Buckley writes a book.

LP Lieutenant Governor candidate Allen Buckley has written a book slamming the Fair Tax:

ATLANTA, Oct. 6 /PRNewswire/ — A book titled “Why the Fair Tax is a Sham” has been published by Allen Buckley.

The book explains why the Fair Tax proposal, championed by Congressman John Linder of Georgia and radio talk show host Neal Boortz, would not work from a financial perspective. Also, deceptions and inaccuracies of The Fair Tax Book are identified and discussed.

The press release goes on:

Pros and cons of the Fair Tax proposal are covered in Mr. Buckley’s book. Buckley said: “The significant ‘pro’ of the Fair Tax proposal is that it is relatively simple compared to the current system, and that simplicity would reduce costs to businesses and consumers. However, the numbers simply do not work. If the rate is raised so that numbers work, then the financial burden on the middle class and retirees is substantially greater than the burden of the current system.”

I had always assumed many Libertarians favored the Fair Tax as a way to eliminate the IRS and it’s intrusion into our lives. Is my assumption correct? Perhaps some of my Libertarian friends could enlighten me.

I can’t see this as a winning issue for Buckley. Boortz, Linder and their proposal are all fairly popular (no pun intended) in Georgia.


  1. pvsys says:

    While I strongly favor the FairTax, I have my own criticisms and concerned. Sometime, I’d like to get Boortz to answer a couple of tough questions.

    But you know what? I refuse to even mention these here! Why? Because I find that most criticisms and negative critiques take cheap pot shots where are often out of context or are already counterbalanced by other good things about the FairTax.

    My favorite parts of the FairTax… (1) rewards investment and savings (2) lowers manufacturing costs which will increase exports, reduce the trade deficit, and bring more money into the US from OUR goods being bought more by other countries (3) finally, the under-the-table workers will pay their fair share… visitors from other countries will contribute… and even cocaine dealers and pimps will actually start paying taxes! …imagine that!

    Most critiques of the FairTax don’t nearly properly account for the lowered manufacturing costs which will lower the pre-tax price of goods sold to a point where the “sticker shock” of that 23% is significantly reduced.

    Still, the fact that Buckley is a Libertarian would make me think that his book is probably much more honest and well thought out than your average Democrat’s critiques. I’m looking forward to Boortz’s response.

    –Rob McEwen

  2. kspencer says:


    I’ve disagreed with the second point numerous times on this list. The last time, I demonstrated with math – and got told that the algebra was too hard but I had to be wrong.

    I’ll be happy to walk through why the manufacturer’s savings won’t balance the tax burden even ASSUMING the manufacturers altruistically cut their product prices the entire discounted amounts. But only if you want me to do so.


  3. Chris says:

    I support the principle behind it. It remains to be seen how successful it’ll all wash out. I seriously doubt corporations are going to immediately purge their tax compliance departments and cut that expense from consumer pricing strategies, especially since national companies will have to keep those operations in place to comply with the states who still use income taxes.

  4. pvsys says:


    There is nothing “altruistically” about it. It is simply supply and demand and the cost of production. If the cost of production goes down, sure… businesses will try to hold on to the current price structure for as long as they can, but competition will drive the price down.

    For example, if what you are saying is true, then an adverage brand new personal computer would still cost $7,000.

    –Rob McEwen

  5. The fact that the whole cocaine dealers and pimps line is parroted out as some sort of massive cost saving that will balance out the tax cuts to the wealthy and make everyone pay “their fair share” should show you how weak your argument is, especially if that is reason #3 to support it. That should be like reason #100. The reason – there aren’t enough pimps and drug dealers out there that are skipping out on taxes, and, they don’t make that much money to begin with.

    Read Freakonomics if you want to see the study they did on whether drug dealers really make that much money. The conclusion was no, but how they even decided to look into it is interesting — if these guys make so much money why do they overwhelmingly still live with their parents.

    What you find is that the pro-fair tax arguments don’t add up, and that the pro-fair taxers are usually “too confused” by the anti-fair tax arguments (which do add up) and so the debate lives on.

    Boortz and Linder want to a) cut taxes for the wealthy (or “producers” or whatever you want to call them) and b) massively cut the spending the government does. So why would we believe their marquee proposal does anything but a & b. It does. I welcome them to pass the fair tax. The year or so it would actually be on the books would be awful, but the backlash against the Republicans would make the Mark Foley scandal look like a bunch of harmless IM’s.

    Congrats to Buckley for putting an honest book forward. I’ve had a chance to watch him at debates and he is well liked by my political friends who go to a lot of those. He’s a bit nerdy, but he always has charts and facts to back up his arguments. If he says something is a raw deal, I’d put a lot of worth behind his words.

  6. pvsys says:


    That list was a “off the top of my head and trying to not let this get into flowing paragraphs” type of list. The order was not particularly important… more for clairity of thought that order of importance.

    I used “whole cocaine dealers and pimps line” for emphasis… but the truth is that there are MANY in the underground economy who get paid for work that goes unreported… sure, much more honorable work than drug dealing… but who still skip out on taxes.

    The fact that you jump on this point in a way that is besides the point shows that you are really more interested in the status quo than you are in properly determining if the FairTax is a good idea or not.

    Any if you think that there aren’t MANY people in the underground economy, then start asking around and see how LITTLE times it takes to find a friend or relative who pays a domestic worker many hours per week year round under the table. (and that is just the tip of the iceberg)

    –Rob McEwen

  7. RiverRat says:

    of course, the amount of money you’d get if you just cracked down on some of the corporations that simply don’t pay their taxes would make your underground economy jobs look like leftovers. I’ll parrot a line from some of you wingers – enforce the law!

  8. Mojo says:

    If I remember correctly we were also told that tort reform would bring down insurance costs. I don’t see manufacturers voluntarily cutting profits, if they did I’m sure their shareholders might have a thing or two to say.

  9. John Konop says:


    You are right about the concept is good, but the fair tax does have some issues.
    I read allot on economic blogs and it seems a hybrid between the flat tax and fair tax would solve most of the issues. I am doing an article about this next month and I would appreciate your input.

  10. pvsys says:


    >tort reform would bring down insurance costs

    I think the amount of tort reform and the extent of it has been very wimpy so far (perhaps with a few exceptions… but overally way too wimpy to judge its overall impact).


    >I would appreciate your input

    My pleasure!

    –Rob McEwen

  11. Mad Dog says:


    I love the example about personal computers.

    Why then are rents rising?

    Why are energy costs rising?

    OPS! Can we agree that not everything is subject to the myth of manufacturing progress ?

    BTW, is beer cheaper?






    Kitchen cabinets?



    Movie theatre tickets?

    Tickets to Six Flags?

    Just because you’ve found one item, personal computers, that has experienced a huge drop in price (from technological advances, not manufacturing advances) doesn’t mean everything else in the world got cheaper from competition (if competition exists).

    Differentiated markets have no competition.

    A VW Beetle is not in the same market as a Maserati. Both are automobiles.

    Speaking of cars, when that computer was impossible to build for less than ten grand, how much was the average “new” family car?

    The correct way to view “personal computer pricing” is that price has now reached parity with other consumer goods. It has stopped being extremely rare.

    It is still assembled the same way as before.

    It is assembled from components which are vastly different (vacuum tubes, copper wire, etc. ) from my lap top.

    The product evolved. Not the process.

    When a product reaches market maturity, it is priced vastly lower than when it was introduced.

    The trend is and always has been to introduce new products at an abnormally high price.

    For detailed discussion of marketing and the setting of price, take a look at marketing studies, not at economic background studies.

    (Economic background studies = learning the alphabet)

  12. IndyInjun says:

    Bluntly put, the “FAIR” tax is a CON JOB.

    Buckley is 100% correct about the rate computations not working. Anyone with elementary knowledge of accounting can quickly prove this, even from the limited info published by the fair tax hawkers.

    Linder himself admitted in a C-Span interview with the Wall Street Journal’s David Wessel last December that the rate must be increased by 13% (from 23% tax inclusive to 26%) or from 30 cents on the dollar tax to 35 cents. Bear in mind that this is to keep it “revenue-neutral” which does not cover the $700 billion deficits (under GAAP) that we are running. (Revenue neutral means that it collects the same amount of tax as the system it replaces.)

    Ironically, Linder’s vote for the $8 Trillion Medicare drug bill destroys the assumptions behind his own tax scam. Also, it was an abject and total repudiation of GOP principles, but that is another topic.

    The “FAIR” tax would provide an immediate tax benefit of more than $1 TRILLION to the corps through foregiveness of deferred income tax liabilities while putting a combined tax(including state “FAIR” tax to replace sales and income taxes)of 43 to 45% on nursing home care not covered by Medicare AND ON EMPLOYER PAID HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS. (this is in the bowels of the “FAIR” tax site.)

    Someone sure has a funny concept of the word “FAIR?”!!!!

    If one digs into it all, this scam was begun by plowing $4 million from Enron and Shell oil into “expert research” by the funded economists, who have never PUBLISHED THEIR WORK.

    The work of the “expert economists” claimed to underpin the Boortz/Linder book is no better than the word of a bunch of prostitutes.

    The hawkers blate on and on about eliminating the IRS, while ignoring the fact that the “FAIR” tax requires consumers to keep records and even file sales tax returns in many circumstances. It REPLACES the IRS with the state revenue departments, who already have full rights to audit INDIVIDUALS for sales tax, backed by court decisions giving them full power to IMPUTE taxable sales where said individuals fail to pay the tax.

    Local governments have the unenviable task of figuring out how to fund improvements when the beneficial tax rates afforded by muni bond financing disappears – a 20 to 33% increase in funding costs. They have to PAY the federal fair tax on goods and services that they consume, causing budget increases. They have to implement billing systems to collect the combined “FAIR” tax from citizens on taxable police, fire, sewer, water,and other services.

    Local elected officials have to be INSANE to stand in favor of this insanity.

    As far as the notion that there are embedded taxes and compliance costs that would go away, making the cost of goods and services fall by an offsetting amount, go ask any business if this is achievable without cutting into profits.

    If one has saved for retirement, have they saved an additional 40% to pay this tax? Bear in mind that in retirement, people draw down PREVIOUSLY TAXED savings.

    The writer has more than 20 years in service of 9 Fortune 500 companies in the area of SALES tax and has figured out how to take advantage if this nutty deal ever becomes law.

    If it passes, the vast majority of the public will be in SHOCK and ENRAGED about what has been pulled over on them.

    Of course, the seduction of getting “100% of one’s paycheck” is powerful enough to make the populace clamor for this con job.

  13. kspencer says:


    Since I see taking the ‘even if’ instead of the core as at best waffling, here’s the math.

    Under the current business model:
    $ = ( GR – E ) * (1 / T) .
    That is, net profit ($) is the result of gross revenues (GR) minus expenses (E) times what isn’t taxed (T) [aka, the reciprocal of the tax rate].

    Under the fairtax model, E needs separated into two categories – payroll (PE) and all other expenses (OE). Payroll, according to the FairTax proposal, remains the same (it’s just going to the employee instead of into withholding). Now according to the Fairtax model:
    $= .77 * GR – (.77 * OE) + PE) ; with the sale to the final customer actually generating 1.3 * GR .

    Let me make an explicit example to demonstrate. Let us assume a company that has gross revenues of 1 million dollars per year. It has expenses of $800 per year of which 1/4 ($200,000) per year is payroll related. The net profit of $200,000 per year is getting a tax rate of 32% (if my memory is correct – as a model you are free to adjust as you desire.)

    Under the current model, the take-home profit is:
    ($1,000,000 – $800,000) * .68 = $136,000

    Under fairtax, if the price to the customer generates $1,000,000 in GR, we get:
    (.77 * $1,000,000) -( ( .77 * 600,000) + 200,000)) = $770,000 – (462,000+200,000)) = $108,000. If this company was the retail company, the pre-tax gross profits were $1,000,100.

    Note two facts in the specific example. The company suffered a decline in ‘take-home profit’. And the customer paid a bit more for the products.

    If your payroll costs are low enough – meaning well below 10% of your total expenses – then you do not suffer a loss in final profits.

    The bottom line of this, Rob, is that most companies will have choices across a range of two extremes:
    Make less in net profit, and charge more than 77% of their pre-FairTax price. Either causes the final product’s price to the consumer to go up even more.

    The savings aren’t there EVEN IF the companies cut all the profit to match the tax change.

  14. pvsys says:

    Mad Dog,

    Computers are cheaper because the components of which they are made are cheaper than they used to be.

    This is just one example of how lowering the cost of production = lowered end-user pre-sales-tax prices.

    Similarly, ANYTHING which lowers the cost of production almost without exception leads to a lower final cost to the end user.

    In the case of the FairTax, the cost of production is lowered via
    hidden taxes and payroll taxes and other taxes being removed altogether. Because this would apply to just about everything produced, just about everything produced would have their price lowered. There is also a domino effect in that the wholesale cost of non-taxed good required to to make other goods would lower. For example, a company making wooden swingsets would pay less for lumber because the lumber company would likewise (1) not have payroll taxes, trucking taxes, and other hidden taxes, etc (2) and would likewise pay less for electric saws …and so on. So this lowering of production costs actually accumulates layer by layer.

    Regarding the cost of things right now, just about everything you listed is extremely inexpensive relative to wages compared to previous decades.

    The three primary exceptions are:

    (1) medical costs
    (2) energy costs
    (3) education costs

    But THESE three sectors of the economy are more like a mix between capitalism and socialism because they are so over-regulated by the government and so often paid for via government transfer of money rather than via consumers making their own choices with money out of their own pockets. (oversimpifing here… but you get the idea… These areas don’t respond to market forces as well as everything else.)


    “go ask any business if this is achievable without cutting into profits”

    Americans in general don’t pay much attention to longer term laws of economics until realities hits them in the face. If that weren’t true, then several years ago, they’d have demanded that Congress allow for more oil drilling, more refineries, and nuclear power. But these are getting more popular NOW that we have had huge increases in energy prices. Likewise, most business owners won’t believe any “good news” in an economic proposal until they see it in action.

    Rob McEwen

  15. IndyInjun says:


    One thing I left out was the amazing fact that the “FAIR” tax is still being talked about favorably when it would add a HUGE tax on top of rapidly increasing energy and medical costs.

    My med premiums have increased between 12% and 30% every year for the last 5 years. Figure the “FAIR” tax on these compounding rates of increases at a combined 43 to 48% and you will see that the taxes INCREASE WITH INFLATION.

    In fact the government would be able to increase its tax take by fueling the fires of inflation.

    My analysis of IRS tax stats show that the embedded taxes are in the range of 10 to 12%, not the 26% claimed in the Boortz book. The basis of THEIR conclusions HAVE NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED.

    It is agreed that the public is easily sucked in at first and it is also true that many businessmen do not know enough abough accounting to know what their taxes AS A PERCENTAGE of REVENUES is,

    Another question to ask is how customers will be inclined to purchase even the current level of goods and services with such a tax added on.

    If prices go down, it will be due to the chilling effects of the tax on consumption – the only variable that has kept the US economy afloat.

    Finally, getting “100% of your paycheck” might not be much, if you have NO PAYCHECK due to lost sales as a result of this crushing tax.

  16. pvsys says:


    Much of what you are saying is correct… but you are discounting a whole other world of realitites where the good offsets the bad.

    First “embedded taxes” compound. And when they are removed, there is a likewise reverse-compounding effect.

    I can’t take seriously anyone who doesn’t admit that pre-tax prices would be significantly lowered and that significant dollars would also be put back into the pockets of workers when payroll taxes are eliminated.

    Sure, you can argue that this isn’t enough to counterbalance the problems you bring up… I might take that seriously and question the FairTax… but to so easily blow there positive counterbalancing effects off as insignificant is laughable.

    Rob McEwen

  17. pvsys says:

    >so easily blow there
    >positive counterbalancing effects
    I meant “so easily blow off these positive counterbalancing effects”

  18. Loren says:

    I’ve generally been a FairTax supporter, but I’m interested to see what Buckley has to say. I learned of his opposition back during the 2004 Senate race, and given that he has an LLM in Taxation, he’s certainly in a position to make an informed and potentially persuasive argument.

  19. Mad Dog says:


    Give me a time period for these price to wage theories?

    Given that real wages have not risen since Reagan was in office, I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about …

  20. pvsys says:

    Mad Dog:

    You are correct about wages (or at least close).

    But the key here is that outside of energy, medical, and education, there has practically been deflation.

    Here are some examples:

    You can buy a fully loaded standard toolbox from Wal-Mart at a fraction of the price that this cost just 10, 20, & 30 years ago (especially after adjusting for inflation… but even cheaper without adjusting for inflation!).

    Technology products are especially cheaper… again, even without adjusting for inflation.

    It is amazing what you get in an automobile per dollar spent compared to the 70s and 80s.

    If fast food kept up with “normal” inflation, that meal deal at Taco Bell would cost $7+ today instead of $4.25 …again, probably even cheaper than 10 or 20 years ago.

    This is actually unprecedented. But occurred for two reasons:

    (1) per worker productivity gains (mostly via technology) have made a big impact. This lowered the production costs per product

    (2) cheap overseas labor (mostly Chinese… and sadly, in some cases this is practically slave labor). This lower labor costs has resulted in lower prices and has also increased consumer purchasing power.

    Real estate prices have been an exception in that they’ve shot sky high, but historically low interest rates have compensated enormously.

    In a sense, using cheap Chinese labor and greater productivity via technology have both lowered the cost of production and, as a DIRECT result, lowered prices.

    In the same way, getting rid of the employer’s portion of payroll taxes and other hidden taxes will likewise lower prices… and not taking out payroll taxes from worker’s paychecks will also increase purchasing power.

    Speaking of “promising” a “tax cut and government check”… the problem we have now is that politicians now promise new entitlements and giveaways (funded with other people’s money) and special treatment via a convoluted tax system where no one knows exactly what they pay and where it is easy to insert weird items into IRS code in return for campaign contributions. Those are the kind of “promises” that REALLY bother me.

    Now, if we could just have our educational and medical systems operating in MORE of a free market capitalistic way, we’d see similar improvements there as well. Same for energy when we lower some of the draconian restrictions and red tape on building refineries and nuclear power plants, etc.

    –Rob McEwen

  21. Mad Dog says:

    pvsys // Oct 6th 2006 at 11:26 pm

    “but the truth is that there are MANY in the underground economy who get paid for work that goes unreported… sure, much more honorable work than drug dealing… but who still skip out on taxes.”

    The total GNP of the underground economy is estimated at $125 billion to $300 billion.

    1. The underground economy represents what the Fair Taxers want. Unregulated economic activity. Economic Freedom.

    2. When this money gets spent, it is taxed. And, most of this money represents existence income.

    3. If it is $300 billion in GNP, it is far less in personal income. Even if that $300 billion was taxed at 33%, only $100 billion would be recovered. Currently, only $800 billion is “removed from private production” via income taxation by the federal government.

    4. If GNP is $13 trillion to $14 trillion, a hundred billion is a statistical nothing. Statistical in these terms: The ability to measure GNP has an error window of almost $1 trillion. $100 billion is one tenth of the possible error in GNP calculation. As a percent of GNP, it is seven tenths of ONE percent.

  22. pvsys says:

    Mad Dog,

    You start off making a good point, but then you pull a “bait-n-switch”.

    Even if I accepted your numbers (I haven’t checked them all, but I’ll assume that they are correct)…

    Then an honest assessment would be to evaluate 100 billion over 800 billion (12.5%), NOT 100 billion over 14 trillion.

    12.5% of tax revenue previously missed and then “brought back into the fold” would go a long way towards offsetting some of the negative aspects of the FairTax brought up on this thread!

    Also, like many good ideas in life, the FairTax should be judged on the cumulative effect of its best parts, not on just one of these isolated.

    Therefore, this gain in tax revenue from previously untaxed “underground” income should be added to other benefits (like increases in orders for exports… for starters) to properly judge the FairTax.

    Otherwise, this would be like criticizing the safety of a car because of how limited of extra safety the seat belts provides when the car had air bags and other safety features all along. For such a car, to then isolate the seat belts and talk about the limitations of seat belts is misleading. That is how I “see” your last post.

    Regarding “Economic Freedom”, I actually think ALL Americans have benefited from the underground economy… party because we are so overtaxed and if ALL economic activity were taxed at current rates, we’d be rather smothered.

    But tax evasion is still wrong and not for the best. It is much better if EVERYONE were taxed appropriately so that the overall tax burden could then be proportionately reduced. (Kind of like a store being able to lower its prices due to less stolen inventory after improving its anti-theft procedures.)

    –Rob McEwen

  23. Mad Dog says:


    There’s no bait and switch.

    You’re a huge fan of tax cuts, eh? Now that would be a lead into a bait and switch.

    I don’t assume my numbers are right. I assume all numbers on the economy are estimates. Some estimates are skewed. Some are not skewed. But, they remain estimates.

    I don’t like the formula used to produce GDP vs. GNP. I often use GNP where I should use the phrase GDP.

    This is one of those times. Numbers are for GDP but are comparable for GNP within a few billions, about the same error (in dollars) as both have as estimates.

    When I use numbers, I can only hope I’m using the best of the estimates. Sorry about the error in GDP vs. GNP. 🙂

    I’ll make another post on a similiar topic.

  24. Mad Dog says:


    From your most recent post:

    ” [P]arty because we are so overtaxed and if ALL economic activity were taxed at current rates, we’d be rather smothered.”

    I hate to rewrite that but I have to.

    Partly instead of party.

    You’re of the opinion, apparently, that “we are” overtaxed.

    If I go back and pull out my finance books from the 1980’s, our tax system is designed to fight inflation. And, to compensate for recession.

    It’s an annoying mechanism with automatic and instanteous results.

    The faster wages rise, the less the raise is worth.

    The faster wages fall, the more wages are worth.

    Under a bracketed, incremental income tax.

  25. Mad Dog says:

    The largest problem before this automatic economic control was???????

    Cyclical inflation and deflation.

    Boom and bust.

    Did that one control stop the cycles? No. It took a huge number of automatic controls to stop the rags to riches and back to rags cycle.

    The Fair Tax peoples don’t really care about cyclical change or fair taxation. It’s about a short term personal gain. (People — I mean initiators)

    I’ll give a couple examples of how the middle class is not overtaxed.

  26. Mad Dog says:

    I have three grown children. All attended public schools until college. All attended college. One attended private colleges.

    In the mid-1990’s, the AJC was estimating the annual cost per student in the Gwinnett County school system at $5,300 per year.

    1. With my three kids in school for 13 years … that’s $206,700 dollars the “taxpayers” have given me for education. I’ll never pay that back in my lifetime through any combination of “school taxes” or property taxes.

    2. From my own data collected two years ago: Hall County pays about $130,000 per High School Graduate. That times three is $390,000. Just to pay for the successful education of my three kids in public schools, would be 1/3 of my expected lifetime earnings (assuming forty-five years at $30,000 per year. Not all my years were great, eh? But, that might be a close average for someone that started working about 1970.)

    Now how am I being over taxed as a father of three successful public school grads?

    I’d have to pay a school tax of about $8,666 dollars per year. My total property taxes have never been anywhere near $1,500 per year.

    Does that make me a deadbeat mootching off the system? Or a member of the middle class?

  27. Mad Dog says:

    With personal income of $30,000 per year average, and total property taxes under $1,500 per year, I’d be middle class in MOST OF the US.

    When you wish to be taxed fairly, or to live in some sort of economic freedom (as defined by a couple idiots), you have to start with what did you or what do you get from the system (that system which is smothering this mysterious “we” … a “we” that excludes ME.).

    Now rant about class warfare… use the bait and switch to get there.

  28. Dorabill says:

    The fair taxers want to repeal the 16th ammendment. How do they know that would do anything? It was never properly ratified in the first place. http://www.google.com/search?q=16th+amendment+never+ratified&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official The IRS is a maniacle monstrosity which depends on “voluntary compliance” to their tax codes. Make some headway against these cretans and then I’ll start paying attention.

  29. Mad Dog says:


    I’m sure there are signing statements that just nullify the whole thing.

    From Wikipedia, one of the links your google search brought up covers the conspiracy theory.

    “Some tax protesters, conspiracy investigators, and others opposed to income taxes cite what they contend is evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was never “properly ratified.” One argument is based on the contention that the legislatures of various states passed bills of ratification with different capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas). Another argument made by some tax protesters is that because Congress did not pass an official proclamation recognizing Ohio’s year 1803 admission to statehood until 1953 (see Ohio Constitution), Ohio was not a state until 1953. Therefore, they argue, the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. These arguments have been universally rejected by the courts.”

    To repeal the 16th amendment requires a lot more than writing a HUGE SPENDING BILL labeled a tax bill.

    Sort of requires another amendment to the Constitution.

    All the talk of how SB 25 will repeal the 16th is just more lies from the far right.

Comments are closed.