The President seems to like pitching in this image.

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

Thomas Woodrow Wilson came into the office of the Presidency as a man who was an extremely popular governor, a charismatic leader, and a man who had shown, while dean of Princeton University, that he understood how to budget effectively. This, however, was not enough to ensure an easy nomination, as the Democrat party took a little over 40 votes in order to pick Wilson as their candidate for the general election. With Taft and Roosevelt (Teddy) fighting over the Republican nomination, Wilson was able to squeeze in and get elected, with only 41% of the vote. This allowed Wilson to be our 28th President, serving from 1913 until 1921.

While he might have fought against Roosevelt in the election, Wilson saw his position as President in a very similar light – that is, Wilson thought that he was the representative of the people, their will, and their desires. In order to act in the people’s best interests, Wilson quickly started to issue several reforms, most of which occurred in a very short period of time.

Wilson first passed the Federal Reserve Act, which created the central banking system of our country. This act created the Fed that we all know today, and, arguably, led to the dangerous economic situation that resulted in the Great Depression. Following this, Wilson continued to work in the economic issues, passing bills that ended tariffs, creating new loans for farmers, and dealing with child labor (until SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional).

While Wilson was doing well with the economics of his time, he ignored warnings from experts about what his plans would do if the economy changed. Wilson created new standards which were impossible later in the 20s, and that directly led to the Great Depression. Furthermore, his allowance of full labor rights created the unbalanced economy that resulted in the modern-day rescission, as well as the one in the 1980s.

During his presidency, Wilson expressed an odd feeling towards segregation and various racial issues. While he earned the support of African-Americans, he did little to change the systems where governmental offices were segregated. In fact, Wilson basically threw blacks under the bus due to the fact that he thought short-term loss would yield an overall larger, and broader, gain. Frankly, this didn’t work, and showed that Wilson not only didn’t understand how the nation worked, but that he actually was a closet racist.

After ‘dealing’ with the economic reality of America, Wilson went into a political slumber. He continued to do fairly little until the election of 1916 rolled around, when he argued that he kept the nation out of war (World War 1) and deserved to be reelected. While he got the votes needed, and stayed in office, Wilson quickly turned on his word, telling Congress that they must declare war on Germany. Granted, Germany had started attacking our boats, and they were becoming increasingly threatening (including an attempt to get Mexico to overthrow the United States).

Wilson, to his credit, did a fair bit of work dealing with how America would handle the war, and what would happen once the war ended. The best known of this, of course, would be the Fourteen Points. Wilson did his best to ensure that all countries would be treated fairly, ensure that America conducted herself in an acceptable manner, and various other things.

After the war, Wilson attempted to get Congress to approve the League of Nations. This treaty would keep from punishing Germany, and would set up an UN-like system where countries were responsible to each other. With Congress controlled by the Republicans, they rejected the terms, and actually sought to punish Germany.

Wilson was unable to get Congress, nor the people, to support his peace plans. As a result, America punished Germany, and actually set the scene for World War Two. Furthermore, his plans economically, which, at the time, were a good idea, eventually led to the Great Depression. While Wilson tried his hardest (and the best that he knew) to make the country better, his actions ended up harming the nation greatly. For this reason, I believe that spot #23 is a great place in which to put Thomas Woodrow Wilson.

This is one of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-22: ?
23:  Thomas Woodrow Wilson
24: Ulysses S. Grant
25: Zachary Taylor
26: Rutherford Birchard Hayes
27: William Howard Taft
28: Benjamin Harrison
29: James Madison
30: John Calvin Coolidge
31: John F. Kennedy
32: William McKinley
33: John Tyler
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

Welcome, one and all, to Ohio week. On Saturday, we had Benjamin Harrison, today we have Taft, and on Friday we will have yet another Ohioan (I think you can guess who it is, there are not too many left).

William Taft entered into the office of Presidency after a lifetime of civil service. He served his state and country, finally moving up to the position of Secretary of War for Theodore Roosevelt. While Taft road into office on Teddy’s popularity, he was unable to use any of it to further his positions, and ultimately left the office dejectedly. That said, however, he quickly moved back up in the world, becoming the only person to hold both the Presidency and the Chief Justice of the United States. Taft was our 27th President, serving from 1909 until 1913.

One of Taft’s first acts as President was to create a new form of foreign policy. Taft hated Roosevelt’s big stick policy, and instead thought that we could get partners through trade and financial aid. In other words, Taft thought that the United States could bribe other countries into doing what we want – fyi, we still do this to this day. Taft paid off several countries to do what we wanted and, when that failed, he attempted to install new military leaders, which he then paid off. Frankly, Dollar Diplomacy worked wonders, and it kept many other nations at our call. While it might seem cynical and wrong to bribe nations, it kept the exchanges peaceful, and kept America at the center of power – kudos to Taft for both.

Taft also felt as though world peace was a noble and well thought out gain. To do this, he attempted to make, and have ratified, several arbitration and reciprocation treaties. These treaties ensured that both parties would not enter battles, nor would they work against each other’s interests just for spite.

While this seems like a great idea, and worked well concerning our treaties with England and Canada, this was not a good idea in the long run. Any form of treaty in which we sacrifice our self-interest is dangerous, and to do so for political ploys is idiotic. World peace is an unattainable ideal, and not something that will ever be feasible. Instead of ensuring that nobody messed with us simply because they liked us, Taft placed us in danger by ensuring that we would not mess with others for self-gain, which greatly harms our nation.

Domestically, Taft struggled to find a clear ground on many issues; the most prevalent issue being that of the tariff. Taft wanted the rates lowered, and ignored the fact that this was highly unpopular in his party to do so. He lowered the rate, which his party hated, but didn’t change it enough for the reformers. This meant that he had alienated himself from both sides, and actually harmed the Republican party as he put it all on their plate.

While this change is neither good nor bad, in it of itself, it does indicate a fault in Taft’s leadership. The man could not come up with a position, and instead tried to play it in the middle. This backfired, and really messed up his office. Not only that, but it also shows that Taft was not capable of making hard decisions, and, instead, was a Presidential trifle. This, frankly, colors Taft’s Presidency.

While still on the domestic economic front, Taft was the President that brought us the income tax. While there had been taxes on income before, they were required to be apportioned, or unconstitutional. With the addition of the 16th Amendment, income taxes, that were not apportioned, became Constitutional. While I love this, I certainly understand that there is a fair bit of argument against it – best to leave this area alone.

Another iffy area for Taft would be that of Civil Rights. Taft felt as though blacks deserved rights, but did not believe that the 15th Amendment gave the federal government the right to interfere with state politics. As a result, blacks in southern states were routinely lynched, killed, and mobbed, for the stupidest of reasons (not that there is a smart or good reason). Taft also did nothing as southern states passed law after law keeping their black citizens from voting.

To me, this is appalling. While I understand the fear of trying to use federal power against the south, I can not understand allowing this sort of situation to occur. Taft should have grown some balls, and stood up to the states. He needed to show that the President has the right, and the duty, to keep this sort of thing from happening. Instead, he weakened the office, and kept the country back for another 50 years.

Overall, I feel as though Taft is another interesting placement. While he did some good for the country, most of his actions were more or less ‘mehs.’ Taft was undecided, unexciting, and uneventful, making him an useless President. While he might have been a great justice later, and an overall good politician and American, he was only a mediocre President. Personally, I feel as though #27 is a great spot for William Howard Taft to slide into.

This is one of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-26: ?
27: William Howard Taft
28: Benjamin Harrison
29: James Madison
30: John Calvin Coolidge
31: John F. Kennedy
32: William McKinley
33: John Tyler
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

This, my friends, is where it starts to get interesting. After a bunch of horrible Presidents, but before the great ones, comes a an area of simply mediocre leaders. Some of these men had flashes of genus, others had slight problems while in office, but none of them were grand nor bad. These men are harder to rate, as they don’t logically fit into a line, nor do they really do a whole lot for rating. After all, most of the next people are not even memorable; how do you rate Presidents who really didn’t do anything?

This is where Benjamin Harrison comes into the picture. The grandson of William Henry Harrison, and yet another person from Ohio, Harrison was merely a mediocre President. His rise to power was simply being appointed Senator from Indiana, which he got after losing a gubernatorial election in the state. Harrison won in a contested election against the incumbent Grover Cleveland, who then beat Harrison four years later. Frankly, being the meat in the Cleveland sandwich is probably what he is best known for. Either way, however, Harrison was our 23rd President, serving from 1889-1893.

One of the first things Harrison did in office was to continue reform of the Civil Service system. Like the Presidents before him, Harrison was constantly harangued by people who thought that they deserved jobs, simply because they were of the right party, or because they worked on his campaign. While he turned most of the seekers down, Harrison was unable to actually reject them all. As a result, he did his best to reform the Civil Service system, for a little while anyways.

After attempting to reform the system, mainly by appointing Theodore Roosevelt (Teddy), Harrison realized that congress was not going to go along with his changes. As a result, he stopped attempting to alter the system, and just didn’t fulfill certain locations. While this was not the worst of plans, this wasn’t exactly a great idea, as the problems continued to exist. Harrison missed a golden opportunity to put a stamp on his name, and state what was acceptable and what wasn’t. Instead, he shied away from the political opposition.

While he shied away from opposition when dealing with civil service, Harrison headed right into the heart of the fire when he started to take on the large monopolic trusts that existed. These trusts and monopolies extended across the nation, and strangled many smaller and family-owned companies. They used bribes, illegal activities, threats, and, sometimes, simply buying the transportation system (I am looking at you Rockefeller) to drive the other companies out of business. Harrison thought that this was wrong, and worked with congress to pass the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, something that we still use today.

While this seems like a great move, after getting the act passed, Harrison only utilized it once. Instead, he felt as though it was a state’s rights issue (wait, isn’t this after the Civil War?) and thought that they should take care of it. While the act is now used for good, Harrison ignored any good usage of it. To me, this is appalling, as the large trusts stymied and harmed the intellectual growth of the nation. Sure, goods were cheaper and there was more industry, but without competition, there is no innovation. Harrison refused to use a great tool at his disposal, and really set the nation back a bit.

Harrison’s other attempts at playing in the economic realm were likewise mediocre. Under his tenure, the national surplus grew daily. Instead of putting in reserve systems (like any smart person would do), he thought that it was best to neutralize the money. As a result, he spent and spent, eventually bringing the federal budget over 1 billion dollars, the first time that this had ever happened.

While I can not argue that having too much money is bad (I suppose it might corrupt or something, I have never had that much myself), I do not understand how this was a good idea. The government needs money to function, and a surplus is a good thing, as it makes sure that there is money later. Harrison should have saved the money and used it on a rainy day, instead of investing it is absurd pet projects and various pension systems. Harrison missed yet another golden egg, this time he didn’t preserve the manner in which to keep the country out of debt.

If you thought that his economic and civil service reformations were hair brained, then you must think that his foreign policy policies were absolutely asinine. Harrison had no idea what he was doing when dealing with other nations, and he actually brought the US close to war several times:

• In a battle with Canada over fishing rights near the Aleutian Islands, Harrison had the navy seize British ships. While this could have lead to war, Britain calmly looked around, and agreed to give us a ransom

• When the Dole’s staged a revolt in Hawaii, Harrison quickly attempted to get the nation accepted as a state. While he failed, he severely pissed off the rest of the world, and Spain started chomping at the bit.

• Situations got sour when sailors on leave in Chile got into a fight and were arrested (and some killed). The Baltimore Crisis got interesting when Harrison personally got involved, demanded reparations, and threatened war. Instead of the standard ‘you were on their land,’ Harrison actually tried to get the country to go to war. Calmer heads prevailed, and the President apologized.

As I said, Harrison was an idiot when it came to foreign policy; he was pretty much an idiot on everything else as well. Overall, it is hard to rate Harrison as he wasn’t great, nor was he horrible. While he did some idiotic things, they never really backfired, and he did enough good to avoid being bogged down by them. Sure, he let monopolies stifle innovation, but he also helped create the act used against them today. Harrison exemplifies the middle-ground Presidents – not great, but not bad, and damn hard to place. I believe that Harrison, had he had another term, would have been more interesting, but the simply man was far to simplistic to be President. Overall, I believe that Benjamin Harrison easily slides into the 28th spot, as it is just hard to place him anywhere else.

This is one of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-27: ?
28: Benjamin Harrison
29: James Madison
30: John Calvin Coolidge
31: John F. Kennedy
32: William McKinley
33: John Tyler
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

With James Madison’s posting, today is a great time to point out something exceptionally important. When I first started contemplating the idea of ranking the Presidents, I made sure to explain exactly what the guidelines were. While I made sure to state that I would evaluate things that occurred after their tenure in office, but due to the actual actions done by the President (or his policy), I also made sure to point one thing out. I will rank the Presidents by the things measured will only be from when IN office. Now, with Madison, this is even more important, and it is something to keep in mind when reading this posting.

James Madison is, of course, one of the most important members of our Founding Fathers. Madison wrote the majority of the majority of the Constitution, and he was the main author of the Bill of Rights. Madison also worked on the Federalist Papers, which some of the blogs which I read seem to love. Just as importantly, Madison helped to create the new government, as he, along with Washington, acted to create the precedent that still stands today. That said, none of this matters, as Madison is only being ranked on his Presidential ability. Madison was our 4th President, serving from 1809 until 1817.

One of Madison’s first acts in office was to try and block the First Bank of the US. While he was unable to actually block the bill in the first place, Madison bided his time, waiting for the charter to end. Once it did, he did his best not to let it come back. Madison felt that the bank was Unconstitutional, that it would harm the country fiscally, and that it simply didn’t make any sense in the long run. In his attempt to keep the bank from coming back, Madison split with his cabinet.

Once the War of 1812 rolled around, however, the country realized that it was nearly impossible to pay for this defensive battle without a national bank. While he rejected it in 1814, Madison eventually realized that he needed the bank in order to keep funding the war, and keep the nation stable. As a result, Madison worked on creating the Second Bank of the United States, and actually got it done. This made the nation stable for a short period of time, but ended when the Court found that the bank was Unconstitutional.

Personally, I have a strong problem with any attempt at the Bank of America. Besides the obvious Unconstitutionality of it, there is no way that this system is logical or would work. Sure, Congress has the power to make the coin, but they should not have the power to manipulate the economy as they see fit. The bank allows this, and would create an extremely dangerous precedent. Congress should never have the power to change the economy, never. It is too great a power to wield, and one that is ripe for abuse. In this way, Madison’s flipflopping actually could have led the country right into harm.

Now, we all know the story of Dolly running into a burning White House in order to save a picture of Washington. As this was during the War of 1812, we can also deduce that dear James was President at the time (well, we can deduce it, or, we can simply look at the years). With the British actively working on pressing American sailors into service, Madison felt as though he needed to take the British on, and show them once and for all that we were free. As a result, he went to war, and nearly lost the country before even a half century had passed – a decision that most historians consider one of the worst in the history of the Office.

After starting the war, Madison quickly realized that things were not going his way. The British, along with their allies, won battle after battle, quickly moving their way south of the border. In an act reminiscent of the Burning of Montreal, the Brits even burned down the new capital city of Washington. With the war going against him, almost everything was down for Madison.

That said, Madison had one thing going for him – Andrew Jackson. As Mr. Jackson paraded through the Indians allies, easily defeating them, he set the stage for his eventual rise to Presidency. Not only that, Jackson made sure that the fledgling nation lived to fight another day.

Frankly, I must agree with the decisions and views of most historians – this was one of the dumbest moves ever. Madison, in his effort to be as hawklike as possible, almost cost the country its freedom. Saved from the brink of death, Madison didn’t even realize how close he was, or how scary the situation had been. War with England could have easily been avoidable, but Madison chose to show his balls and think he was tough. Needless to say, this was idiotic, and pretty much showed how horrific this Presidency was.

To be honest with you, there wasn’t a whole lot more that Madison did while in office, so these two events pretty much defined him. Overall, Madison is hard to place in a lineup, as he was a great Founding Father, but a horrific President. This man, attempted to destroy the country, and got damn close to it. On top of that, he placed the economic health of the nation in doubt, as he gave Congress far too much power over the economy. Frankly, I think that it is somewhat nice to place Madison in such a high position, given all that he did to harm the nation. Overall, I believe that James Madison deserves the 29th spot in this list.

This is the fourteenth of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-28: ?
29: James Madison
30: John Calvin Coolidge
31: John F. Kennedy
32: William McKinley
33: John Tyler
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

Man, I want that hat.

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

When looking at the Presidents, James Calvin Coolidge is an odd fellow to consider. On one hand, he is a self-made man who slowly worked himself up the political ladders – a very noble achievement. On the other hand, he was a shrewd leader who thought that the government had no right interfering with businesses in any manner – an economically suicidal ideal. Either way, Coolidge was our 30th President, taking over when President Harding bit the dust, and served from 1923-1929.

One of this interesting things that Coolidge did, immediately after being sworn in to replace Harding, was to decide that nothing would be replaced regarding the former President’s policies and people. Even though most of Harding’s cabinet members were covered in corruption, Coolidge believed that the American people should get the Presidency that they elected, and vowed not to change Harding’s policies until he was no longer the elected leader. This is an odd position, but one of extreme character. To put aside one owns views of the world in order to preserve what the people want is a value far underrated in leaders, and something that I hope several others will have.

One of the most notable policies regarding the Coolidge Presidency is his tax policy. His first foray into tax policy occurred when he signed the Revenue Act of 1924. The act was extremely popular with both politicians and the people (a rare feat), and served as a cornerstone in his tenor. The Revenue Act effectively cut the income tax, expanded the estate tax, and reworked the transfer tax (by creating the gift tax). It resulted in far less money coming into the Federal Government, which is something in which Coolidge strongly believed.

Taxes should be lower, and fewer people should have to pay them.

To Coolidge, this simple saying was the most important saying in the world. He attempted, time and time again, to lower the taxes paid by the average American to the Federal government. Along the same lines, Coolidge also attempted to ensure that the public debt would not increase, and, as a condition for this, froze all public spending. This, though somewhat controversial, allowed for the removal of 30% of the national debt, and seemed to be a great indicator that his Presidency was doing the right thing.

That said, however, while people were paying far less to the national government, the states, now stuck with the social projects tabs, were taking in more and more from the tax payers. In fact, in 1927, several states’ budgets passed that of the federal government. In Coolidge’s America, people were becoming more reliant on the state, actually paying more in taxes, and creating an unstable system which could not be sustained. Of course, only a few years later, this bubble popped, leading the country into the Great Depression.

Like taxation, Coolidge believed that the federal government had no place in the world of business. With the sole exception of a tariff, Coolidge acted, and appointed advisers, in ways that would have the smallest impact on business possible. During his term, business could be run in almost any way they wished, invest as crazily as they cared to do, and even make high-risk bets, most of which backfired. This allowed for the companies to grow increasingly big, but, it also eventually led to their collapse, as the unregulated systems ran out of steam. This, again, helped lead the country into the Great Depression.

This is, yet again, a contentious area in which to judge Coolidge. On one hand, his actions clearly brought the nation to the brink of disaster, and actually killed thousands of Americans. On the other, one needs to look at it from his view, where the states are what should police companies. When governor, Coolidge regulated business like God commanded him to. However, once President, he felt that it should be left up to the states to do so, and refused to get involved.

This system would work well if states did their jobs, if companies were not so interdependent on each other, and Americans were not so dependent on companies. In Coolidge’s day, however, this was not the case. States followed his lead and stopped policing, and the people became reliant on companies for their daily livelihood. As a result, when one company crashed, three crashed with it, spiraling the nation out of control. Coolidge’s plan did not work in his time, as it couldn’t.

Overall, it is just as I said at the start of the piece, Coolidge is an odd one to place. In any other environment, where states were properly regulating businesses, and the people were not become relent on state handouts, his plans would have worked perfectly. However, Coolidge was not the right person at the right time, and, as such, his plans had drastic and deadly consequences for the nation (he admitted that he partially blamed himself for the Depression). Had Coolidge served in the 1800s, he easily would have been near the top of the list, but, as he served right before the Great Depression, he is knocked down for his ill-timed views. Overall, I believe that it is clear that his policies harmed the Nation, and that John Calvin Coolidge deserves the 30th spot in this list.

This is the thirteenth of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-29: ?
30: John Calvin Coolidge
31: John F. Kennedy
32: William McKinley
33: John Tyler
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

Yes, I am aware that this will be controversial, but, as I have said from the start, it is based on performance, not anything else.

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

Some Presidents enter office on their own, with little-to-no-help from their larger family (Obama, Clinton). For others, they enter on their parent’s coattails, hiding behind Daddies friends and using them to create their openings (Bush, JQ Adams). No President exemplifies this coattailing better that John F. Kennedy. Encouraged by his father and his friends, JFK was able to reach the highest office in the nation through little actual ability, though plenty of charisma helped him out. Rather, he mostly used his name, as well as his parental political influence, to reach the office. No matter how he got there, however, Kennedy was our 35th President, serving from 1961 to 1963.

When JFK was elected, he represented a couple of first for the office of the Presidency. He was the first Irish-American elected to office, and he is the youngest ever elected (but not to serve, Theodore Roosevelt has that honor). Kennedy was also the first (and only) Catholic to serve as President (Joe Biden is the only Veep), a fact that was not lost among his opponents. Quite a few Americans did not vote for Kennedy, as they were afraid that he would answer to Rome over the American people. Clearly, this did not occur, and the idea of religion impacting the office diminished quite a bit (until the ‘Muslim’ rumors about Obama).

Before I start to tear one of America’s most loved (clearly America doesn’t know much about Kennedy) Presidents apart, I think I should focus on two of his best areas, Civil rights and the Space Race. JFK was an adamant supporter of Civil Rights, and believed that blacks should be treated as equal citizens with their white counterparts. Working with Martin Luther King Jr., JFK was able to start grass-roots movements in the south to try and get those rights for blacks. He also sent federal troops in to quell various revolts against recent Supreme Court Rulings. Most importantly, Kennedy proposed what became the Civil Rights Act, thus finally protecting blacks.

We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard

Earthrise, the shot that started the Eco movement.

Ahh the space race, where America finally got to start beating the Soviets. After losing the initial satellite race, America needed something to rally behind. Kennedy, sensing this, quickly proposed that within a decade, Americans would be on the moon. This jump-started the entire Space Race, and eventually did get us to the moon. While several people think that space is a waste of resources, I strongly disagree. By creating this system, Kennedy not only started the ecological movement (Earthrise), but he also started a technological boom that created many new innovations. Additionally, the space race was the first step towards getting our species off of this planet, something that we need to do very soon.

Good, we are now done with what Kennedy did well, I can start tearing him apart..

As a devout America Capitalist, Kennedy was deeply concerned with what was occurring in South and Latin America, as the Communistic revolutions spread from country to country. To attempt to keep the ‘evil’ economic system far from America’s shores, Kennedy invoked both the Monroe Doctrine and created the Alliance for Progress, both of which did some good to keep Communism at bay.

That said, as we all know, the attempts to keep Communism away from America did not work too well. After Cuba feel to Fidel Castro’s Communistic revolution, America planned multiple attempts to overthrow the new leader. The plan that ended up being used was the Bay of Pigs invasion, which, didn’t work out too well. Kennedy ordered several hundred ex-Cubans into the island, hoping that they would incite a revolt and get Castro out of power. Sadly, they had no American military support, and were quickly captured and killed. Not only did this embarrass the Presidency, it greatly hindered relations with the Soviet Union, and led to worse situations with Cuba.

Speaking of worst situations with Cuba, another failed attempt at diplomacy was the Cuban Missile Crisis. After U2 bombers discovered missile sites on the island, Kennedy embarked on a public campaign to get the removed. Bringing the nation close to a nuclear war, Kennedy refused to backdown. Eventually, the Soviets removed the missiles, but not before they made us remove some of our arms from Turkey. The entire situation could have been avoided, the near-catastrophe of destroying the planet (see my space race comment) would never had happened, had Kennedy done everything quietly. Instead, he actually harmed our nation by being forced to remove missiles, thus harming our protection for Turkey.

Moving to the eastern hemisphere, Kennedy’s anti-communist policies led to far worse problems then occurred in Cuba. In Vietnam, Kennedy sanctioned the coup against the South Vietnamese President, Ngo Dinh Diem. Viewing Diem as too neutral in the conflict, Kennedy was afraid that he would negotiate with the Communistic north. After a new leader was placed in power. Kennedy continued to add more and more American troops to the battle. Of course, this led to an escalation of the war, eventually costing 60,000+ American lives, and creating the first war that the country has ever lost. Clearly, Kennedy made a mistake here.

As if his interventions in Vietnam were not enough, Kennedy spread his eye over onto the African content. Kennedy believed that these newly emerging nations were the perfect place for a Proxy for the Cold War, and started to invest heavily in the area. Kennedy created governments, toppled countries, and created a large differential in wealth, all in an attempt to take out the Soviets. He started funding and arming troops, which eventually turned around and took out Americans later. While it seemed like a great idea at the time, Kennedy’s actions in Africa actually resulted in the loss of thousands of American lives, and no gain in the war against Communism.

Finally, Kennedy also started to mess with Iraq, in a way that still affects us today. Unhappy with the current government, Kennedy supported to overthrow and take over by the Ba’ath Party, the party that Bush finally got rid of a few years ago. Not only did they support this overthrow, but the American government provided arms to the government to take down the Kurdish rebels, and gave them lists of suspected Communists. Thousands of people on those lists were executed, mostly by Saddam himself. Then, after getting rid of the enemies in their nation, the Iraqis turned on us. Clearly, Kennedy did not understand the concept of blowback.

Of course, as well all know, Kennedy was assassinated before he could do much damage. As there is some controversy over this (though I believe that there was only one assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald), I don’t really feel like getting into it too much. Instead, I will simply say this, by being killed, Kennedy was removed before most people saw the problems from his Presidency, allowing people to continue to love him.

Overall, it seems as though Kennedy had a useless and harmful Presidency, but never saw anything from it due to his death. Like many other Presidents, his death in office helped him, as it has kept people adoring his legacy, even though he royally screwed the nation over. Kennedy brought about Saddam, Bin Laden, and many other groups that attempted to destroy this country, simply because he didn’t understand blowback. Frankly, it is quite lenient to place John Fitzgerald Kennedy at the 31st spot, as he could easily be placed much lower.

This is the twelvth of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-30: ?
31: John F. Kennedy
32: William McKinley
33: John Tyler
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

The 25th President of the United States

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

Like I said back in my Garfield article, I am start to get a bit concerned about Ohio Presidents. Fitting well into the mold of killed-in-office, William McKinley, the “Idol of Ohio,” served as President of this country, and, like most Ohioans, died in office. However, before he died, McKinley did indeed do some interesting things. He was the last President of the 1800s, and was the first of the 1900s. He was the last Civil War veteran to serve. Finally, and most importantly, McKinley’s death allowed Teddy to be elected as President, giving us the youngest President ever. No matter what he did, however, William McKinley was the 25th President of the United States, serving from 1897 to 1901.

The first thing that McKinley did, and one of the things that I dislike the most about his administration, was his handling of the return to American prosperity after the Panic of 1893. While McKinley, for the most part, handled the move well, he placed the country on the gold standard, which, as we later found out, kinda screwed us leading up to the Great Depression. The Gold Standard, which seemed like a grand idea at the time, actually kept the American economy rather stagnate (in reality, not in appearance), thus eventually leading to our ruin.

Another response under the McKinley handling of the panic was to consolidate the majority of businesses within America. As banks, farms, and the manufactures started to join forces and form bigger and bigger companies, the right of the workers, as well as the political power of the companies, quickly changed. Instead of stopping this unamerican and political change, McKinley actually passed legislation making it easier to occur. Off course, we now know that this allows companies to become ‘to be to fail,’ and doesn’t help to improve our economy at all.

While he had some questionable economic policies, most of McKinley’s other domestic policies were actually decent and well thought out. Early in his Presidency, for instance, McKinley presided over the annexation of Hawaii from being its own country to become a member of ours. While this is somewhat contentious now, the inclusion of Hawaii as a state was a huge milestone for McKinley, and also historically important, as without it, we wouldn’t have Obama.

Of course, all of his domestic and economic policies were quickly overshadowed by a major event that occurred during his term – The Spanish American War. As the Spanish were actively beating up the Cubans, McKinley decided to invoke the Monroe Doctrine and send the USS Maine over to keep the peace. Somehow, the Maine exploded, causing Congress to declare war. The war ended in only 100 or so days, yielding America several territories and new island nations – oh, and it led to a great photo-op for Teddy.

While he never actually acted upon his words, McKinley was an adamant supporter of civil rights

It must not be equality and justice in the written law only. It must be equality and justice in the law’s administration everywhere, and alike administered in every part of the Republic to every citizen thereof. It must not be the cold formality of constitutional enactment. It must be a living birthright

While he clearly was opposed to the lynchings and other issues that were occurring in the southern states, McKinley did absolutely nothing to stop it. This, to me, is undefendedable, as, if you are opposed to something, you should do your best to stop it. McKinley had the platform and the views needed, but refused to use either. This was probably one of his biggest mistakes as President.

Overall, it seems as though McKinley had a productive Presidency, but it oversaw a decline in the American economy (although, not seen at the time), as well as an increase in racial tensions in the south. While McKinley had his heart in the right place, his actions towards this tension did nothing to stem it, and actually might have increased it. Overall, McKinley had a chance to be a much better President, though he wasn’t too bad for his time, and slips into the 32nd spot on our list.

This is the eleventh of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-31: ?
32: William McKinley
33: John Tyler
34: James A. Garfield
35: James Buchanan Jr.
36: Franklin Pierce
37: James Knox Polk
38: Warren G. Harding
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

This article is part of my Presidential Rankings Series, please subscribe to the feed if you are interested in keeping up-to-date.

Herbert Clark Hoover was the 31st President of the United States, serving from 1929-1933. While Hoover is known mostly for his horrific economic policies, he did have two important distinctions. He is the last President to come straight from the Cabinet (in his case, as Secretary of Commerce), and he was also the first Quaker in office. While these are two interesting and important features, Hoover is best known for, and always ranked poorly due to, his actions in response to the 1929 Stock Market Crash.

Starting his candidacy for President off on a strong optimistic note, Hoover remarked that “We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land. The poorhouse is vanishing from among us.” Obviously ignorant of the fiscal problems that lay in the stock market, Hoover believed that America was soon to leave the nations of the poor behind, and embark on a new, and rich, future. This prediction would ultimately be his downfall.

Hoover, of course, is best known for his inept response to Black Tuesday. While he believe that there should be some governmental regulation, Hoover thought that Americans could work their way out of the system, and that volunteer work (never explained how this works) would help end the problems. Of course, this didn’t work, and the Great Depression occurred.

While he helped bring about the Great Depression by his ineptitude in response to Black Tuesday, Hoover did do what he thought was best to remove the country from it. However, his attempts to ease labor issues actually artificially spiked the cost of labor, increasing the unemployment rate. Furthermore, his tariffs on other country’s goods led to reverse-tariffs, which only harmed America more.

While Hoover did not cause the Great Depression, his actions in response only worsened it. For this alone, Hoover is to be considered a bad President.

While his economic policies are well known, Hoover was actually a fairly decent international relationships President. He set the stage for America’s refusal to recognize territories gained by force (a common occurrence even today), and helped to broker peace between Chile and Peru. Had the Great Depression not taken up so much time, Hoover probably could have prevented the expansion of Japan, and the problems that that caused 20 years later.

Likewise, Hoover was actually quite good with Civil Rights. While he ignored the blatant Constitutional violations of Jim Crow, his other policies showed that he supported the rights of Blacks. Hoover argued that blacks should be integrated into white society (though, that they must accept white culture) and that they were equal persons. Furthermore, his wife invited a a black congressman – Oscar DePriest – to dinner, and his Vice President was Charles Curtis, the first Native American to be in that position. While Hoover was not vocal on his support for Civil Rights, it is clear that he supported them, and attempted to bring about some change.

While it seems as though Hoover would have been a decent President at other times (say, during the middle of the Roaring Twenties), he was the wrong man at the wrong time. His policies prior to, and during, the Depression only made the country worse. Even though he attempted to redeem himself with Civil Rights and Foreign Policy, Hoover will always be remembered for his horrific economic policies. Hoover is rightfully near the bottom of most rankings, and, in my case, comes in at a dismal 39th.

This is the fourth of 43 posts in my Presidential Ranking series. Feel free to check out any and all of my rankings, as well as my explanations and requirements. Or, you know, just comment and let me know what I got wrong (or right) on this post!

The Rankings So Far!
1-38: ?
39: Herbert Clark Hoover
40: William Henry Harrison
41: Millard Fillmore
42: Martin Van Buren

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

Before we get into the meat of this argument, I would like to quickly address something that I have seen every time I get to debating the current tax system: Is the current tax system Constitutional? If you wish to see the full lists of arguments as the why it is not Constitutional, please see this site. I do not have time to respond to all of those statements, but I can simply say that if something is in the Constitution, more specifically the 16th Amendment then it, by the very definition (http://m-w.com/dictionary/unconstitutional), can not be Unconstitutional. That said, let us get into the actual ‘fair tax’ issue.

What exactly is the ‘fair tax you ask. Well, it is a sales tax that would increase all sales to 30% (they claim 23%, but I will show how fuzzy their math is shortly) and eliminate all income tax. Furthermore, it would give a prebate that is supposed to cover the cost of living for the year (pays you back the sales tax used that year for needed things). Lastly, the fair tax system eliminates the 16th Amendment making it Unconstitutional to have any form of an income tax again.

None of us really like the IRS so anytime there is a call for the abolishment of it, or the institution of another system of tax, we all get really excited and uppity. The call for another form of tax is often a good one, as this current system is highly outdated and is used improperly (tax exemptions), but it could never get rid of the IRS. Even if you no longer call it the IRS, there will always need to be some organization there to make sure everything is working right, and make sure the government knows how much money they have. This is a stab at all new tax proposals, not just the fair tax.

Let us now move into the meat of the fair tax ideas, and see how they boil out. We are simply going to argue the usefulness of this new system, not anything about the current system or any other system.

The first argument I will present against the fair tax is to talk about its fuzzy math. Those who present the math on the site believe that sales tax is inclusive (they use the logic that it would be the same type as the current income tax system). Sales tax however, is an exclusive tax, so it is calculated after the final cost, not the initial. That said, here is how it is calculated according to the website:

Final product is $130.00
Tax was $30.00
30 is 23% of 130, ergo 23% sales tax

Common logic shows that $30 is 30% of $100, not the 23% that the fair tax group says. They even mention on their site (in a harder to reach area) that it is really a 30% tax Or about 30 percent at the cash register when they elect to spend on new goods or services for their own personal consumption. The fact that they claim one statistic, and then dont mention to tell you that that claim is false automatically makes me suspicious of the group.

While we are on the topic of fuzzy math, let us discuss exactly how we can fund the government with the fair tax. Currently, the Federal Budget is 2.8 trillion dollars. Our countries current GNP (this includes wages, so the math is telling us they will get more than they will) is 11059.3 billion dollars. If we use the 30% tax (the real amount they are taxing), we can see that we only get 3317.79 billion, or 3.31779 trillion. For now, that looks like it is the perfect amount needed to fund our current budget, but what happens if either our government spends more (they are increasing on average .2 trillion a year (meaning 4 years until this is not enough money)) or our country spends less as a people. The current proposal leaves no area for adjustment, and, as it is a Constitutional Amendment we will not be able to change it before we go into a deeper debt.

Another simple thing that the proponents of the fair tax fail to point out is how inflation will effect the tax. Assume that you wish to purchase a nice shiny-new house for a cheap $260,000. With the current fair tax proposal, that makes it $338,000 ($78,000 in tax). Now, while you are waiting to get enough money for that initial payment, inflation kicks in (we go to war or something), and the inflation rate goes to roughly 20% or so. The new house now costs $312,000 with $93,600 in tax coming to a grand total of $405,600. Assuming that inflation continues to rise (as it is apt to do), you can never get to the amount needed for that house.

Lets move into another area of discussion, one where we can show that the federal government can easily use the fair tax to manipulate the populace into doing what they wish. Lets say that congress wants to ban fatty foods, BAM, they increase the sales tax on that item to 200%, or 300%, or 503844029304%. Why not? There is no mention in the proposal that you can keep congress from adding on sales tax, just that it can not be below the 23%. While the Fairtaxers say that it is ok, as it is self policing (companies adapt to sell more), let us see what else Congress (remember, I am not anti-government, just using this as an example) can do if they see the need. Congress will be able to use the sales tax as a club against any group, company, or item that they do not agree with.

Another downside of the fair tax is that it creates a black market. Sites like Ebay.com, Amazon and the like will need to be shut down, as they create a system that circumnavigates the governments income. Suddenly, we start buying used items because they are cheaper. Now, even though the GNP stays roughly the same, the government is making less money because there is no more sales tax. Soon, the government will need to crack down on these black markets; they will need to shut down drug rings, flea markets, half-priced books, and renegade sub shops. Soon, the government will need to be spending more money (something we already showed they will not have) to make the money.

Let us now move into the next example of why the fair tax is off; The fair tax is unconstitutional as it violates the 14th Amendment. Because of the prebate system, all Americans will be getting a monthly check that covers their living expenses (sales tax on those items) for that month. Now, on the surface that seems like a great idea, but let us see how it violates the 14th amendment. Ok, so, every person gets a check based on the same qualifications, not based on the same area. Boston is more expensive to live in than Columbus, or Nashville, or Hell, Michigan. So, by giving everybody the same amount regardless of area means you are not providing equal protection/provision under the law and violates the 14th Amendment. Why do we wana keep that amendment you ask? Well, without it, we open the door for slavery and the like, which I actually think the Free taxers might be into.

My last issue with the free tax is what it does exactly. By making it so that those who are already poor can not purchase items (which could include stocks, cars, food (after the check, as we all know you can not live on minimum wage with a family), medicine, and the like). This creates a burden on the poor, making them less likely to be able to advance out of their status, and then making them reliant on those of us with more money. Also, it is a digressive tax (see example)
Making less than 30k a year pay 70% of their income
30-50K a year pay 60% of their income
50-80K a year pay 50% of their income
Over 1mil a year, pay 1% of their income

I can not see how any person can call this fair, in any manner of the word.

In the end, I feel that the fair tax is nothing more than a cleverly designed ploy, a Trojan Horse if you will, to get those who have money more, and make those who are poor poorer. This is clearly not a fair tax, in any attempt at defining the word, and it is clearly an example of doublespeak which is intended to make others support it without reason. In the end, any group that specifically lies, and admits to it (but doesnt make it obvious) is worthy of intense scrutiny, and under that gaze, the fair tax falls short. While the Income Tax is not the best system, until we get another that can replace it and replace it well, we need to work on fixing it up.

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

Well, easy is relative, but anyway….

Recently I put together a letter to the editor of The Economist in response to recent articles about private schools and social networks.

Both of the articles dealt with the economics of education and the value of alumni networks (which are highly correlated.)

What is clear is that there is a significant economic advantage to an individual to study at the “best” schools; an alumnus from Harvard makes more per year than an alumnus from a “less-respected” institution.

The Harvard degree pays more because of the perceived academic talent of the Harvard graduate, and the network of Harvard alumni, who are often in elite positions, and can show favor to other alumni.

However, most of the academic talent indicated by the Harvard degree lies in Harvard’s admissions selectivity. Not necessarily in the degree program itself.

My economics degree from Ohio State should be roughly equivalent to an economics degree from Harvard. If not, either Ohio State’s program should not be accredited, or Harvard’s program is something more than undergraduate economics. (Since the value of the Harvard degree is determined by admission selectivity, Harvard has no economic incentive to have a substantially more rigorous program than average.)

This situation makes the Harvard degree far more expensive than it should be. Not necessarily because the Harvard degree has a bad return on investment, but because it’s only the admissions selectivity which truly justifies the reputation, and not the four years of (expensive) matriculation. And while admissions selectivity certainly may indicate some natural talent, holding an individual economically hostage to their scholarship up to age 18 is not meritocratic nor fully promotes social mobility.

An easy solution to this would be a law which prohibits disclosing the name of the degree granting college during employment interviews. Degrees from any accredited institution should be treated exactly the same. This helps eliminate the nepotistic elitism of the alumni networks, but its main advantage is leveling to job field to all graduate-candidates.

Another idea is to have a system of standardized testing at the end of the degree. That would help employers evaluate the candidate’s talents better than vague notions of reputation of the graduate’s alma mater.

A final idea would be to disclose the colleges to which one was accepted. Knowing that a job candidate was Harvard eligible indicates that individual’s caliber even if they didn’t attend Harvard. (There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of individuals who are Harvard caliber, but given the paucity of slots at Harvard, admission there is luck of the draw. By prohibiting disclosure of the college, but allowing disclosure of the colleges to which one was admitted, large quantities of students can be admitted to Harvard and deemed eligible, but few can bother going, and can matriculate at cheaper but just as good colleges.)

All of these proposals have the benefit of improving social mobility but the big advantage is reducing college costs: if all college degrees were considered equivalent, then colleges would have no choice but be cost competitive.

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

Post 60

Today we are going to take a look at how the taxes proposed by both the McCain camp and the Obama camp will effect the citizens in Ohio. The graphs use the tax changes provided by The Washington Post and The New York Times. The data on Ohio is provided by the 2000 Census.

I ask you to take a look at this image, and decide which candidate really has your best interest in mind. If you make over one million dollars a year I can understand why you would be vocal in support of Senator McCain. If you make under twenty thousand a year then I can understand why you support Senator Obama. This chart is merely to help you look at the financial aspect of the presidential race; if the financial burden on you is all that you care about, please vote based on this information. If you care about more than just the money, use this to help you weigh your decision. Please pass this on to all undecideds that you know, and pass this throughout the INTERNET.

This graphic is slight skewed due to the fact that the census data stopped at 200,000 and does not line up perfectly with the tax brackets given. If the amount falls within multiple tax brackets, then the average of the two will be used. Please use your yearly income when you look at this graph. Keep in mind that the Average yearly income per household in Ohio is $40,960. In all of these graphs Red is McCain and Blue is Obama.

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.

Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.

Thanks,

Robert M. Barga,

Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/

barga.24@osu.edu

Stumble It!

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other

Post 5:

*NEWS*
I have had this blog for a whole one and a half weeks now and am already at three hundred unique views. I am already read worldwide and want to keep growing. Please send links to your friends, DIGG me, facebook me, anything to get the word out. The more people this reaches the more people who can comment and create a better site. This site is here for you, and I want you all to be a part of it. This is a map of all the unique locations I have so far been viewed from.

There is also a new poll located on the side of this blog, please respond to it (will be put up soon as blogger lets me)
*ENDING OF THE NEWS*

Have you figured out what the theme that I am circling around is? Only a few more posts and that theme itself becomes the blog entry.

From our countries humble beginnings to the present we have always had thousands of people who have issues with taxes. They have issues with taxes in any forms; from property taxes to income taxes to sales tax. These objectors have usually kept their protests to vocal forms, but have, at times, erupted in violence – for example, the Whiskey Rebellion. Seeing as one of the major events leading up to the Revolutionary War was the Boston Tea Party we have a long history in this country of not liking taxes. But, in reality, taxes are essential for any society to function, as something is needed to protect the persons and the country as a whole. The issue really comes down to arguing how much is too much, and how much is needed. However, when the issue of where the tax comes from is brought up we, as a country, have vastly different angles and views. Most people, however, seem to accept our current system, that is, income tax subsidized by sales tax and the like. There is, however, a very vocal group of people who think that the idea of income tax is wrong (or even unconstitutional), and feel that all taxes should be done via sales tax, a flat one at that: Fair Taxers, What Really Grinds My Gigantic Notched Wheels.

Nobody likes taxes. We all have issues with spending money out of our checks and pocketbooks for seemingly pointless things. Do we all agree with what the taxes are spent on? Of course not. However, most of us agree that roads, fire fighters, police, schools, libraries, the Internet, etc. are worth the money. So when people start trying to change the way that our tax system works you need to start wondering how they are planning on taking care of said issues. It is hard to accept a new system when we are afraid that what we need to be a running functioning society is on the line. When fair taxers supporters start recommending and talking about their great discovery and idea four main things stick out as a sore thumb – They argue that the income tax is unconstitutional – they use faulty math – they do not explain how this tax will handle inflation or how it handles third-party used transfers (basically, the feasibility of it) – they do not address how regressive this tax actually is.

They argue that the income tax is unconstitutional
Most ‘fair tax’ supporters will start of their argument by saying that our system needs to change. Now, some will (logically) argue that there are inherent flaws with the IRS and income tax, most will simply argue that the income tax is unconstitutional. Now, last time I checked if something is specifically allowed in the Constitution it is Constitutional. Well, apparently the ‘fair taxers’ and tax evaders have never heard of the 16th Amendment. Now, even if the 16th had never happened income tax would still be Constitutional. Most will say that the decision Bowers V. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. clearly said that the 16th did not give any new taxing powers by quoting this part of the decision:
“It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power.”
The problem with this is that they clearly ignore the next line which says:
“Congress already had power to tax all incomes.”
If congress already had this power than there is no way to argue that the Income tax is Unconstitutional.

They use faulty math
If you are new to the concept of the ‘fair tax’ or want to gets a quick refresher and are wondering what the fair tax is here you go. It is a sales tax that would increase all sales to 30% (they claim 23%, but I will show how fuzzy their math is shortly) and eliminate all income tax. Furthermore, it would give a ‘prebate’ that is supposed to cover the cost of living for the year (pays you back the sales tax used that year for ‘needed’ things). Now, let us address the issue of faulty math. Those who present the math on the site believe that sales tax is inclusive (they use the logic that it would be the same type as the current income tax system). Sales tax however, is an exclusive tax, so it is calculated after the final cost, not the initial. That said, here is how it is calculated according to the website:
Final product is $130.00
Tax was $30.00
30 is 23% of 130, ergo 23% sales tax
Common logic shows that $30 is 30% of $100, not the 23% that the ‘fair tax’ group says. The fact that they claim one statistic, and then don’t mention to tell you that that claim is false automatically makes me suspicious of the group.

They do not explain how the tax will handle inflation or how it handles third-party used transfers (basically, the feasibility of it)
While we are on the topic of fuzzy math, let us discuss exactly how we can fund the government with the ‘fair tax’. Currently, the Federal Budget is 2.8 trillion dollars. Our countries current GNP is 11059.3 billion dollars. If we use the 30% tax (the real amount they are taxing), we can see that we only get 3317.79 billion, or 3.31779 trillion. For now, that looks like it is the perfect amount needed to fund our current budget, but what happens if either our government spends more (they are increasing on average .2 trillion a year (meaning 4 years until this is not enough money)) or our country spends less as a people. The current proposal leaves no area for adjustment, and, as it is a Constitutional Amendment will not be able to change it before we go into a deeper debt.

One of the main problems with problems with the fair tax is that it is only a tax on taxable stores and new FULLY PRODUCED items. That said, is it not actually easier to circumvent this system than the current one? Sites like Ebay and Amazon and the like will need to be shut down, as they create a system that circumnavigates the governments income. Suddenly, we start buying used items because they are cheaper. Now, even though the GNP stays roughly the same, the government is making less money because there is no more sales tax. Soon, the government will need to crack down on these “black markets”; they will need to shut down drug rings, flea markets, half-priced books, and renegade sub shops. Soon, the government will need to be spending more money (something we already showed they will not have) to make the money. So, they stop the finished products black market, but why would I buy a full product? If labor is not taxed and unfinished products are not taxed why do I not just buy the parts and pay somebody to put it together. This would probably save me compared to the 30% add on. It becomes quite clear that the fair tax has no way to handle this, and our government would get into far more debt than we already have.

They do not address how regressive this tax is
My last issue with the ‘fair tax’ is what it does exactly. If we charge every person 30% on all items the poor will be charged more than the rest. While the supporters claim that the prebates should take care of this, we all know that will not happen. Already the rebates which are supposed to help those below the poverty level do not provide enough for the family, so why would the rebate. Furthermore, because you would need to deal with inflation and different locations, just to figure out who gets how much in a prebate would be a nightmare and cost more than the IRS does now. That said, this tax is clearly regressive. By having the poor pay roughly 30% of their paycheck on this tax while the rich pay 1% shows the clear disregard for the lower classes that this tax has. Clearly, this tax is not designed to help the lower classes, despite that being one of their main claims.

In the end, I feel that the ‘fair tax’ is nothing more than a cleverly designed ploy, a Trojan Horse if you will, to get those who have money more, and make those who are poor poorer. This is clearly not a fair tax, in any attempt at defining the word, and it is clearly an example of doublespeak which is intended to make others support it without reason. In the end, any group that specifically lies is worthy of intense scrutiny, and under that gaze, the ‘fair tax’ falls short. While the Income Tax is not the best system, until we get another that can replace it and replace it well, we need to work on fixing it up.

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole. Thanks

Fighting the Birthers, one step at a time

Other