(click on ads for more details)

Don't know if you're aware of this, but there's supposed to be some kind of
public (C-SPAN) congressional hearing on the validity and legality of the Income Tax September 25th or thereabouts. Seems incredible that the government would allow this to occur, but reportedly several prominent anti tax individuals and organizations are scheduled to testify. The Department of (in)Justice has refused to participate, (perhaps because they know something Homo Boobus doesn't). It will be interesting to see how this hearing is subverted, and you can bet the farm that it will be.

Already, per NewsMax.com or Worldnet daily.com, an alleged underground group
calling themselves the "Ghosts of the Revolution" have issued a "communique"
to several IRS and other, tax interested parties declaring that; effective September 1, 2001, a state of war exists between the IRS and said "Ghosts"
and warning citizens to avoid being at or near IRS facilities thereafter. The IRS has announced that they are taking this threat seriously. However, there
is a strong possibility that the "communique" was issued by government "agent provocateurs" in an effort to discredit the anti tax movement prior to the hearing. The alleged underground group's name sounds like something some government hominid would invent. In any case, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I bet you don't hear anything about it from Dan Rather.

I sent the following to an editing staff person at the Detroit Free Press last Tuesday concerning an irresponsible front page article asserting that the "tax cut" will cause Congress to dip into the Social Security "trust fund." As you can see from the tone, I didn't send it for publishing in their Op Ed page, but to show those boobs that some of us know they're parroting garbage.

Ms. Cain:

Tuesday's front page article, under the headline "U. S. needs $9 billion from
Social Security" demonstrates an apparent lack of understanding of the "third rail of politics" by its authors. The Free Press is welcome to its liberal
slant, but to blame Bush's tax cut for causing a "dip into Social Security's
trust fund" does a disservice to your readers. Politics aside, it simply
promulgates common misunderstandings about Social Security that stand in the
way of solving its problems.

In the first place, Congress has been "raiding" Social Security almost from
it's inception; from the time it was changed from a "retirement" program to a
"welfare" program. Social Security receipts are, and have been, commingled
with general revenues and, after "benefits" are paid to SS recipients, the
balance is immediately spent on current government programs. Social Security
revenues have been used to dishonestly hide Congressional fiscal irresponsibility for years. The "now you see it, now you don't" projected federal budget surplus was based on this film flam.

In the second place, by any reasonable definition of the term there is no Social security "Trust Fund," and for the authors to suggest so is, at best, misleading and, at worst, negligent. Even the current Social Security Commissioner has recently admitted that there are no real assets in this so called Fund. The "Fund" consists entirely of government IOUs to repay expropriated Social security revenues in the future by utilizing it's taxing power. (Social Security's current unfunded liabilities are in the trillions). Due to "Baby Boom" demographics, this taxation must eventually reach unbearable rates and, unless the system is taken out of the hands of politicians (privatized) soon, down will come baby, cradle and all.

Politicians' fiscal sleight of hand notwithstanding, Social security in its
present form is simply a "Ponzi Scheme" and doomed to failure. As it stands now, only the Libertarian Party offers a reasonable solution to the impending
collapse of Social Security and all the nasty questions that will arise thereafter. For instance; "Where was the Press in all of this?"

Thomas M. Wirkutis

Loved the play on the "Rockabye Baby" lullaby. Wouldja believe she sent back
a schmaltzy thank you email? Clueless!

Tom