Now, just what am I talking about? It's the Democratic efforts to take about one-half of American wage
earners and remove them from any responsibility to pay any federal taxes of any kind. This includes income
taxes, Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes. The Democrats want ALL of these taxes to be paid only by
upper-income wage earners – those more likely to vote Republican than Democratic.
You've seen the Democrats fighting this battle in their demands that tax cuts be given to people who don't pay
income taxes. The Democrats want a portion of the excess income taxes collected from upper-income
Americans to be used to cover some of the Social Security and Medicare taxes for lower-income earners. This
means that these middle- and lower-income Americans would be entitled to and receive Social Security and
Medicare benefits that they did not pay for – that were paid for by someone else.
Now, something new. You know about this so-called 'Earned Income Tax Credit' (EITC), don't you? It's not
a tax credit at all. It's a welfare payment. If a person earns an EITC in the amount of $2,000, but only owes $650
in income taxes, the government wipes out the income tax liability and writes that person a check for $1,350.
That $1,350, of course, was taken from someone else who actually worked for it. It's a transfer of income.
Now the Democrats are pushing for an expansion of the EITC program to cover "payroll" (Social Security and
Medicare) taxes as well as income taxes. The goal? To put more and more people on a complete free ride.
I'll say it again, folks, and maybe it will sink through a few more skulls. These politicians are moving us toward a
taxing and voting system where the tax load – and we're talking income taxes, Social Security taxes and
medicare Taxes – is shouldered by high-producers and achievers in the upper 30 percent of income earners, while
those in the lower 70 percent get a free ride.
Can't you see the political campaigns of the future? Democrats will be warning voters, "If you vote for
Republicans, they're going to make you pay income taxes and they'll make you pay for your Social Security and
Got your escape route planned yet?
As you know, or as you should know, government has one asset that you don't have. One valuable asset that
private businesses don't have. That asset is the ability to use force to accomplish its goals.
Just by way of example: If the government sets up an absurd retirement and disability insurance program with
a net zero rate of return on your investment, and if you choose not to purchase this insurance program, the
government can pull out a gun and force you to buy the product. Could a private insurance company do this?
The government can also use this force to seize your money and other property to be used for its goals and
Ok … so if the government has the legal power to use a gun to take your money from you, can't we at least
expect that the money would be used for legitimate purposes? Do you think that the government should be able
to use this police power to, say, take your money from you and then offer to give that money back if, and only if,
you agree to do certain things that the government wants you to do?
That brings us to a little proposal from a physician in Texas named Kenneth H. Cooper. This man matters to you
because he is the odds-on favorite to become the next surgeon general of the United States. Cooper is
already excited about his upcoming job. He has submitted a 15-point "national health agenda" to his pal
George W. Bush.
Here's the plan. Cooper wants the government to take $1,000 from you and then offer to let you have that
money back if, and only if, you engage in certain personal behavior the government likes. In this case the
government wants you to not smoke, control your weight and watch your cholesterol. You will be entitled to
recover $250 of your own money if you keep your body mass index under 25, don't smoke, keep your
cholesterol under 200 and manage your blood pressure. Each item is worth $250 of your own money.
Is this the type of government you want? A government that allows you to work, then steps in to seize your
money and holds that money over your head to be returned if you behave like a good little government subject?
What's the Liar in Chief's real legacy? Just ask school officials.
Starting next year, the Fox Point-Bayside School District in Wisconsin is going to recommend that older middle
school students be instructed that oral sex constitutes sexual contact – and that they carry the same disciplinary
sanctions with police and school officials.
Rosalynn Kiefer, director of curriculum and instruction, said, "Some of the adolescent population think oral sex
is no different than kissing." And she admitted that Bill Clinton's insistence that oral sex wasn't sex played a role
in convincing the district that they needed to take action.
There you have it. An ex-president who isn't remembered for the national monuments he created with a stroke
of the pen, or the advances he made in increasing the size of government. No, he's remembered as the man
who claimed oral sex wasn't really sex – and caused school administrators everywhere to scramble for damage
Thanks, Bill Clinton. Thanks a bunch. Oh, and thanks to those of you who gave us this snake, knowing all
along just what he is.
The Cato Institute isn't exactly pleased with the final government report on the 1993 Waco disaster. That report,
as you might recall, exonerated federal officials from any wrongdoing. Cato says the report is "not supported by
the factual evidence."
Criminal justice scholar Timothy Lynch, who's director of Cato's Project on Criminal Justice, took a look at the
government report and analyzed the legal implications of certain undisputed events. He's concluded that the
official investigation into the incident, led by former Senator John Danforth, was "soft and incomplete."
Lynch says many crimes have gone unprosecuted, including:
Lynch adds that the involvement of certain FBI officials at Waco "should have set off alarm bells" with Danforth's
team. These same FBI officials had been suspended for their involvement in the Ruby Ridge incident, where
the FBI killed Randy Weaver's wife. Lynch feels that Danforth should have called these FBI officials before a
grand jury to question them about missing Waco evidence. He didn't.
Should we have expected more from a federal government report on a federal government screw-up? Of
course not. A hard-hitting report would make everybody look bad – and let Americans know that their Imperial
Federal Government isn't exactly as interested in enforcing the laws as it is in enforcing the agendas of the people
© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.