road Usage Tax (Truckers),
Sales Taxes,
Recreational Vehicle Tax,
School Tax,
State Income Tax,
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA),
Telephone Federal Excise Tax,
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fe e Tax,
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax,
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax,
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax,
Telephone State and Local Tax,
Telephone Usage Charge Tax,
Utility Tax,
Vehicle License Registration Tax,
Vehicle Sales Tax,
Watercraft Registration Tax,
Well Permit Tax,
Workers Compensation Tax.

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What happened?  Can you spell ‘politicians!’

And now I have to ‘press 1’ for English.

I hope this goes around THE
USA at least 100 times

GREAT NEWS AMERICA: Senate Backs Freeze on Tax Without Cost Offsets

This Alternative Minimum Tax was never intended to be for the middle class, it was in fact MEANT to be for the super-rich who had all those tax write-offs. That means all these years, the government has been pocketing taxrevenues that they were never intended on collecting. Well the Dems wanted to “FIX” this AMT. (you can click on the tax categories to the right of this page for more information on the AMT  Well – that’s gone!! Another defeat for the Dems!

 By CARL HULSE Published: December 7, 2007

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 — Trying to find a way out of a sticky tax problem, the Senate on Thursday voted overwhelmingly to prevent the alternative minimum tax from hitting millions of middle-class Americans without replacing the $50 billion that would be lost.

The move represented a bitter retreat for Senate Democrats who, in taking over Congress this year, pledged to pay for new tax cuts or programs rather than add to the federal deficit. But with Republicans refusing to go along, most Democrats joined them in endorsing a temporary fix of the alternative minimum tax without corresponding offsets rather than be held responsible for a surprise tax burden falling on 19 million taxpayers.

“This is not my first choice on how to do so,” said Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee, before the Senate voted 88 to 5 for his proposal. “This is my best choice on how to do so.”

The Senate action does not necessarily resolve the dispute over the tax, which is threatening to complicate tax-filing season by requiring last-minute changes to Internal Revenue Service computers and tax forms. The House has approved differing legislation that would offset the fix on the alternative tax by closing tax loopholes on hedge funds, equity funds and other financial partnerships.

And some House Democrats, including Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, say they will not support any resolution of the tax problem that conflicts with their “pay-go” budget rules.

But Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, who is the majority leader, said Thursday night that it was his understanding the House would join in the Senate approach.

Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, who is the chairman of the Budget Committee, opposed the Senate plan, saying that while it was proper to limit the reach of the tax, it was wrong to do so without replacing the money. “It ought to be paid for,” Mr. Conrad said. “The revenue ought to be replaced by spending cuts or other revenue.”

Republicans, who say Democrats should have addressed the alternative tax issue months ago, have repeatedly objected to efforts to compensate for changing the tax provisions. They argue that since the tax was not intended to produce such high levels of revenue when it was created, the money should not have to be replaced.

“They are all phantom funds,” said Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, referring to the revenue that would be generated by the tax.

Earlier Thursday, Republicans banded together to prevent the Senate from considering the House bill. That led to the later vote, in the Senate, on freezing the alternative minimum tax, which sent that proposal back to the House.

The alternative minimum tax was created almost 40 years ago to prevent affluent Americans with numerous deductions from escaping income taxes. But since it was not tied to inflation, it is reaching more and more people.

Experts say the tax cuts approved in the early days of the Bush administration have also pushed more people under the tax. The Treasury Department estimates that without a change in law, a total of 23 million people would have to pay the alternative tax on their 2006 taxes, at an average of about $2,000 each. The tax could reach some Americans earning $50,000 or even less.

Mr. Reid said that he supported the “pay-go” concept embraced by Democrats but that he was left with few options because of the Republican ability to block any alternative minimum tax relief that complied with such budget rules.

“We’ve tried every alternative possible to do this,” Mr. Reid said. “I believe in pay-go. I think that’s where we should be.”

Democrat Tax Alternatives Could Distance Them from Blue State Voters

By Michael Franc Friday, November 30, 2007

Related article right here

The next president will be judged by the adequacy of his (or her) response to the two overriding challenges facing America today — winning the war on terrorism and surmounting the fiscal consequences of the baby boomer retirements without suffocating tax increases.

The two fields of candidates couldn’t be further apart in how they would address them. This week, let’s examine the boomer’s imminent retirements; next week we’ll consider how they propose to win the war against terrorism.

The Democratic field follows its party’s penchant for class warfare. The formula is straightforward enough: Offer a majority of voters real or imaginary tax relief (imaginary is when you relieve taxpayers of a future increase in their tax burden that they’ve never actually had to face, such as the Alternative Minimum Tax) or new government benefits. Then pay for it by shifting more of the tax burden to the “rich.”

Virtually all of the new policy initiatives the Democratic candidates espouse are directed at middle- and lower middle-class voters. Rather than talk about the need to restrain entitlement growth, the Democratic field focuses instead on ways to broaden the government’s role in our daily lives — increased access to government-designed health coverage (opening Medicare to displaced workers between the ages of 55 and 64, for example), and more government child care, student loans and mortgage insurance.

Republicans, in contrast, look first to the tax side. They would make the Bush tax cuts permanent and create a new one by repealing the AMT with no offsetting tax hikes. All speak fondly of restructuring our health system around patients, our educational system around parents, and giving individuals more opportunities to save for retirement. As the debate over expanding SCHIP has shown, no Republican wants to draw the middle class into the tender mercies of government programs, subsidies or guarantees.

What does all this mean?

Read the rest right here