Who Is Sending Mixed Messages?

On Christmas Eve, Doug Gross of the Associated Press, wrote this article. The gist of it is in the title, “GOP may shun aggressive agenda.”

With the fumbling first steps of legislative control presumably behind them – Republicans will begin their fifth year running the Senate, third year in the House – the stage would appear set for them to push an aggressive agenda in 2007.

However, observers say a handful of factors, from a slowing economy to a wary eye toward Democratic successes across the country, could keep Legislative leaders from pressing their advantage too far. At least publicly, GOP leaders say they agree.

“I think it’ll be a real quiet session, but that’s so tough to predict,” said Rep. Ben Harbin, R-Martinez, who leads the House’s budget-writing Appropriations Committee. “There will probably not be an overly aggressive package this first year, but we will begin laying out our long-term vision and taking the initial steps that will get us to where we feel like we need to be.”

Today, however, being a new day, Shannon McCaffrey of the Associated Press runs this article about how taxes could be the “pivotal” issue in the next legislative session.

House Speaker Glenn Richardson said he wants to give the Georgia’s tax code a top-to-bottom review and is open to sweeping changes, including the end of the state’s income tax or a move to a flat tax.

Gov. Sonny Perdue will be looking to fulfill a $142 million campaign pledge to eliminate the state income tax on retirement income for senior citizens.

So which is it? Tax reform is definitely an aggressive agenda item. And I do have to say that the GOP really would be the stupid party if it was able to solidify hold on the state government and then do *nothing*. That was would be ridiculous.

Tax reform is the perfect way to highlight why the Republicans in charge is a good thing for the state, benefiting individuals and businesses — or not. The GOP can make or break itself on the issue and it is the perfect GOP issue.

So now, will there be an aggressive agenda or not?


  1. eehrhart says:

    I think you can clearly take the words of Speaker Richardson as a harbinger of bold initiatives to come.
    Tax reform on the level of what he and the Republicans are proposing is a bold step and would make the state of Georgia an economic engine far surpassing any other state in the union.
    Most especially those now deep into the blue side which will begin to slide into their Keynsian based economic malaise.

  2. rugby_fan says:

    Does it matter what they do? The GAGOP isn’t going anywhere.

    At least 25 years of GOP control for Georgia I predict.

  3. eehrhart says:

    Sitting on our hands is truly not an option. Limiting government will take some very bold measures if we are to undo 134 years of increase in the role of government in Georgia.

    Elimination of the Income tax would be my favored starting point. For those who say what are you going to replace it with…please go back and take a look at the economics of the Reagan tax cuts. When spending is held constant or cut then everywhere this has been applied it has resulted in more revenue period.

    People spend on average of 90 cents of every dollar they earn. When you cut the income tax immediately you place that revenue into the sales tax side of the equation. The remaining 10 percent is easily far surpassed by the benefits of economic stimulation from cutting the corportate and individual income tax. Reagan merely cut the marginal rates and the stimulus on the revenue side was enormous.

    It is time for Georgia to take such a step and go even further than the Reagan cuts.

  4. IndyInjun says:

    The ONLY way to tax reform is to cut spending first. At every level of government from locally to DC, GOP control has meant an EXPLOSION IN SPENDING.

    If they cut spending, then tax reform is believable and achievable.

    However, this is the same gang who just passed 4 or 5 new property tax exemptions, further complicating the revenue code.

    Agreed with eehrhart on most of his posting, except for the reference to increased revenues from tax cuts. The never-mentioned truth is that the printing presses were cranked into high gear during the same period. Does anyone doubt that the 75% increase in money supply under Bush 43 has likewise raised tax collections.?

    Alas????, Georgia cannot print $US.

    As for the push toward a sales tax to replace the income tax, it would mean very high sales tax rates versus surrounding states, unless there is wide taxation of services. Let me know when this happens, so I can buy retail property just across the Savannah River in South Carolina.

    When the GAGOP starts talking about tax increases on services and eliminating exemptions, this idea will get a heated reception.

    Sales taxes as a ‘fair’ way of taxation sounds good in theory, but is painful in practice.

  5. Harry says:

    Eliminating the income tax, coupled with a 1% increase in the state sales tax rate together with eliminating sales tax exemptions, together with a modest (10%) reduction in spending, would be a great move towards encouraging productivity while only slightly penalizing consumption, and would help retain the more profitable corporations and individuals.

  6. IndyInjun says:


    They won’t cut spending, they will INCREASE IT.

    The ‘modest’ 1% rate increase won’t be modest with respect to services, which will be hit with a totally NEW 8% tax.

    What is strange is that THESE SAME PEOPLE are advocates of the so-called federal “FAIR” tax, which has a blanket exemption for business purchases, whereas states that have replaced the income tax with a sales tax broadly tax business purchases.

    The states have found that the only way to have acceptably low sales tax rates is to broadly tax everything and everyone. That is the ‘beauty’ of the existing sales tax. On the federal “FAIR” tax side, there are too many exemptions to make that scheme workable.

    If they tax everyone and everything at reasonable rates, I am for it. If it is another con job like the “FAIR” tax, count me in opposition.

    The common man’s biggest concern about a sales tax as the principle means of collecting revenue should be that the sales tax ends up applying to costs that are rising at several multiples of his pay increases. (For example the so-called “FAIR” tax would apply to medical services/insurance that is increasing 15% every year)

    Of course, the GOPers will tell you that there is no inflation…….fallling victim to their own propaganda.

    Retirees spend down previously taxed savings during retirement and are big losers under a move to a sales tax. These folks vote in large numbers.

    Finally, a move to a sales tax undercuts the value of Georgia state and municiple bond financing..

    A local GOP legislator promoted this concept this month as a way to attrack new residents, as if we are not getting too many as it is!

  7. Decaturguy says:

    Lets do it Earl! What a tremendous opportunity for me, and others, to starve the State of Georgia from revenues. I will buy all of my groceries in Georgia, which is not subject to the state sales tax. I will make any other consumer purchases subject to the sales tax in other states or over the Internet. That way, instead of being taxed on my income, I will virtually eliminate owing any taxes to the State of Georgia!

  8. eehrhart says:

    Sorry to so disapoint you Decaturguy!!

    Georgia is not on the way to your 100 % liberal confiscatory socialist tax utopia where everyone who can work and produce does so for those who will not. Then you and the rest of the elite can redistribute all of the productive capacity. No thanks!!!

    We are actually moving in the other direction.

    The majority of Georgians and an overwhelming number of them agree with the opposite philosophy of you thankfully.

    I do hear that Delta can still get you there if you have such an affinity for “other states”. 75 also runs north and south if you want to make that choice too. You seem so bent on purchasing in other states, residence is just a step away…..

  9. Decaturguy says:

    I actually agree with your proposal Earl. I don’t know why you are hatin’. Lets get rid of the state income tax. I’m all for it.

  10. Decaturguy says:

    I simply want to reduce my tax liability to the State of Georgia because I really don’t want my hard earned income to go to those useless slugs who earn less than me and rely on social services from the State of Georgia. This provides me an opportunity to do so. Thanks, Earl!!!

  11. eehrhart says:

    Decaturguy…you are such a stereotype for the moonbat liberal. On your site you clearly disagree with the proposal but here you say you do. I guess that is nuance. Newsflash…to the rest of the sane world that is lying!! Nothing new for your side of the political spectrum.

    By the way your economic analysis would earn you an F in any Freshman survey economics course. The basic math of an income tax cut is something you cannot seem to fathom. I know it is hard but try reading some books on economic theory or any other books for that matter. Liberals and their reading habits are generally confined to people magazine and the intellectual talents of the hollywood super intellects when they blow off in the tabloids, but please try before you attempt analysis. It is boring to debate people magazine.

  12. Trackboy1 says:

    Man, if Earl Ehrhart is for it, it must be the best tax idea ever! Just look at his track record!
    A moral public servant everyone in Georgia can be proud of







    “I am sorry your hatred for men so blinds you to the greatest civil rights tragedy in recent years. The destruction of the family and the alienation of children from their fathers. This is generally propagated by men haters such as yourself who have such a virulent hate filled spirit that they fail to see that children are the victims of the policies your group and others like it have been peddling for the last 20 years. Your bigotry towards fathers is so obvious that you could never be a part of the solution to this tragedy.

    “Bravo the appointment of a true child advocate such as Wade Horn to the HHS. Perhaps now children will be the focus and not their whining disingenuous parents.”

    Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 15:10:04 -0400 From: Earl Ehrhart To: “‘[email protected]'” Subject: RE: AJCHeadline More single dads primary parent

    Rep. EARL EHRHART (R-036)

  13. Chris says:

    Much as I hate to admit a Democrat might be right, DecaturGuy is on to something. Internet sales are a problematic issue for states and state revenue. While adding an extra 1% to the sales tax wouldn’t bring Georgia up anywhere near what the rates are in NY, more and more people are buying online for convience.

    I find that in most cases the sales tax savings are offset by S&H, so I never buy online to save on the taxes.

    This could be an opportunity for Georgia to lead the nation in finding a way to solve the Internet sales tax issue.

  14. IndyInjun says:

    eehrhart wrote..

    “We are actually moving in the other direction.”

    Toward applying sales tax to food?


    “The majority of Georgians and an overwhelming number of them agree with the opposite philosophy of you thankfully.”

    Ah, but then the majority has not been notified about a NEW TAX of 8% on services, have they?

  15. IndyInjun says:


    Georgia already has a way to solve the ‘Internet sales tax issue’ Its called ENFORCEMENT.

    Anyone who buys tangible property free of sales tax outside of Georgia, owes the Georgia USE TAX on the purchase price.

    Georgia has rights to audit individuals for use tax.

    All they have to do is start auditing and making examples out of use tax evaders.

    The problem is that the average revenue loss per auditee is probably less than the cost of auditing.

  16. Decaturguy says:

    Actually, Earl, it is you needs to learn how to read. On my site, while I said that I thought that an end to the income tax would reduce revenue to the state dramatically, I may personally support it because I would be able to reduce the amount of taxes that I would pay to the State of Georgia by making purchases that are not subject to the sales tax (such as food) and making other purchases over the Internet that are not subject to the state sales tax. So, therefore, instead of paying tax on my full income, I would only pay a minimal amount of tax because most of my purchases would not be subject to the state sales tax … that is unless you plan on increasing the tax or taxing purchases that are now not subject to the tax. Now you wouldn’t have that in mind, would you?

    As a conservative, shouldn’t you be supporting an individual’s right to reduce their tax liability? Unlike many, I do not spend 100% of my income on consumer purchases subject to the state sales tax. My biggest expense (and most peoples) is my mortgage. I don’t pay sales tax on that. I don’t pay the state sales tax on groceries. I actually save money that I don’t spend. No sales tax on savings.

    So, how do you plan on replacing the 40-45% of revenues generated by the income tax with a sales tax that many purchases will not be subject to?

    If your plan is to reduce services or raise taxes elsewhere, then fine, but please admit it and have a honest argument about it? But don’t try to fool people into believing you can have it both ways.

    By the way, I don’t subscribe to People Magazine and generally want the government out of my life in every way, not like a pseudo conservative like Ehrhart.

  17. IndyInjun says:


    While I am in sympathy with your position, one clarification is in order.

    You wrote “I would be able to reduce the amount of taxes that I would pay to the State of Georgia by ..making other purchases over the Internet that are not subject to the state sales tax.

    Georgia, like every state with sales taxes, has a corresponding use tax which comes into play when no sales tax has been paid. If you or I buy online and pay no sales taxes, we are required by Georgia law to file a use tax return, accompanied by payment of the taxes owed.

    Buying on the internet and not paying use tax is tax evasion.

    Most people are unaware, because of the enforcement cost/benefit trade-off mentioned above which means there are few audits and penalties.

  18. Chris says:


    Good point. Are you volunteering to have Government agents come into your house, inventory all your possessions, then demand recipts to prove you paid sales tax on everything?

    Thats what it will take to enforce that “Use Tax”.

  19. Decaturguy says:

    I understand your point Indy, but have you ever paid a “use tax” on a book you bought on Amazon or for something you bought on eBay?

    Most people are unaware, because of the enforcement cost/benefit trade-off mentioned above which means there are few audits and penalties.

    So, how do you plan on getting around that?

  20. Decaturguy says:

    Government agents come into your house, inventory all your possessions, then demand recipts to prove you paid sales tax on everything?

    Good point Chris. How exactly would that promote a smaller government and more freedom? Earl?

  21. Rusty says:

    Some public servant you are, Earl, calling constituents names.

    And really, good luck enforcing a use tax. I wouldn’t even know how to file such a thing even if I wanted to. But then, judging by the sex crimes laws that this Legislature has been pushing, it appears empty, unenforceable gestures that don’t accomplish anything are your M.O.

  22. IndyInjun says:


    The power to enforce the existing use tax through audits of individuals is one of the aspects the “Fairtax’ hawkers never mention. Nor do they mention that their pet tax project requires individuals to keep receipts.

    In the absense of record keeping the Georgia Department of Revenue even has the power to “guesstimate” how much use tax a person owes. This power was concfirmed by the Georgia Supreme Court.

    WHEN Georgia is dependent totally on use tax for 100% of its revenues, these powers WILL BE USED. That much we can count on.

    (Were the federal “fairtax” ever implemented the powers of audit would be given to the states and the combined rates would be more than 40%…….say HELLO to the new IRS….)

    Yes, I have paid use tax. Mainly I do not wish to be hassled, so I buy almost everything locally and pay the tax in the process. The S&H for online sales offsets the sales/use tax.

    The main point that I wished to convey is that Georgia already has some very intrusive requirements that are not being used, but that WILL BE USED if they go to 100% sales taxation as their revenue source.

  23. Rusty says:

    I think you’d be a Republican if the GOP woke up one day and decided it was going to quit trying to police people’s behavior.

  24. Harry says:

    The funny thing is, Tennessee manages to function without an individual income tax, and Florida manages to function without either an individual or corporate income tax – as well as Texas and several other states. Why not look at how they do it. Otherwise, we stand to lose some of out most productive citizens and corporations to those states, and forget about bringing in any well-heeled retirees.

  25. Harry, I will tell you how they do it. Georgia’s state sales tax (base rate) is 4%. Tennessee’s is 7%. Except for food, TN is 6%, GA is 0%.

    Florida is 6%, Georgia (again) is 4%. Gee, I wonder how they manage. Oh it seems other taxes are higher.

    Property taxes down in Florida (don’t know about Tennessee) are also substantially higher. You do the math.

  26. IndyInjun says:

    Harry wrote: “The funny thing is, Tennessee manages to function without an individual income tax, and Florida manages to function without either an individual or corporate income tax – as well as Texas and several other states. Why not look at how they do it. ”

    They ‘do it’ by broadly taxing ALL tangible property to both individuals and corporations, giving nearly ZERO exemptions, and broadly taxing services. to both individuals and corporations.

    As Chris posted, they also have very high property taxes.

    In Texas, the sales tax was not raising enough revenue so they tacked on a totally new gross receipts tax.

    In short, the corps in these states may not pay income taxes but they pay MUCH higher sales taxes than in Georgia or SC.

    The timing is not fortuitous for the movers of this concept, for – as Rep. Ben Harbin noted – sales/use tax receipts have fallen this year.

  27. My name’s not Earl, but maybe someone that is can tell me if other states listed above that don’t have an income tax have a better economy than Georgia, or does Georgia have the better economy?

    I mean if this was such an obvious way to boost the economy (instead of just an obvious way to screw the middle class) wouldn’t some other Republican state (like, say, South Dakota) have done it already and shown the way with it’s enormous boom?

    I don’t have to read a textbook to know this isn’t a good idea, all I have to do is look around and see all the other states that are not doing it. Even in states where they do have roughly the system Ehrhart proposes, the economy seems about on par with Georgia’s (if not worse?).

    So what is it Earl, boom for business or boom for the rich? And what about all those seniors who looked forward to not paying income taxes anymore when they retired. What incentive do they have to stay in Georgia?

  28. Harry says:

    The middle class pays the bulk of income tax. Having to pay income tax is a major concern of productive companies and individuals in deciding where to locate. We need these companies and individuals here; not just government employees and users of government services.

  29. IndyInjun says:


    The middle class pays the bulk of the sales tax, too.

    As for disincentives to locate in this state, there was ANOTHER bill discussed here on PP which exempts electricity used in manufacturing because the SALES TAX was punitive for the companies having to pay it.

    While income tax applies to net income, after deductions, sales tax applies to business inputs heavily in states dependent upon that form of taxation.

    The pushers of this measure admit upfront that the only way it will work will be to eliminate exemptions, for the only way to keep the total sales tax rate in single digits is to broadly tax business.

    Bear in mind that the localities have the other 3% of the combined rate of 7% (in most counties) which is computed on this same tax base.

    The BEST WAY for the state GOP to give relief to us all is to:

    Cut Spending.

    Cut Spending.

    Cut Spending.

    After all, that is what the GOP supposedly stands for – smaller government.


  30. Harry says:

    Sure, we can agree on that. Cutting spending is the best way to get to smaller government. However, in my opinion eliminating the income tax would not only be a more equitable way to tax economic activity, and encourage productivity and saving, but would also simplify the tax collection effort by consolidating the income tax division of the Georgia Department of Revenue into the sales tax division. Additionally, the compliance burden on individuals and businesses would be reduced significantly. A large number of people in Georgia don’t bother to file an income tax return. Other forms of taxation would be more likely to capture revenue from these folks.

  31. Decaturguy says:

    Why does Earl Ehrhart want to increase taxes on our grandparents who have spent their lives earning money and paying taxes on that income?

  32. Decaturguy says:


    Do you really want state agents to come to your home and ask to see the items you purchased and receipts for those items to show that you paid sales tax or use tax on those items? Or if you cannot produce it, search your house for it?

  33. Harry says:

    Nothing like that is going to happen in any case. The issue of self assessment on internet purchases is another issue., and will need to be addressed at the national level. On certain types of big-ticket purchases from anywhere, the state is already effective at collecting use tax – vehicles, airplanes, boats, etc.

  34. Decaturguy says:

    Then why, as Georgia’s total tax revenue has increased by 5.6% through the end of November 2006, has sales tax revenue actually decreased through the end of November 2006?

  35. eehrhart says:

    Decaturguy….you really do not have the capacity to understand the ecomomics of the income tax issue so I will refrain from trying to educate you. I do however take exception to your comment about increasing taxes on grandparents. I have no interest, unlike you in increasing anyones taxes including grandparents. To say that I do is another lie which seems to be a staple of your debate format.
    At what point is the overall citizenry taxed enough for those of you on the left? Why not just give us a number which I assume will be 100% and then we can work back from there.

    It is instructive to read your attempts to stave off yet another attempt to give money back to those who actually earn it. Focusing only on the sales tax portion of the ecomomic math my give you jollies, but it is hardly relevant math in the overall equation.

    The easier proof for someone like yourself would be to challenge you to show facts from any state which has decreased the marginal rates of income tax or done away with it all together, and show that overall revenue has not increased. The fact is that everywhere it has been done revenue has increased signifigantly and these are cold hard indisputable numbers. Of course the true test of resolve is to keep those of you big spenders from destroying the benefit by spending more. Unfortunately that seems to be the case even in the Reagan tax cuts when Congress went on a spending binge with the greatly increased revenues, and no it was not govt. increasing the money supply as that is just not true.
    Oh by the way it is those of you on the left, ie the Clintons who used the IRS and revenue agents for abusive tactics against those who disagreed with them. The enforcement arm of the IRS was a political tool for them and will always be the lefts muscle as you need more tax to establish your control over citizens.

  36. Decaturguy says:

    I have no interest, unlike you in increasing anyones taxes including grandparents. To say that I do is another lie which seems to be a staple of your debate format.

    Get it through your thick skull Ehrhart, I do not want to raise taxes on anyone! When have I ever proposed a tax hike on anyone? I would love it if I didn’t have to pay any taxes to the government. However, the government has to pay for some essential services and it must get revenue from somewhere. But, hey, I’m with you, lets keep taxes as low as possible. The problem is with your formula, which I believe will disproporionately redistribute the tax burden in this State on the poor and on seniors.

    However, unlike you, I will refrain from calling you names (such as a liar, “mootbat,” etc.), which seem to be your stock and trade. It seems indicative of the weakness of your position to have to resort to those tactics, but I guess you can get away with it in the State House.

    Find me an economist that says you’ll be able to replace an income tax that taxes 100% of income over $7,000 at a 6% rate, with a sales tax that taxes only about 50% of consumer purchases (after all the items that are exempted) made in state at a 4% rate. It is not possible.

    Therefore, you are going to have to do one of two things. (1) Reduce spending – what are you going to cut? or (2) Increase taxes – since you’ve eliminated the income tax you’re probably going to have to increase the sales tax.

    Retirees are not usually earning much income, but they do spend money. By relying on a sales tax exclusively over an income tax, you are increasing taxes on grandparents, Earl. What is so hard to understand about that? Or do you just not like it as a campaign theme that will be run against you and your party?

  37. IndyInjun says:

    Ehrhart wrote…

    [i]”….in the Reagan tax cuts … Congress went on a spending binge with the greatly increased revenues, and no it was not govt. increasing the money supply as that is just not true.”[/i]

    Money supply increased by nearly 100% while Reagan was in office (from about 2 $trillion ot $4 trillion), which invalidates the supply-side mantra that cutting tax rates raises revenues.

    For what its worth, in the Reagan decade broad money supply increased 100%, during the Bush 41 and Clinton decade increased 50%, and under GWB will increase by 100% by the time he leaves office.

    100% increases in money supply are more than a little sporty in igniting an economy and, ergo, tax receipts.

    Tax collection data cannot be treated as somehow mystically segregated from money supply, especially in the Reagan and Bush 43 years when there was a vertible EXPLOSION in Money.

    By the way, I used the M3 momney supply from the Federal Reserve (St. Louis) site.

    Going to a consumption tax that taxes services that are seeing double-digit cost increases (please see the 11% that Ga Power got in rate increases), while employees are seeing 3 to 5% increases, might sound good to big government folks, but the majority of people lose.

    Could anything possibly be worse than REWARDING government with more revenues when they create inflation by exploding the money supply?

  38. Trackboy1 says:

    Earl Ehrhart telling someone else he doesn’t “have the capacity to understand the ecomomics of the income tax issue so I will refrain from trying to educate you” because he disagrees with him is priceless. Dissent? Not in his Georgia.

    Earl, please forgive us for not bowing down to your fountain of infinitie wisdom! And I’m a fiscal conservative so don’t call me some liberal pansey as you are so quick to do. Good luck trying to run for state-wide office with your obvious maturity & statemanship.




  39. BEZERKO says:

    Earl, you’re joking, right? Cutting taxes makes revenues go up? You guys crack me up, you’re beginning to believe your own market fundamentalist hype. Why don’t you just close your eyes and click your heels together three times, maybe it’ll come true. Anything to get elected, I guess. Markets may have their place in the economic landscape, but for most of the American people, the market has failed. The wave of deregulation and privatization that’s swept across the nation has left most Americans worse off. It’s not fair, and it’s obvious that for the common good, markets have to be governed, just like people.

    “Then you and the rest of the elite can redistribute all of the productive capacity”

    Elite? Funny guy. Actually, it’s people like you, Nancy Schaefer, Neal Boortz, Saxby Chambliss, and Speaker Richardson who are the elitists. Then again, maybe I’m just an ignorant boob like Decaturguy who reads People Magazine, shines your shoes, scrubs your toilet, rings up your purchases at Wal-Mart, and “Do you want fries with that?” And “redistribute?” Are you kidding me? The “productive capacity” (whatever that means) is already living far above their means, that’s obvious. If they were living within their means, they would be able to pay the people who make their lifestyles possible a fair and livable wage. Yes, Earl, the issue IS fairness, but your idea of fairness is letting millionaires and billionaires escape any sense of social responsibility. Oliver Wendell Holmes was right when he said “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.” You can’t get something for nothing Earl. But I guess that’s all subterfuge, isn’t it? The real goal is to defund the government isn’t it? It’s so much easier than eliminating all those government programs that make up what’s left of the social safety net. You’re part of an upper crust of “…careless people, who smash things up and retreat into their wealth and let other people clean up their messes.” F. Scott Fitzgerald

  40. eehrhart says:

    So typical of those on the left….I began a discussion of tax and you immediately start in with the personal insults and derogatory comments. Then when some of you own medicine is returned you run crying that its not fair or right and I am quashing your dissent. How hypocritical is that. Go back and look at the thread and also check out Decaturguys insults from his blog after I brought up the issue. I know it is tough for some when facts stare you in the face but that is the fact. If you begin to throw brickbats at least have the maturity to stand up and take it when they are returned.

  41. IndyInjun says:


    What I cannot figure out is how, when, and where that consumption taxation has been ratified as a central tenet of the GOP. Please show me.

    There certainly is a fixation with the so-called “Fair”tax by the congressional delegation, John Linder, and Neal Boortz, which makes Georgia an anomaly.

    It would seem to me that if even Linder really believed this nonsense, he would not have voted for the largest ENTITLEMENT since LBJ, one which destroys the assumptions upon which the tax rate of his brainchild is based.

    As for your complaints about the other posters, I have not heard my points addressed.

    Maybe I should not be surprised, you being a politician and all.

    BTW, I have voted for every GOP POTUS from Nixon to the current pathetic occupant of the White House and contribute generously to GOP politicians to the exclusion of Dems.

    However, the more I see of y’all lately, the Dems might just make a come back.

    Especially, if a GOP legislature sticks it to the people with this “Fair”tax malarky.

  42. Decaturguy says:


    I have not made any derogatory comments towards you in this thread (believe me, if I wanted to make derogatory comments about you there is plenty of material out there). You are the one who started making childish insults simply because you percieve that I oppose your tax proposal. If you actually read my comments, you will see that I hope that you do pass such legislation – mainly because it will save me tons of money personally and I will revel in the mess that it will make that you guys will have to clean up. So pass it, I’m not standing in your way!

    But you still have not answered my questions – if it passes what programs do you plan to cut or what taxes do you plan to raise?

Comments are closed.