Inconvenient Tax Truths - the dems don't want you to know

Inconvenient Tax Truths
Charlie Rangel and other liberal leaders want to raise tax rates even if it means lower tax revenues.

BY PETE DU PONT
Tuesday, October 30, 2007 12:01 a.m.

Nobel Peace laureate Al Gore believes global warming is "an inconvenient truth." Here are some economic truths that America's liberal leadership finds too inconvenient to support.

Tax rate reductions increase tax revenues. This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush's 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends. Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Finally, another inconvenient truth is that there have been 49 consecutive months of job growth as a result of the economic expansion induced by President Bush's 2003 tax rate reductions.

One would think that this positive economic performance would inspire Congress to continue the successful policies that caused it. But the liberal establishment takes a negative view of tax rate reductions and embraces the opposite approach: ensure expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2011 and in the meantime enact substantial tax increases.

Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, last week introduced an estimated $3.5 trillion tax increase that would raise the capital gains tax rate from to 19.6% from 15% and places a surtax of as much as 4.6% on people making more than $150,000 a year. Mr. Rangel applies it not to current taxable income but to adjusted gross income, thus phasing down itemized deductions such as charitable contributions, home mortgage deductions, and state and local tax deductions. Together with the end of the Bush tax cuts, Mr. Rangel's plan would increase the top income tax rate to 44% from 35% for individuals, small-business owners and farmers, who make up about three-fourths of taxpayers in the highest bracket.

While raising taxes on individuals, the Rangel bill would reduce corporate tax rates to 30.5% from 35% and eliminate the alternative minimum tax. That would be "paid for" by increasing taxes on hedge funds and buyout firms by about $48 billion.

Federal tax revenues have been rising between 6.7% and 14.5% in each of the past three years, but the proposed tax increases, by slowing rather than stimulating the economy, would ensure that these percentages decline. Hillary Clinton defines the liberal tax policy as "we are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good," but in the unlikely event that the tax bill passes Congress next year, President Bush's veto pen will surely take away from the liberal leadership things that will do harm to the common good.

On the other hand, the 2008 elections could lead to a very different outcome, for the Rangel bill shows in which direction tax policy will proceed if there is a Democratic president and Congress in 2009.

A much more interesting approach was introduced in the House three weeks ago by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican: elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax, extension of the 15% capital gains and dividend rates that expire in 2010, and giving taxpayers a choice between filing under the current tax system or a new option with just two income tax brackets, 10% for joint filers with incomes less than $100,000 and 25% for those with higher incomes. It includes a $25,000 standard deduction plus a $3,500-a-person exemption, which comes to $39,000 for a family of four. The new option would be a flat-tax choice, with no other exemptions or loopholes, and the AMT would be gone.

Every taxpayer would be able to make a choice between the current tax system with the AMT burden, tax rates from 10% to 35%, and many complex deduction options, or the Taxpayer Choice Act. Mr. Ryan estimates that the federal government's revenues--excluding AMT revenues, the elimination of which would cost the government only about 2.4% of revenues over 10 years--would be about the same as under the current system, and the top 5% and 1% of taxpayers would pay slightly higher taxes than they do today.

Such a system would stimulate the economy, increase economic growth and job opportunities, and simplify a very complex and frustrating current tax system. But for the liberal establishment a flat tax with lower rates would be a very inconvenient truth. Much better in their view are the substantial Rangel tax increases.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

Dems plan "Mother of all tax hikes"

John Brannon: Check this out with "Conservative BlueDog" Cong. Tanner - Surely he won't stand for this massive tax increase.

Press Release

Memo: McCrery on "Mother of All Tax Hikes"

October 25, 2007

By Ways and Means Republican Press Office

MEMO

RE: "Mother of All Tax Hikes" Bill

TO: Republican Members, Republican Staff

 FROM: Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Jim McCrery

 

 

My Friends,

At a bipartisan Ways and Means caucus last night, Chairman Rangel outlined his long-awaited "Mother of All Tax Hikes" legislation.  The basics of the package are simple: This is the largest individual income tax increase in history. 

The bill will add a 4% surtax on Americans earning more than $150,000 a year ($200,000 for couples).  That is on top of the scheduled expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.  So, under Democrats' plan, over the next few years, the individual income top tax rate in the will rise from 35% to 44%.  By way of comparison, the other 29 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries – basically other developed nations - have an average top marginal tax rate of 35.7%.  In fact, only five OECD countries would have higher top marginal tax rates in 2011 than the if the Democrats' bill is enacted.

This crushingly high tax rate will affect approximately 10 million taxpayers directly - including those who report business income, like small business owners and farmers - but the damage will ripple throughout our economy.  Because small businesses and family farms often pay their income taxes as individuals, this is a massive tax hike on the engine that drives job growth in this country. 

In addition, the surtax is on adjusted gross income, not taxable income.  This sounds like a technical issue, but it means that Rangel's bill will erode the value of a series of tax deductions – including for mortgage interest, charitable giving, medical expenses, state and local taxes, and the standard deduction.  And, because the surtax kicks in at $150,000 for individuals and $200,000 for couples, the bill creates a monster of a marriage penalty.

Chairman Rangel will claim that these tax increases go to provide tax cuts to 90 million Americans, but he is selling pure snake-oil.  Many if not most of those taxpayers are getting a purely imaginary "tax cut."  Some of them are the roughly 20 million people that Republicans shielded with the Alternative Minimum Tax patch.  Millions more are people who have benefited from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and only get "tax cuts" if you assume that the 10% bracket, marriage penalty, and $1,000 per child tax credit will expire.  Others, like single people who will now be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, are getting a tax refund from the government even though they don't actually pay income taxes. 

It will take time to analyze this bill and sort through the data, but we know from the start that the 90 million figure is pure hokum.  In fact, before you know it more taxpayers may wind up paying higher taxes – and fewer paying less  - under Rangel's plan than they did last year.

Which brings us to the larger fallacy of the Democrats' "paygo" system.  There is no need to "pay for" protecting taxpayers from a massive AMT tax hike.  The government never meant for the AMT to affect middle-class Americans, and we have a responsibility to make sure it doesn't.  By arguing that preventing this tax increase requires us to raise taxes elsewhere, Democrats are trying to lock Congress into a system where we are guaranteed to raise taxes by $3.5 trillion over ten years.

That's right. $3.5 trillion. The baseline that the Democrats are using for "paygo" includes revenue from an "un-patched" AMT and from the tax increases that occur when the 2001 and 2003 tax laws expire after 2010.  Together they total $3.5 trillion over ten years.  If we play by the Democrats "paygo" rules, that is the size of the tax increase we are imposing on the American people.  That will hurt our nation's competitiveness and cost us American jobs.  The Rangel bill is the first step down a road none of us want to follow, and I urge you to oppose it strongly.

 

Pinion in the news again

Terry Frank reports from her blog (look to the bottom for pinion's part)

 

 

 

Littleton terminated

After Representative Rob Briley (D) led officers on a high speed chase, he chose to put down the name of Mary Littleton, lobbyist for the Tennesee Trial Lawyer Association, as his contact on the police report. Briley's decision to list her name led to increased scrutiny and questions as well as a report from the Nashville Scene that Littleton had allegedly been the mistress of the powerful Judiciary Committee Chairman.

Unfortunately, marital affairs on the Hill in Nashville are more commonplace than you know. Many a legislator actually believes his own press and in the frat-party atmosphere that sometimes follows a hard day of legislating, thoughts turn from family and towards indulgence.

However, Briley's alleged affair went further than the poor choices regarding marital infidelity as he chaired a committee where his alleged mistress, Mary Littleton, had a vested interest. It appears such poor decision making has repercussions for Ms. Littleton. Meanwhile, Rep. Briley seems to be basking in the protection of fellow Democrats who have circled the wagon to protect the status quo, no matter how tainted that status quo may be.

From John Rodgers at the Nashville City Paper:

The Tennessee Association for Justice has fired its in-house Capitol Hill lobbyist who is connected with embattled state Rep. Rob Briley and allegedly had an affair with him.

Suzanne Keith, the executive director of the group formerly known as the Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association, said its lobbyist and legal counsel Mary Littleton was no longer employed by the organization, effective Monday.

Keith would not say why.

"I'm not going to comment on internal personnel matters," Keith said.

Keith did not use the term "fired," but a source close to the group told The City Paper that Littleton was "terminated" effective at 5 p.m. Monday.

Littleton was listed on the group's Web site as legal counsel as late as Monday morning but the trial lawyer group had removed her from the list by early Monday afternoon.

The separation comes about a week-and-a-half after the Nashville Scene alleged in a story that Littleton had an affair with Briley (D-Nashville).

AC Kleinheider was first on the story over at Volunteer Voters.

On a separate note, we can at least credit to the Trial Lawyers Association (now called the Tennessee Associate for Justice) for their concern over the conflicts. After all, State Representative Philip Pinion (D) serves as Chairman of the Committee that oversaw legislation that his girlfriend lobbyist Velma Jones was pushing. In fact, Pinion sponsored the legislation himself. The Trials Lawyers have one up on the toll road industry.

--

check out our blog at  http://tcwatch.blogspot.com/

to STOP receiving these emails - reply with "unsubscribe" as the subject
and we'll remove you from the list.

Where's The Blue Dogs on this Issue???

America's 'Useful Idiots' Prevent Our Soldiers from Being Rescued

By Joel Himelfarb  |  October 15, 2007

 

While McConnell is trying to end these outrageous lawsuits, the Democrat leadership wants to go in precisely the opposite direction.

With American soldiers fighting deadly terrorist enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, do we want to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to introduce new judicial and bureaucratic obstacles to rescuing our troops if they are captured on the battlefield? And, with the American homeland in the crosshairs of international Jihadists, why are House Democrats and the ACLU so determined to make life miserable for telephone companies who have acted patriotically by helping our intelligence agencies monitor people who may be targeting this country?

On Wednesday, the House is scheduled to debate legislation called the RESTORE Act – that will in all likelihood require the government to get judicial permission before wiretapping terrorist communications that could aid the search for captured American troops. It could also be a potential windfall for trial lawyers hoping for a big payday by suing telephone companies for cooperating with the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program.  

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan and  Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes of Texas (with the strong support of House speaker Nancy Pelosi) are pushing the RESTORE legislation, which would roll back the six-month expansion of wiretapping authority approved in August by Congress. Leading House Democrats are actually boasting about the fact that RESTORE does not include an essential provision sought by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell: He wants to grant retroactive immunity to U.S. telecommunications companies that cooperated with government efforts to conduct warrantless surveillance of terrorists after September 11. (There are approximately 40 lawsuits pending against telecommunications firms accused of violating the law.)

McConnell, who headed the National Security Agency during the Clinton Administration, is anything but a partisan gunslinger. Yet his insistence on retroactive immunity and his refusal to yield to House Democrats' demands for new restrictions on intelligence operations have made him a hate figure a la Karl Rove for the left-wing bloggers.

Clearly, the House Democrat leadership and the ACLU want to make an example of telecommunications firms by punishing them for cooperating with U.S. intelligence efforts to protect this country. Here's the way Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat and member of the House Judiciary Committee, explained the panel's 21-14 vote to reject an amendment giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications firms: "Let the courts decide whether these companies, or some of them, were acting patriotically with nobility and legally, or if they were breaking the law." Here's what Nadler is really saying: "We Democrats don't give a damn if these companies get mired in time-consuming, expensive litigation that costs them resources and threatens the jobs of their employees. (You know, the "little people" that politicians like Nadler claim to ooze compassion for.) And we're willing to put them through the legal wringer for the 'crime' of helping the National Security Agency monitor al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents who want to murder us."  

Indeed, while McConnell is trying to end these outrageous lawsuits, the Democrat leadership wants to go in precisely the opposite direction. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.), along with Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) have launched their own investigations of whether companies like AT&T, Verizon and Qwest illegally disclosed customer records by complying with intelligence-agency requests for data. In other words, these lawmakers are prepared to subject these companies to possible litigation precisely because they made good-faith efforts to help prevent terrorist attacks against the United States.

These politicians are able to get away with this in part because the telecommunications firms are not mounting any kind of public campaign to defend themselves. For one thing, they don't want to further anger powerful House Democrat leaders like Conyers, Pelosi and Dingell, who have the ability to do tremendous damage to their businesses. And advocates of these surveillance programs are handicapped by the fact that anytime they attempt to explain the successes of such operations, they run the risk of divulging classified information.

As bad as telecom lawsuits are, they only scratch the surface of what is wrong with this bill. One story that has gone largely unreported is that of three soldiers of 10th Mountain Division in Fort Drum, N.Y., who were ambushed by al Qaeda south of Baghdad on May 12. One was found dead 11 days later. The other two, whose photo identification cards have been posted on an insurgent Web site, are still missing. On May 13 and 14, intelligence officials learned about intelligence communications they believed might be related to the ambush. Then, on May 15, nine hours elapsed while intelligence officials discussed the need to obtain a FISA order to monitor these communications and tracked down Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to authorize the wiretap. This is the kind of foolishness House Democrats are attempting to preserve in FISA – a nine-hour delay in searching for American troops captured on the battlefield while lawyers and bureaucrats try to get a warrant to wiretap a suspected terrorist.

Reyes, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, attributes the delay to bureaucratic bungling, not FISA. His argument is false and intellectually dishonest. Until this year, it was perfectly legal to monitor terrorists in Iraq by placing a wiretap inside the United States. But in a series of rulings issued between January and May, the special court overseeing FISA ruled among other things that the government would have to get a warrant every time it wanted to obtain information from a wire on U.S. soil. In short, government officials on May 15 were making absolutely certain that they were complying with the law – even if that delayed search efforts for the missing American soldiers. Mike McConnell has been tirelessly working to enact into law a permanent change in this situation. But if Reyes, Conyers and Pelosi get their way, we should expect to see outrages like the 10th Mountain Division search delay repeated again and again.

The original article can be found at http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/

Much to know about Sheriff Joe!!

Oh, there's MUCH more to know about Sheriff Joe!
 

 

Maricopa County was spending approx. $18 million dollars a year on stray animals, like cats and dogs. Sheriff Joe offered to take the department over, and the County Supervisors said okay.

The animal shelters are now all staffed and operated by prisoners. They feed and care for the strays. Every animal in his care is taken out and walked twice daily. He now has prisoners who are experts in animal nutrition and behavior. They give great classes for anyone who'd like to adopt an animal. He has literally taken stray dogs off the street, given them to the care of prisoners, and had them enter and win in dog shows. The best part? His budget for the entire department is now under $3 million.

Teresa and I adopted a Weimaraner from a Maricopa County shelter two years ago. He was neutered, and current on all shots, in great health, and even had a microchip inserted the day we got him. Cost us $78.

The prisoners get the benefit of about $0.28 an hour for working, but most would work for free, just to be out of their cells for the day. Most of his budget is for utilities, bilding maintenance, etc. He pays the prisoners out of the fees collected for adopted animals.

I have long wondered when the rest of the country would take a look at the way he runs the jail system, and copy some of his ideas. He has a huge farm, donated to the county years ago, where inmates can work, and they grow most of their own fresh vegetables and food, doing all the work and harvesting by hand. He has a pretty good sized hog farm, which provides meat, and fertilizer. It fertilizes the Christmas tree nursery, where prisoners work, and you can buy a living Christmas tree for $6 - $8 for the Holidays, and plant it later. We have six trees in our yard from the Prison.

Yup, he was reelected last year with 83% of the vote. Now he's in trouble with the ACLU again. He painted all his buses and vehicles with a mural, that has a special hotline phone number painted on it, where you can call and report suspected illegal aliens. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement wasn't doing enough in his eyes, so he had 40 deputies trained specifically for enforcing immigration laws, started up his hotline, and bought 4 new buses just for hauling folks back to the border. He's kind of a "Git-R Dun" kind of Sheriff.

Update on Joe Arpaio

TO THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO

HE IS THE MARICOPA ARIZONA COUNTY SHERIFF

AND HE KEEPS GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY:

 

Sheriff Joe Arpaio (In Arizona) who created the "Tent City Jail": He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.

He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their weights Cut off all but "G" movies.

He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects.

Then He Started Chain Gangs For Women So He Wouldn't Get Sued For Discrimination.

He took away cable TV until he found out there was A Federal Court Order that Required Cable TV For Jails. So He Hooked Up The Cable TV Again Only Let In The Disney Channel And The Weather Channel.

When asked why the weather channel He Replied, So They Will Know How Hot It's Gonna Be While They Are Working ON My Chain Gangs.

He Cut Off Coffee Since It Has Zero Nutritional Value.

When the inmates complained, he told them, "This Isn't The Ritz/Carlton.....If You Don't Like It, Don't Come Back."

He bought Newt Gingrich's lecture series on videotape that he pipes into the jails.

When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series might explain why a lot of the inmates were in his jails in the first place.

More On The Arizona Sheriff:

With Temperatures Being Even Hotter Than Usual In Phoenix (116 Degrees Just Set A New Record), the Associated Press Reports: About 2,000 Inmates Living In A Barbed-Wire-Surrounded Tent Encampment At The Maricopa County Jail Have Been Given Permission To Strip Down To Their Government-Issued Pink Boxer Shorts.

On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 Degrees Inside The Week Before.

Many Were Also Swathed In Wet, Pink Towels As Sweat Collected On Their Chests And Dripped Down To Their PINK SOCKS.

"It Feels Like We Are In A Furnace," Said James Zanzot, An Inmate Who Has Lived In The TENTS for 1 year. "It's Inhumane."

Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. He said Wednesday that he told all of the inmates: "It's 120 Degrees In Iraq And Our Soldiers Are Living In Tents Too, And They Have To Wear Full Battle Gear, But They Didn't Commit Any Crimes, So Shut Your Damned Mouths!"

Way To Go, Sheriff! Maybe if all prisons were like this one there would be a lot less crime and/or repeat offenders. Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for their parole, only to go out and commit another crime so they can get back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves.

Sheriff Joe was just reelected Sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canada's Health Care System from a Canadian's point of view

"Canada's Health care system from a Canadians point of view.

Hey Guys;  I saw on the news up here in Canada where Hillary Clinton

introduced her new health care plan.  Something similar to what we have in

Canada.  I also heard that Michael Moore was raving about the health care up

here in Canada in his latest movie.  As your friend and someone who lives

with the Canada health care plan I thought I would give you some facts about

this great medical plan that we have in Canada.

First of all

1) The health care plan in Canada is not free.  We pay a premium every month

of $96. for Shirley and I to be covered.  Sounds great eh.  What they don't

tell you is how much we pay in taxes to keep the health care system afloat.

 

I am personally in the 55% tax bracket.  Yes 55% of my earnings go to taxes.

A large portion of that and I am not sure of the exact amount goes directly

to health care our #1 expense.

2) I would not classify what we have as health care plan,  it is more like a

health diagnosis system.  You can get into to see a doctor quick enough so

he can tell you "yes indeed you are sick or you need an operation" but now

the challenge becomes getting treated or operated on.  We have waiting lists

out the ying yang some as much as 2 years down the road.

3)  Rather than fix what is wrong with you the usual tactic in Canada is to

prescribe drugs.  Have a pain, here is a drug to take, not what is causing

the pain and why.  No time for checking you out because it is more important

to move as many patients thru as possible each hour for Government

re-imbursement

4)  Many Canadians do not have a family Doctor.

5) Don't require emergency treatment as you may wait for hours in the

emergency room waiting for treatment.

6)  Shirley's dad cut his hand on a power saw a few weeks back and it

required that his hand be put in a splint - to our surprise we had to pay

$125. for a splint because it is not covered under health care plus we have

to pay $60. for each visit for him to check it out each week.

7) Shirley's cousin was diagnosed with a heart blockage.  Put on a waiting

list .  Died before he could get treatment.

8) Government allots so many operations per year.  When that is done no more

operations, unless you go to your local newspaper and plead your case and

embarrass the government then money suddenly appears.

9)The Government takes great pride in telling us how much more they are

increasing the funding for health care but waiting lists never get shorter.

Government just keeps throwing money at the problem but it never goes away.

But they are good at finding new ways to tax us, but they don't call it a

tax anymore it is now a user fee.

10) My mother needs an operation for a blockage in her leg but because she

is a smoker they will not do it.  Despite her and my father paying into the

health care system all these years.  My Mom is 80 years of age.  Now there

is talk that maybe we should not treat fat and obese people either because

they are a drain on the health care system. Let me see now, what we want in

Canada is a health care system for healthy people only.  That should reduce

our hea lth care costs.

11) Forget getting a second opinion, what you see is what you get.

12) I can spend what money I have left after taxes on booze, cigarettes,

junk food and anything else that could kill me but I am not allowed by law

to spend my money on getting an operation I need because that would be

jumping the queue.  I must wait my turn except if I am a hockey player or

athlete then I can get looked at right away.  Go figger.  Where else in the

world can you spend money to kill yourself but not allowed to spend money to

get healthy.

13) Oh did I mention that immigrants are covered automatically at tax payer

expense having never contributed a dollar to the system and pay no premiums.

14) Oh yeh we now give free needles to drug users to try and keep them

healthy.  Wouldn't want a sickly druggie breaking into your house and

stealing your things.  But people with diabetes who pay into the health care

system have to pay for their needles because it is not covered but the

health care system.

I send this out not looking for sympathy but as the election looms in the

states you will be hearing more and more about universal health care down

there and the advocates will be pointing to Canada.  I just want to make

sure that you hear the truth about health care up here and have some food

for thought and informed questions to ask when broached with this subject.

Step wisely and don't make the same mistakes we have.

Dean"

 

Congrats to AlGore - he's in good company now.

He was awarded the Nobel Peace prize.   Previous winners were Jimmie Carter, Arafat and Le Duc Tho of North Vietnam.   I guess next up are Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Just a few inconvenient FACTS to Mr. Gore:

The British government decided that it would be a good idea to send copies of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth to all schools, with then Environment Secretary (now Foreign Secretary) David Miliband declaring that "the debate over science is over." Well, it may be, but not in the way Gore portrays it. A truck driver and school governor, Stuart Dimmock, took the government to court, alleging that the film portrays "partisan political views," the promotion of which is illegal in schools under the Education Act 1996.

The judge has decided that this is indeed the case and that the Government's guidance notes that accompanied the film exacerbated the problem. For the film to be shown in schools, therefore, several facts would have to be drawn to students' attention:

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm .
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia .
* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

This is a far better result than refusing to allow the film to be shown at all. It requires that students be told by teachers that Al Gore is factually inaccurate, misleading and - in one case - making things up. These inconvenient truths for the former Vice President have been covered up or obscured by the hype surrounding his film. Students will now realize that there are significant shortcomings and inaccuracies in the way the global warming scare has been presented to them. This is a victory for honest debate, a victory for science and a victory for education.

The comprehensive guide to Gore's inaccuracies is, of course, Marlo Lewis' "Al Gore's Science Fiction."

The Commies are coming

The Commies are coming!

---

By Henry Lamb

---

It is getting increasingly difficult to distinguish between the agenda of the Democratic Party and the agenda of the Communist Party. Joelle Fishman, chairwoman of the Political Action Committee, CPUSA , says:

Our party has an important role to play in keeping the focus on the fight for a new direction in our country for jobs, health care and an end to the war. That is how the 2008 elections will be won.

She tells her members:

We should get involved in voter registration in every club and involving every member. We can inspire voter registration and turnout by relating the elections to ending the war, achieving universal single-payer health care and measures to respond to the economic crisis.

Does this sound like a Democratic rally or what?

Just a year and a half ago, in January 2006, the main estimate of pollsters and the mass media was that it would not be possible to change control of Congress. The change was bigger than most anyone anticipated. We are now building on the victory.

The main emphasis in the Senate is to hold onto and enlarge the Democratic majority.

The sad reality is that because Communists hide behind words such as "progressive" and "democratic," they have been able to sell their agenda to the public. They claim that:

Voters favor Democrats in Congress on the issues (52-37 on the war; 59-29 health care, 54-29 energy, 56-33 Social Security, 55-38 jobs). A majority even prefer Democrats on the issue of deficits (51-38). (Battleground 2008 July poll by Celinda Lake).

If this is true, it means that the majority of people in America support the agenda of the Communist Party. Joelle Fishman is correct when she says:

Who wins the presidency and the size of the majority in Congress is of crucial importance. These elections offer a chance to deliver a decisive blow to the ultra-right and to change the course of the country.

(Column continues below)

Should the 2008 elections go to the Democrats, as the Communist Party USA is working to accomplish, the direction of the nation will change dramatically. The direction will not be toward individual freedom, free enterprise, private property rights and the pursuit of individual happiness. The direction will be toward the values of communism, which holds the state as the grantor of all rights, including socialized medicine through universal health care; amnesty for all illegal aliens who want to come to America; cradle-to-grave education by the state; surrender in Iraq; acquiescence to all threats of violence; no right to own guns; and a state-assigned job for everyone.

There is a reason why communism failed in the Soviet Union. There is a reason why China is unleashing its economy in favor of free enterprise, even while denying political freedom to its people. Communism cannot carry its own weight. Eventually, the workers realize that there is no reason to work harder than anyone else, since reward is determined by the state, not by achievement. Eventually, the "rich" from whom much is taken become poor, and the source of the redistributed wealth vanishes. The result is inevitable: kaboom, viva la Soviet!

The influence of the communist philosophy has already permeated the government of the United States to the point of vulnerability – while the Communists say:

In 2008 it is possible to enlarge the Democratic majority in general, and at the same time to enlarge the progressive Black and Hispanic caucuses and union members in Congress by engaging in some primaries.

It is crucial that those Americans who want no part of the Communist Manifesto in the United States get off their duffs and get to work for candidates who will disavow the policies advanced by the Communist Party USA.

The fight for America is not limited to the presidency, nor to Congress. The battle is being waged in every city council, county commission and state legislature election. There are candidates campaigning right now for policies that originated with the Brundtland Commission, chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, then-vice chair of the World Socialist Party .

When a candidate uses terms such as "smart growth" and "sustainability," don't take these words to be meaningless. Know that they come from Agenda 21 , a product of the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development. This is the same conference that produced the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Climate Change Treaty.

Agenda 21 and its policies seek to take elected officials out of the policy-making arena and place that authority in the hands of appointed "stakeholder councils," and the like. "Stakeholder councils" serve much the same function as "soviets" in the old communist regimes.

The elections of 2008 certainly do have the potential to change the direction of America – from the land of the free, to the home of the enslaved.

Favors for The Rev/Rep Pinion on the taxpayers dime.

Repayment sought from former tech center director; Sexton acknowledges wrongdoing during tenure at Newbern vo-tech

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

The Tennessee Board of Regents is seeking more than $7,700 from former Tennessee Technology Center at Newbern director Wallace Sexton as a result of an investigation of reported wrongdoing dating back more than a decade.

Sexton, a 33-year veteran of the center, submitted a letter of retirement on July 13. On July 30, the audit said, Sexton signed affidavits "acknowledging, among other things, absence from work without taking leave, directing TTC employees to work on your personal properties, using student and faculty resources to benefit your personal business, and carrying a weapon in a state vehicle."

Sexton has until Monday to either approve the state to withhold his accrued but unpaid annual leave, or contest the matter.

Regents Chan-cellor Charles Manning said Tuesday that Sexton has not replied to either option, "but the money's not his.

"It is the Ten-nessee Board of Regents's system's, and we can retain that full amount."

Manning said one calculation of the misappropriation of labor and funding from the school arrived at more than $14,000, but officials settled on the lesser figure. Sexton will not receive any of his accrued leave, said a letter Manning sent to Sexton on Sept. 7, due to his "gross misconduct" that could have led to his termination had he not resigned.

Sexton admitted in an affidavit to most of the complaints, including being absent without taking proper leave for days at a time.

The review details several instructors felt they would lose their jobs if they refused to work on Sexton's rental properties in Newbern. One instructor told investigators he had made an average of 10 repair calls a year for Sexton since 1998. Another told investigators Sexton ordered him in October 2006 to take a TTC air compressor to Sexton's house, then instructed the worker to used the center's charge account at Lowe's to buy another one for the school.

Others said they were forced to perform repair work on Sexton's rental properties in Newbern, and personal property in Newbern, near Ripley and at Reelfoot Lake.

The audit noted several vehicles donated to the TTC's automotive skills courses by local dealerships "had disappeared in the past." A 1992 Pontiac Grand Prix was explained to have disappeared, with the only evidence it existed proved by June 1992 newspaper article about a local dealer donating the car. The cab of a donated 1994 Chevrolet pickup truck was found "at a private individual's residence in a nearby community" in August 2007 before it was returned to the school. The report said Sexton denied any knowledge of the event.

The audit detailed a conflict of interest between Sexton's post at the TTC from 1994 to 1998, when he owned a used car lot in Dyersburg. Oil changes, bulb replacements, brake repairs, radiator replacements, timing cover replacements and engine diagnosis were done at the business using work orders in the TTC's automotive classroom, an instructor's affidavit said.

Sexton is reported to have purchase a tractor and mower in March 2004 at an auction of surplus equipment at the center, but the items were not included in the public advertisement, the report said.

The audit also notes Sexton instructed TTC staff to design and create signs with the likeness of State Rep. Philip Pinion (D-Union City) for use at a Newbern ballpark in 2004. In spring 2007, the report said Sexton again instructed students to create a sign with Pinion's likeness for the Dyer County Rescue Squad building, which was built on land donated by Pinion.

The report said it "is unclear if these signs would be considered campaign materials."

An instructor told investigators "other signs had been made in the past for candidates in local city elections," and candidates had made donations to the TTC for the signs.

One affadavit said Sexton directed school personnel to draft a drawing of an electrical service pole for Newbern Electric System.

In July 2005, almost $500 was paid by the school to Cape Electric for materials to build a temporary utility pole. The audit said Sexton admitted the pole was at a resort property he owned in Saltillo, Tenn.

Students cleaning and servicing Sexton's state-owned Ford Crown Victoria in October 2006 were reported to have found "two or three handguns" wrapped in rags, "hidden in the spare tire well located in the trunk."

In February 2007, Sexton was reported to have taken a $229.95 chain saw charged on the school account for his personal use. The saw was at his house until Sexton told a worker to return it to the school on July 15, during the investigation. A camera found missing from the school was also found at his residence.

During the time state investigators were at the center in July, a half-gallon of "homemade wine" was found in a cooler in the maintenance building. Sexton admitted the wine belonged to him.

The review found administrative and internal control weaknesses, including lack of oversight of fuel cards, cash handling, the annual catfish fry, donations and a raft of other matters. An unofficial petty cash fund unaccounted by school records was also listed.

The $7,783.82 sought for redress "does not reflect the economic benefit to the director if he had obtained similar services on the open market," said the review.

"For whatever reason Sexton did these things," said Manning. "I really regret at the end of his service this happened. He did a great deal of good for many, many people in your community for many years. He should be remembered for that."

© Copyright 2007, Dyersburg State Gazette
Story URL: http://www.stategazette.com/story/1278027.html

 

Two version of same story

Two Different Versions - Two Different Morals

       

     

      OLD VERSION:

       The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his

      house and laying up supplies for the winter.

       

      The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and

      plays the summer away.

       

      Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

      The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

       

      MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

       

     

------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

       

               MODERN VERSION:

       

     

           The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his

      house and laying up supplies for the winter.

       

           The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and

      plays the summer away.

       

           Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and

      demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while

      others are cold and starving.

       

           CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the

      shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home

      with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

       

           How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor

      grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

       

           Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody

      cries when they sing,

           "It's Not Easy Being Green."

       

           Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where

      the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome."

      Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

       

           Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that

      the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for

      an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

       

           Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act

      retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

       

           The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green

      bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by        

      the government.

       

           Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a

      defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of

      federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent

      welfare recipients.

       

           The ant loses the case.

       

           The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of

      the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to

      be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.

       

           The ant has disappeared in the snow.

       

           The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the

      house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the

      once peaceful neighborhood.

       

     MORAL OF THE STORY:

  Be careful how you vote.

 

Great Britian Schools must now WARN people that Al Gore’s film is Propaganda

Great Britian Schools must now WARN people that Al Gore's film is Propaganda

From the Daily Mail:

Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias

Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday.

The move follows a High Court action by a father who accused the Government of 'brainwashing' children with propaganda by showing it in the classroom.

Stewart Dimmock said the former U.S. Vice-President's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'.

He wants the video banned after it was distributed with four other short films to 3,500 schools in February.

Mr Justice Burton is due to deliver a ruling on the case next week, but yesterday he said he would be saying that Gore's Oscar-winning film does promote 'partisan political views'. This means that teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.

He said: 'The result is I will be declaring that, with the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown.'

The outcome marks a partial victory for Mr Dimmock, who had accused the 'New Labour

Thought Police' of indoctrinating youngsters by handing out thousands of Climate Change Packs to schools.

Mr Dimmock, a lorry driver from Dover with children aged 11 and 14, said at the outset of the hearing: 'I wish my children to have the best education possible, free from bias and political spin, and Mr Gore's film falls far short of the standard required.'

His solicitor John Day, said yesterday that the Government had been forced to make 'a U-turn', but said it did not go far enough.

He said 'no amount of turgid guidance' could change the fact that the film is unfit for consumption in the classroom.

The case arises from a decision in February by the then Education Secretary Alan Johnson that DVDs of the film would be sent to all secondary schools in England, along with a multimedia CD produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs containing two short films about climate change and an animation about the carbon cycle.

David Miliband, who was Environment-Secretary when the school packs were announced, said at the time: 'The debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over.'

But during the three-day hearing, the court heard that the criticallyacclaimed film contains a number of inaccuracies, exaggerations and statements about global warming for which there is currently insufficient scientific evidence.

The Climate Change Resource Pack has now been sent to more than 3,500 schools and is aimed at key stage 3 pupils - those aged 11 to

Children's Minister Kevin Brennan said last night: 'The judge's decision is clear that schools can continue to use An Inconvenient Truth as part of their teaching on climate change in accordance with the amended guidance, which will be available online today.

'We have updated the accompanying guidance, as requested by the judge to make it clearer for teachers as to the stated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position on a number of scientific points raised in the film.'

Rush Limbaugh Vs. The Real Phonies

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=276218567075252#

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, October 02, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Congress: The anti-war left is trying to slime a major conservative pundit, but Rush Limbaugh was right about the left’s “phony soldiers,” and Kerry, Murtha, Durbin et al. have called our troops far worse.
Macbeth, in this case, is not the name of a Shakespearean tragedy, but rather the name of one of the “phony soldiers” Limbaugh spoke of in a recent radio broadcast.
Jesse Adam Macbeth was a hero of leftist blogs after he claimed in 2005 to have been awarded a Purple Heart for his service in Iraq that he said included slaughtering innocent civilians in a Fallujah mosque.
Iraq Veterans Against The War and other leftist groups trumpeted his charges as proof we were no better than Saddam Hussein.
When his true discharge papers were released, they contradicted his story. They said Macbeth was kicked out of the Army after six weeks at Fort Benning, Ga., in 2003 because of his “entry-level performance and conduct.” He didn’t serve in Iraq. He didn’t win a Purple Heart. And neither he nor any other U.S. soldier massacred civilians in a mosque.
Like Dan Rather’s phony story about George Bush and the National Guard based on documents proven to be forgeries, the anti-war left wanted Macbeth’s story to be true. The motive in both cases was to slime the president and those who defend his policies.
It was Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comment that has caused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and others to call for the conservative commentator’s head. But Reid & Co. had no problem with the MoveOn.org ad sliming a genuine soldier and hero who has served his country valiantly, Gen. David Petraeus.
Petraeus was the victim of the “Gen. Betray Us” ad MoveOn.org placed in the New York Times, an ad lefties in the Senate including Reid refused to vote to condemn.
While Limbaugh exposed the left’s exploitation of a phony, the likes of Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., are free to slander the Marines who defended themselves against a jihadist ambush in the Iraqi town of Haditha, claiming they had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood.” Sounds like the phony charges Macbeth made, doesn’t it?
No one has been found guilty in the Haditha incident, and there has been no proof of innocent civilians being murdered. Several of the Marines have been found innocent as the case has unraveled. But is Murtha condemned by his colleagues or asked to apologize?
Sen. John Kerry once told Bob Schieffer on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that “there is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women . . . .” This was a more modest reprise of his post-Vietnam charges that U.S. troops had raped, tortured and pillaged in the tradition of Genghis Khan.
Then there’s the famous utterance by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., after the incident at Saddam’s Abu Ghraib prison: “We now learn that Saddam’s torture chamber (has) reopened under new management.”
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., once said of our prisoner of war camp at Guantanamo that “describing what Americans had done to prisoners under our control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by the Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings.”
Limbaugh’s hypocritical critics aren’t concerned about the demeaning of our troops in Iraq. They want to demean those who support our war on terror, whether in Iraq or the broadcast booth.
Despite their efforts, we will know the truth, and the truth will keep us free.

© Copyright 2007 Investor’s Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.