Freedom in the Context of Public Campaign Financing

     Here is a use of the word "freedom" in the effort to get Public Campaign Financing talked about. In this context the concept of freedom was foremost first in conversation on a thread that had a collage image, where I originally wrote this. So, it was not a use of hyperbole with bias while using that word. It was an opportunity to bring up Public Campaign Financing, and it's strong relationship to the concept of protecting freedom from corporate control over our lives and our government.

     

~~~~~~~

    If you want to prevent the further corporate control over Americans' lives you should investigate what money is doing to the best-known tool for the process of gaining and keeping freedom: what money is doing to democracy. If you look for relationships to your life while you are investigating you may reach the conclusion; That the single best answer at this time to protect your freedom and keeping corporate control of our nation "at bay" from that incursion, may be to create and pass Public Campaign Financing in full, for every elected office, from now on.  

    You may realize this should be a priority as important as completing a new constitutional amendment, number 28 and it should be honestly and correctly called Public Campaign Financing.  

    You may realize that whole concept of freedom is more frequently and more loudly fought for due to the control and equal value of the one-person-one-vote. The primary manner we were supposed to have  representation. 

    If you support this well known and tested methodology called Public Campaign Financing through to its inception, you may then find that it has become the best tool for use in any large and small government that is allowing it's citizens to participate in its future.  

    You may come to the Epiphany that this is how it was supposed to be all along.  

James G. Mason, March 2015.  

Why a Fair Tax is Flat on it's Face

No matter your economic status when someone says the word “taxes” a few thoughts inevitably occur at the speed of light: “my money I’ll never see again,” followed by “it’s not fair” followed by “wouldn’t it be great if I could keep it all.”

Under current “Progressive” taxation, wealthier folks pay a greater percentage of their income to taxes (or a larger slice/fraction of their own pie) then the poor who pay a smaller slice of their pie and receive in turn the same level of government services. “Regressive” taxation works backwards from progressive taxation in that the poor pay the same slice of pie that the wealthy do, and the wealthy enjoy the same level of government services.

There has existed for more than a decade a proposal called the Fair Tax. It basically imagines a large “flat” sales tax on retail goods and services. The Fair Tax proposal says that instead of paying federal income taxes everyone should have to pay $23 out of every $100 at the state level, except (in progressive fashion) the poor, who earn less than or near the federally established poverty level, would get a monthly rebate which represents the personal value of their spending on needed goods.

The bait for support of the proposal is a plethora of goodies: it forecasts the elimination of all federal taxation, no more capital gains taxes, the end of tax shelters, closure of the IRS, a simple tax form, a repeal of the 16th amendment to the constitution. The proposal imagines that already in place state tax authorities would administer the Fair Tax. To emphasize simplicity one republican congressperson compared the size of a Fair Tax bill, which was initially 133 pages, to the 3 foot high stack of federal tax code currently in place which could be trashed under a Fair Tax.

Who favors the Fair Tax? The term "fair" is subjective, the name of the plan has been criticized as deceptive by liberals and claimed accurate by many conservatives. The proposal was first introduced in 1999 by Republicans, but the bill and several successive attempts have never made it out of committee. The newly organized right-wing group that call themselves the Tea Party favor the Fair Tax. Many of them listen to a conservative charismatic loud and sometimes obnoxious radio talk show host named Neil Boortz, who frequently touts the Fair Tax on the air nationwide, and has written a book called The Fair Tax Book. The website Fairtax.org states that the proposal has hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of supporters including less than 80 U.S. economists.

What is wrong with the Fair Tax? In a regressive manner struggling middle income families won’t have exemptions yet wont be wealthy either so their taxable slice of the pie will be the same as the wealthy. Even with the rebate exemption for the poor who are earning under or near the federally established poverty line, the question remains; is it fair that a middle income person pays the same slice of his or her pie as the wealthy person? The price of consumer goods will rise by 23%, the greatest rate of inflation ever known. This inflation will likely reduce the rate of national consumption. Luxury items will cost far more, motivating cheap-skate rich people to buy overseas and maybe even leave the country. State sales taxes will not be eliminated. The additional taxes can effectively raise the tax burden to 30% or more.

World wide, tax rules share one thing in common; they start out simple and end up complex. Exceptions are born slowly as new realizations of unfairness are discovered and brought to the attention of the governing bodies. Already the complexity of the Fair Tax proposal begins as exemptions pile-up. Beginning with the “prebate” for the poor. Then comes an exemption for families with children. Next, the middle income families feel cheated because they earn too much for monthly prebates and earn too little to be called wealthy. Next, since the Supreme Court now considers corporations persons, folks will begin to demand that they pay the Fair Tax as well. Then particular corporations will petition/lobby for tax exemptions, and get them.

They want to scrap the tax code, which is a very tempting piece of bait. But while they start over with a new tax system we all have to wait for them to learn their lesson and pile on exemptions to the point where our new tax system will look an awful lot like the old tax code.

One good way to think of the flat or “fair” tax is to realize that the same percentage to a rich person is not nearly as valuable as the same percentage to a poor or middle class person. Does that sound fair?

Managed by the Media Makes Mediocrity into Melodrama

By selectively reporting and obfuscating the truth our media outlets, newspapers and television, can pit one newsmaker against another without our even having knowledge of the manipulation. The motivation for doing so is powerful. The cause is competition driven, and it is necessary for the survival - of the most dishonest.

In a most recent example, as reported by Media Matters, two newspapers, USA Today, and the venerable New York Times, left out a vital piece of information, in an apparent action designed to fuel the fire to sell more papers.

“Summary: The New York Times and USA Today uncritically reported President Bush's attacks on Democrats over congressional investigations of Alberto Gonzales, but neither newspaper noted that criticism of Gonzales has been bipartisan: numerous Republicans have called for Gonzales' resignation, several have criticized the administration's lack of cooperation with congressional investigations, and senior Republican Judiciary Committee members have joined Democrats in voting to authorize subpoenas of Bush administration officials as part of investigations involving Gonzales.”

-Media Matters

In the case above, being critical of both sides would have been a fair and more balanced approach to journalism. But in so reporting one-sided, they butter one side of the bread, but they leave the knife out to butter the other at a later time. Because conflict is interesting for all and even exciting for some. A good fight is worth watching. A good highway car crash is worth rubber necking.

The following is another example of the news pitting one side against another. The example is close on the calendar to the above example to indicate the frequency of such selective news reporting. In the following example the author of the article in question had already printed the factual information, which is missing, a month earlier. But he then chose to not print it again when it may make the candidate look like a failure. 

“In a July 31 article on possible Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson's June fundraising totals, Washington Post staff writer Matthew Mosk reported that Thompson "will file the first accounting of his potential presidential campaign's fundraising activity with the Internal Revenue Service tomorrow, and the report will show that the enterprise raised between $3.1 million and $3.2 million in June, according to sources familiar with the Thompson operation." But the article failed to note that Thompson's fundraising haul falls short of a June goal of $5 million the Post itself reported at the time that the campaign had set.”

-Media Matters

The media in America has become so corporate and so conglomerated that the competition for viewers is now concentrated to dangerously small levels. For instance with just three cable and television news networks, this means one media owning group could take away %20-%33 from the other two via mistakes from the other side, or getting or creating a “scoop,” on their side.

For instance, FOX News has already cemented in its %33 of American viewers. Fox News is notorious for obfuscation and one sided reporting in favor of the Conservative political side of “understanding.” A University of Maryland study on media ethics recently found that fully 6/10ths of their viewers thought that Saddam Hussien was responsible for the 9/11 attack. As the Bush administration would like them to.

What do we do about this kind reporting and this kind of media corporate decision making that results in this kind of reporting? We hit our favorite reporters and News Directors with letters every time we see a one sided report. We call the studios. Be an old coot with nothing better to do. Don’t mind if stranger think you really are one. That’s what it takes. Get them thinking. Send emails constantly. If any legislation appears which restricts media conglomeration support it with calls and letters. Recruit a friend after explaining the seriousness of the situation. Use the Media Matters.Org web site to keep abreast of media wrongs and to find the contact information you’ll need to let those media outlets know you are watching them closely.