Fair tax

And now the denouement

Chapter 7 is roughly 2 ½ pages long. In what we have now come to learn is the author’s style of enhanced vagueness we are introduced to “The Birth Of The Fair Tax”. Essentially, there are no names given. I find it curious that as evolutionary as a completely new way of funding government and its services as this scheme is supposed to be, no one wants to take credit for it. The proponents mentioned are shadowy and anonymous. To me it sounds like Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling and the board of Enron.

Lordy, lordy, are we in for some fun now. I just had to stop reading to give you all my impressions of Chapters 5 and 6. (Yes, through an editing error I did not mention that Chapter 4 was already included in essay number two.) But I’m the one with OCD so I don’t imagine little things like that will bother those of you who are interested in the Big Picture here. Just wanted to let you know that I do err and I am not ashamed to admit it, unlike my harshest critics. As an aside, let me address one of those criticisms now. The point was nearly beaten senseless that I did not agree with the concept of the Fair Tax and that this was wrong of me because I had not read this particular book. I have, of course, read many other articles on the Fair Tax. This book is not the End All on the subject. Other people much sharper than I, whom I respect, have also weighed in on the subject and detailed points even better than I can. It is through their insight I have formed my opinions. But once the whining began that I had not read the Boortz/Linder book and that anything I said was not to be considered seriously, I decided as a lark, to read it and analyze it to the best of my ability and to entertain other readers here. Frankly, my critics are nowhere near as fair as I am trying to be. I openly admit I dislike this “plan” and I am using this pitifully written book to explain how I see it. The critics should just stop trying to censor me and reply in a point by point assessment of my conclusions, something they have thus far refused to do. All they say is “read the book” rather than actually approach the level with a serious discourse. I also have suggested those who are interested should read the book. Don’t take my word solely on the subject. That would be as foolish as taking the author’s word for it solely. How much more fair can I be? Those of you who are following this thread, PLEASE tell me how you feel about these posts and whether or not you agree and what you think.

One of the fascinating things about right wing talk radio (and perhaps left wing talk radio as well) is how the hosts of these shows have so much “Personal Confidence”, by which I mean “Chutzpah”.  These shows are designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. On many of these shows the host will demagogue the concept of Rugged Individualism to their audience. What it seems to come down to is that to be a Rugged Individualist one must see the world as the host does. Does this not subvert the very concept of individualism? I recall in the sixties when my generation eschewed (although we had no clue as to what eschewing was) collegiate attire and we all donned T shirts and jeans just so we could be different. What we were, ultimately, was a ragged army impressed into service by jeans salesmen. Live and Learn. That’s what I have attempted to do for much of my life and I feel, for the most part, I have succeeded more often than failed. Which brings me to the point of today’s missive.