IRS: Economic Stimulus Payment

Today I received a notice from the IRS about the Economic Stimulus Payment I'll be receiving since I'm a taxpayer. Now let me tell you why this didn't make me jump for joy.
1. Why did they send out a notice before the checks were cut? It's wasteful to do a double mailing, and contrary to what some think, this isn't "government" money they're wasting. It's YOURS and MINE. We paid the taxes in the first place so the government could waste a good portion of it on senseless mailings such as this one.
2. While I'll never turn down a tax rebate, the whole idea is rather repulsive. What the government is really doing is playing socialist and redistributing wealth. I don't think the government should have the power to do that. It's contradictory to the principles of a free society and free market system. I'm not against helping people in need, in fact, I'm for it, but it's not in the federal government's job description to play Robin Hood. The private sector could do a much better job at helping those in need. The entire tax structure in this country needs to be overhauled. Tweaking it with tax hikes and tax cuts is not enough.
3. This "stimulus payment" is supposed to help dig the economy out of a recession, but again, the IRS and government bureaucrats (and unfortunately elected officials, too) don't understand a basic concept in economics. Most people won't run out and spend this "payment" on goods and services - at least not all of it, which is what would be necessary to "stimulate" the economy. In order for people to change their consumption habits, a permanent change in income is necessary. A one-time payment such as this will most likely be used to pay off some debt, or be put into savings.
4. What's especially irritating is that the supposed "rich" people ($75,000 AGI) will get a "reduced" payment or the payment might even be "phased out completely." Now, if that's not unjust, I don't know what is. It's the people in the higher tax bracket who PAID the higher taxes in the first place, and now, when it's time for a "stimulus payment" they get left out? Folks, this is blatantly socialistic.
5. If we're going to redistribute wealth, why bother paying taxes in the first place? Why not just have all of our wages and salaries sent directly to the government and we can all live on a check from the government each month so that everybody gets an equal share? If that were the case, in a very short time, our economy would collapse because there would be no incentive to produce. We're all going to get an equal check no matter if we work hard or sit at home and watch television. Incentive is all about a return. If the end result is the same, why work a lot when you can work a little, or not at all?
So, as you can see, I’m not at all thrilled. The “generosity” of the government in returning some of what I paid them fails to captivate my gratitude. There are better ways to stimulate the economy.

Reforming the Primary Season

I think the primary system needs reforming. Look at the lack of excellence in any candidate now selected. Obama and Hillary are still battling it out for the democrat nomination, but if those two are the best the democrats can do they don't have much going for them except a nice smile and smooth phraseology in Obama and ...hmmm... I'm not sure what they have going for them in Hillary. And if McCain is the best republicans can do, they're in deep trouble, too. McCain has no new ideas, he is (excuse the use of the word) *BORING* and a leaning liberal lefty dressed up in republican labels. I have no use for him. I can see how Hillary and Obama are the best the democrats have to offer, after all we can't expect the democrats to produce excellence, but shame on the republicans for not choosing more wisely. Here's my proposition to reform the primary season so that the candidates more accurately represent the party. Right now, momentum is the key word in the primary season. It starts out slowly in Iowa and then on to New Hampshire and a few other states before a massive Super Tuesday, followed by more isolated primaries. There are several ways to reform the system. One is to hold all primaries nation wide on the same day for democrats and republicans, which cuts out the momentum factor and gives a much better chance of having a brokered convention. Of course, under this system, the brokered convention could become a place of bribery and all sorts of shenanigans and chicanery. The second option for reform involves momentum. I'll use the republican race this year for illustration. John McCain is now the republican nominee. How did he do it? He got his huge delegate lead from *blue* states. These states are not going to vote republican, and yet they have a huge influence on who the republican nominee is because of their gigantic delegate allotments and because many of them are winner takes all states, which makes the delegate count go up even faster, and they have their primaries early in the season. That's how McCain did it. From my perspective, it's not right to allow blue states to dictate who the red states are going to vote for in November, so here's my plan to solve that problem. Primaries for the republicans should be held first in red states and then after all red state primaries, blue states could hold primaries. The momentum would then be a red state momentum. A primary season according to this system would yield a candidate more representative of those who will actually be voting for the candidate in November.

Campaign Finance Reform

Another interesting article about McCAIN. He likes to make the rules, but when it comes to following them, he doesn't like it so much.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12803

Here's my solution to Campaign Finance Reform:
1. no candidate or campaign may borrow money
2. only individuals, no PACs or groups of any kind may contribute
3. all contributions must be disclosed within 48 hours
4. only individuals eligible to vote in the election may contribute
5. no individual may contribute more than $10,000 per election cycle to one candidate
6. a candidate may not contribute more to his/her campaign than $10,000
7. eliminate the federal matching funds program

This would eliminate the power of special interest groups, foreign funding, and the personal money-tied influence of people like George Soros, and force candidates to raise money from their supporters. It would also keep rich candidates from attempting to buy the election.

Wisconsin and Washington

We have results from Wisconsin and Washington. John Sydney McCain III and Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. are the "choices" we will be handed come November. But... there's still time to make a difference! Although it is little acknowledged anymore, there are still other people running for the presidential nominations of the republican and democrat parties. On the republican side, Dr. Ron Paul, a congressman from TX, a strict constitutionalist (that's a good thing, by the way, to be a strict constitutionalist) and Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas who, although he is not as much of a strict constitutionalist as Dr. Paul is, has some good qualities. Mr. Huckabee wants to put the IRS out of business and instead use the Fair Tax (a national sales tax) to collect revenue. Oh, and on the democrat side, Mike Gravel is also still running. He's also for eliminating the IRS and instead using the Fair Tax, but that's the only thing I could find on his issue positions that I agreed with. And then of course, Hillary Rodham Clinton is still in the race, and could still easily get the democrat nomination. But does anyone really want to listen to her strident voice screaming at us for four years?

McCain funded by George Soros

Why isn't somebody screaming bloody murder over this? It is really outrageous that this is allowed. This has been going on since 2001 and it needs to stop!! Read the article by clicking here. Why are we letting the democrats pick the republican nominee through funding? McCain is not a free man. He's sold himself to the liberals and George Soros has bought him.