Last week, Juliet Eilperin reported in the Washington Post(1) that "House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) would like to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and replace the current tax system with either a flat tax, a national sales tax or a value-added tax." As reported, Hastert suggests that a new tax system would increase productivity and "double the economy" over the next 15 years. "All of a sudden, the problem of what future generations owe in Social Security and Medicare won't seem so daunting anymore," The Post reports Hastert wrote.

"People ask me if I'm really calling for the elimination of the IRS, and I say I think that's a great thing to do for future generations of Americans," Hastert said.

Hastert is, of course, quite correct. We should abolish that overbearing IRS and all of the unruly tax code. Federal tax law is so complicated, no person in the IRS (or Congress) understands all of it. Yet, every citizen is expected to obey 100%. Truly, it is a corrupt system.

But, before we begin looking for any new "flat tax" proposal, perhaps we should take a quick look at a little history -- see what has already been on the table.

Back in June of 1998, the House actually passed a bill to abolish the income tax code by the year 2003. Albeit, there was one damning caveat: that Congress approves a simplified replacement tax system before then.(2)

That, of course, did not happen. Because, then Treasury Secretary Bobby Rubin -- who is a millionaire hundreds of times over -- immediately jumped on the bill, saying the bill should never became law. "If enacted, it would create enormous uncertainty which could well have a severe adverse impact on our economy, our workers, our businesses, our people. Families, for example, would not know what to pay for a house because they wouldn't know if their mortgage interest would be deductible."

Pete Stark (D-CA) did a good job of representing the whining of the tax and spend Social-Democrats: "With the Republicans in leadership having no understanding of the basic tenets of economics and leading this house in the most amateurish, asinine way, we will destroy this economy, destroy the values upon which the families are based."

Then House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, (D-MO), said the bill "is yet another irresponsible Republican idea masquerading as a solution. They refuse to have a real debate on tax reform because they know what we know: That the average taxpayer would be worse off under the Republican plans."

That just goes to prove how far out of touch the Democrats really are with the American people. Also, they fear losing the control they wield over the American people via the tax code.

In March of 1999, then House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) announced that he was reintroducing H.R. 1040, a bill to scrap the current tax system and replace it with a flat 17 percent tax on all income.(3)

"Filling out an IRS tax form can be a frightening experience," Armey said. "The forms and instructions we must deal with are complicated and confusing. Millions would rather pay someone else to deal with their returns than face this frustration. But there's no reason that our system needs to be so complex. My flat tax proposal offers a simple, fair alternative. It allows everyone to file their returns on a simple, postcard-sized form." . . .

"The flat tax offers relief to an America that is overtaxed, and burdened by the current tax system," said Armey. "Millions would find their tax burden reduced -- or eliminated entirely -- under the flat tax. But the flat tax offers no breaks for special interests. No loopholes for powerful lobbies. Just a simple tax system that treats everyone the same."

Armey also reported that the U.S. income tax code is a monument to unnecessary waste. The income tax system is so complex, the IRS publishes 480 tax forms and another 280 forms to explain the 480 forms. The IRS sends out eight billion pages of forms and instructions each year which, if laid end to end, would circle the earth 28 times. Nearly 300,000 trees are cut down each year to produce the paper on which IRS forms and instructions are printed. The tax code does more than complicate people's lives during tax season and reduce living standards. It pollutes Washington's political culture.

As special-interest provisions have been added to the tax code, Washington's lobbying industry has flourished. Washington's lobbying industry, which is the largest private employer in the nation's capital, generates $8.4 billion in revenue each year. If the lobbying industry were its own economy, it would be larger than the economies of 57 countries. While the thousands of lobbyists in Washington have prospered in an environment of tax favoritism, the typical taxpayer has not.

And remember a bean counter named Steve Forbes with a very interesting flat tax plan? His table is still available.(4) Forbes said: "Start by scrapping the tax code. Don't fiddle with it. Junk it. Throw it out. Bury it. Replace it with a pro-growth, pro-family tax cut that lowers tax rates to 17% across the board and expands exemptions for individuals and children so that a family of four would pay no taxes on the first $36,000 of income.

Not one cent to the IRS on the first $36,000. Anything over that would be taxed at a flat, fair 17%. The flat tax would be simple. You could fill it out on a postcard. It would be honest. It would eliminate the principal source of political corruption in Washington. It would be fair. Millions of people would be off the federal income tax rolls. There would be no tax on Social Security. No tax on pensions. No tax on personal savings. It would zero out capital gains taxes. It would set off a boom by letting people keep more of what they earn and by lowering barriers to risk taking. "(5)

Let's not discount any of the above mentioned people. Dick Armey is now at FreedomWorks(6) and still fighting for lower taxes, less government, and more freedom at the grassroots level. Steve Forbes is also still available to lend a hand. Many other "flat taxers" are, too. They may all be quiet at the moment, but that could be for a very good reason.

It appears that House Speaker Dennis Hastert sent up a trial balloon in an election year for a reason. George W. Bush has also mentioned abolishing the IRS as we know it and replacing those many thousands of pages of federal tax law, rules and regulations with a flat tax. This may be the time for President Bush to formally announce that publicly.

As this article was being written, President Bush was addressing an "Ask President Bush" campaign forum in Florida. The flat tax was mentioned and President Bush called it "an interesting idea." Then, Bush came back with: "You know, I'm not exactly sure how big the national sales tax is going to have to be, but it's the kind of interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously."

Was that also a trial balloon? Sure; of sorts. Unfortunately, the media didn't pick up on it and so few Americans know of the statement. In truth, President Bush knows exactly how high any of the flat taxes would need to be. People in the White House and on Capitol Hill have been quietly running the numbers for a couple years. Now is the time for our input -- before the Social-Democrats start whining about the program.

Let's face it, President (candidate) Bush likes to play his cards close to the vest. His campaign committee knows very well that, if President Bush were to formally make such a flat tax proposal within the next few weeks, there just ain't enough Prozac available in the nation to calm down the Social-Democrats and their liberal media cheerleaders enough to be understood properly by the electorate before November.

1. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37806-2004Aug3.html>

3. <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu90.htm>

2. <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu126.htm>

4. <http://www.ctj.org/html/forbedis.htm>

5. <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/forbes_flat_tax.html>

6. <http://www.cse.org/armey/index.php>

Anyone else noticing how the American media is running a campaign against President Bush? We expect that from Reuters and the Associated Press, of course. But it seems to be happening with 95% of the media today. For instance, AP writes things like "Bush Works to Blunt Critics With CIA Pick" instead of 'Bush supports CIA Pick.' Or, "Bush mocks Kerry" but never that 'Kerry mocks Bush,' which happens almost all day every day.

The liberals in the media will call publications like "Unfit for Command," anti-Kerry, yet never label any of the rabidly liberal organization (like moveon.org) ads anti-Bush. Instead, they often report them as news.

Last week, the liberal media found themselves a new conservative target to bash for a while, but they seem a bit apprehensive about taking him on. Alan Keyes is back running for election. So, here comes AP: "Keyes Bashes Obama's Views." Interesting that. What did Obama say about Keyes? Among other things, Obama said that Keyes is outside the moderate mainstream of state Republicans. Isn't that "bashing"?

The DNC let Barack Obama speak at their little convention and the liberal media made him out to be the new darling of the Democratic Party. Some talking heads even stated that Obama could be a presidential candidate someday.

Well, here's a little point to ponder: Yes, Obama is a good public speaker. But, so are most used car salesmen. I listened to him. Good pep-rally material, but almost zero real substance. The guy wants to be a U.S. Senator, but what is his experience for the position? Listening to his speech, he was totally lacking on any real issues affecting our nation.

Keyes, on the other hand, is not just a good public speaker, he is also a powerful public speaker. And, we might note, Ambassador Alan Keyes also has the proper background to be a senator.

Needless to say, the leftist-liberal media want the liberal Obama, not the conservative Keyes. The American people, however, feel a bit differently. We look for C-SPAN to be one of the most watched TV channels any time their debates are aired. When substance counts, Keyes will make Obama seem like a backup high school debater.

Kerry's media support is a bigger problem. It's interesting that Kerry even mentions his four months in Vietnam. Funny that, when he came home he discredited Vietnam veterans, now he wants to be honored as one. Won't work! Too many Vietnam veterans remember Kerry's lies. He lied to the media, he lied to Congress and he lied to the American people. He even states that he was, himself, a war criminal.

Now he gets his comeuppance.

First in line come the Vietnam veterans who knew him best back then. Visit their web site(1) to view their TV spot and contribute to have it played more on television, if you are so inclined.

Next comes the book by Swift Boat Veterans: "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" That should be available in any bookstore this week.(2)

The liberal media, of course, labels all this "anti-Kerry" rhetoric. Again, the American people think differently. The book will instantly be a major best seller -- and actually was before it was even released.

But the Kerry campaign does not think all the liberal media support they receive is quite enough. Therefore, the campaign lawyered-up with hundreds of trial lawyers and is waging a scare campaign against any radio or television stations willing to run the Swiftvet spot. The Kerry campaign is also asking media people to disregard all of the Swift Boat Veterans and only run Kerry's approved story (and its many revisions). But, that shall not be allowed to happen.

In response, Americans are calling radio and television stations demanding the spots be run. But, that is not all that is happening in the background (without any news coverage). As John Kerry shall soon learn, there are a few million veterans out here. Kerry tore open a large hornet's nest by claiming to be a "hero" in Vietnam.

Yes, John Kerry smacked a huge nest and there are one hell of a lot of us angry hornets out here. Like this particular scribbler, we are going to keep making our points of view heard until November. And, there is not one damn thing Kerry can do about it.

1. <http://www.swiftvets.com/>

2. <http://www.WinterSoldier.com>

We've all heard about "taking the Fifth." Heck, we only need watch the bureaucrats testifying about their wrongdoings for instructions on how that works. They'll use their Fifth Amendment right, and any trick they can think of, to keep from telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Well, "taking the Fifth" is not just reserved for those in government. Citizens also (usually) have a right against self incrimination. In fact, American citizens can use a whole host of such "protections," if they learn to exert their Constitutional authority.

For instance, the Ninth Amendment states that: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be considered to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That tells the central government that all rights belong to us, the people. It also implies that we can tell government to "kiss off" when they try to violate any of our rights or liberties the Constitution does not give them explicit authority to regulate.

So, when government says that we cannot encrypt our messages to others on the Internet, Constitutionally we could say, "Tough cookies! I claim my Constitutional right under the Ninth Amendment of our Constitution." Or, when government demands that we have our papers in order to travel within our own country, we could say, "Buzz off! Our Constitution gives you no such authority to require that. Therefore, I take the Ninth, and do not choose to participate in your unconstitutional rule."

Silliness, you say? Not so. Impractical right now, but certainly not silly.

To say that demanding our unalienable rights and liberties is silly is to say that you approve of the government's practice of picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution they will honor and which they may freely disregard. To not demand the liberty that is Constitutionally yours is to signal the bureaucrats that they may also do what they will with both your life and you property.

And do so they will. In fact, it has already begun, hasn't it.

We citizens must demand that our Constitution be honored as a whole. That is to say, everything in our Constitution must be in effect, with equal weight under the law. Because, if some parts of the Constitution are arbitrarily not applicable today, chances are excellent that none of it will be in effect for your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren by the time they are your age.

The only reason some parts of the Constitution are effective and others are not is because we American citizens do not demand that the federal government honor and obey each and every word as written.

And that, folks, is 100% our fault.

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh, GR Force and FRON, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 2003 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

fron312.htm. Revised 8-14-04. uhuh, GR Force and FRON are non-profit.