Attack Muslim Extremists

The Washington Time says British Prime Minister David Cameron raised Friday the nation’s terrorism threat level to “severe,” saying bluntly that “poisonous” Islamic extremism is causing widespread problems that are spreading from the Middle East to other parts of the world.
“We have to confront it from home and abroad,” he said Friday during a press conference, calling for more intelligence, smart military airstrikes and a slew of other “building blocks” that will require “perseverance” to succeed.
It looks like the Brits have gotten it right. They're not quite following the Dutch example, but have added to it with some muscle.
Muslim extremism is a powerful serpent in the world and must be controlled. It cannot be eliminated. There will always be misguided persons, who will fight for a ridiculous cause. In this case, we need to help them move to the land of seven virgins in their hereafter.

Absolutely Jaw Dropping!

Open E-Mail to  Paul Ryan and Other House Republicans:

 

Dear House Representatives.

 

    Congratulations on the following: 

Absolutely Jaw Dropping!

PAUL RYAN'S PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS

A List of Republican Budget Cuts

Notice S.S. and the military are NOT on this list.

These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting.

Read to the end.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy -- $445 million annual savings

Save America 's Treasures Program -- $25 million annual savings

International Fund for Ireland -- $17 million annual savings

Legal Services Corporation -- $420 million annual savings

National Endowment for the Arts -- $167.5 million annual savings

National Endowment for the Humanities -- $167.5 million annual savings

Hope VI Program -- $250 million annual savings

Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion annual savings

Eliminate duplicating education programs -- H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon , eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually

U.S. Trade Development Agency -- $55 million annual savings

Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy -- $20 million annual savings

Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding -- $47 million annual savings

John C. Stennis Center Subsidy -- $430,000 annual savings

Community Development Fund -- $4.5 billion annual savings

Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid -- $24 million annual savings

Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half -- $7.5 billion annual savings

Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% -- $600 million annual savings

Essential Air Service -- $150 million annual savings

Technology Innovation Program -- $70 million annual savings

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program -- $125 million annual savings

Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization -- $530 million annual savings

Beach Replenishment -- $95 million annual savings

New Starts Transit -- $2 billion annual savings

Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts -- $9 million annual savings

Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants -- $2.5 billion annual savings

Title X Family Planning -- $318 million annual savings

Appalachian Regional Commission -- $76 million annual savings

Economic Development Administration -- $293 million annual savings

Programs under the National and Community Services Act -- $1.15 billion annual savings

Applied Research at Department of Energy -- $1.27 billion annual savings

Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership -- $200 million annual savings

Energy Star Program -- $52 million annual savings

Economic Assistance to Egypt -- $250 million annually

U.S. Agency for International Development -- $1.39 billion annual savings

General Assistance to District of Columbia -- $210 million annual savings

Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority -- $150 million annual savings

Presidential Campaign Fund -- $775 million savings over ten years

No funding for federal office space acquisition -- $864 million annual savings

End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services

Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act -- More than $1 billion annually

IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury,
instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget -- $1.8 billion savings over ten years

Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees -- $1 billion total savings. WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?

Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees -- $1.2 billion savings over ten years

Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of -- $15 billion total savings

Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. WHAT???

Eliminate Mohair Subsidies -- $1 million annual savings

Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- $12.5 million annual savings. WELL ISN'T THAT SPECIAL?

Eliminate Market Access Program -- $200 million annual savings

USDA Sugar Program -- $14 million annual savings

Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- $93 million annual savings

Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -- $56.2 million annual savings

Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs -- $900 million savings

Ready to Learn TV Program -- $27 million savings

HUD Ph.D. Program

Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act

TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

Dutch Example

This came from Gordon Anderson:

Go Dutch . . . But Why Wait Until 2015?
          
The Netherlands, where six per cent of the population is now Muslim, is scrapping multiculturalism.
          
The Dutch government says it will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel society within the Netherlands .
          
A new integration bill, which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads:
"The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society  model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people".
          
In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role. 
With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural  society.
          
The letter continues: "A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also demands that from its own citizens."
          
It is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore in the Netherlands.
The new  integration policy will place more demands on immigrants.
For example, immigrants will be required to learn the Dutch language, and the  government will take a tougher approach to immigrants who ignore Dutch values or disobey Dutch law.
          
The  government will also stop offering special subsidies for Muslim immigrants because, according to Donner; "It is not the government's job to integrate  immigrants."
      
The government will introduce new legislation that outlaws forced marriages and will also impose tougher measures against Muslim immigrants who lower their chances of employment by the way they dress.
          
More specifically, the government imposed a ban on face-covering, Islamic burqas as of January 1, 2014.
          
Holland has done that whole liberal thing, and realized - maybe too late - that creating a nation of tribes, will kill the nation itself.


The future of Australia, the UK, USA and Canada may well be read here, this also applies to Scandinavia.

Sen. Sanders' (VT) Impractical Solutions

Open Email to Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT):

Dear Sen. Sanders,
Thank you for sending me a copy of your recent news letter. There are two issues on which I would like to take exception'
You said that Americans overwhelmingly want the federal government to play a strong role in creating decent-paying jobs by rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, railroads, water systems and other projects.
I believe this is only partially true. I agree completely that Americans want decent-paying jobs, but your solution of building infrastructure is not practical. What Americans want are jobs which are based on goods and services desired by a consuming public willing to put up their dollars. Conversely, in infrastructure development, where does the money come from? It comes from either higher taxes on corporations and the general public, or an increase in our $17 trillion debt. The obvious best solution to the job problem is for government to start reducing inhibitions to cooperate development.
You also said that Burger King announced on Tuesday that it plans to buy a Canadian coffee-and-doughnuts chain and move its headquarters from Miami to Canada to avoid U.S. corporate taxes. Burger King’s choice to move to Canada is a part of the continued assault by corporate America against the needs of our country’s working families.
This fits in with the previous point of jobs in infrastructure. Corporate and private company jobs pay for themselves. Whether Burger King has its tax base in Canada or the US has no effect on US jobs. In addition, a move to save federal taxes is an advantage to the general US public, much of which is owned by the US public. A decrease in Burger King's corporate taxes, makes higher dividends available to the US public owners. Those dividends are taxed, but the likelihood is that the move to a lower corporate tax base will decrease the total revenue, which is apparently what you detest. Let me remind you that by taxing both corporations and dividend receivers, you have been taking two bites of the apple before we get a chance for our bite.

Compassion and Illegal Immigrant Chidren

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
Thank you for your form letter on illegal immigrant children at the southern border.
Unfortunately, you are on the wrong track. You designate this as a humanitarian crisis, whereas it is simply an immigration crisis. As soon as you put it a "humanitarian" aspect on it, you unnecessary complicate the situation.
As I have said several times before, this is simply a matter of breaking immigration law. It has been said that the basic immigration law has been modified to allow humanitarian consideration, but any such modification is too obtuse to be practical. Who is to judge whether a situation is humanitarian or not?
As far as I am concerned, and I believe there are many people who support my position, the matter of humanitarianim has been totally abused. I am a person of some compassion, and I beleve that children are best provided for in the care of their parents. I will grant that not all parebts are able to demostare the combination of love and physical care to their children, for which we have Child Protetive Services for those minority cases.
However, when a multitude of Central Amereican parents send their children to the US as illigal immigrants, there is somehing basicly wrong with the attitudes of those parents. Some people will say that the parents are making this sacrifice of releasing their children from the parents love and care in order to give the children better opportnities for health, education and careerr development. Baloney! The fact is that the parents see an opportunity to remove themselves from responsibility without presumed disadsavantage to the children. This experiment was tried some years ago in Sweden. In that case, the Swedish government told parents that they no longer had the responsibilty of rasing their children, The Swedish government wiould do it for them. The parents were ecsatic, because they no longer had to deal with a bunch of rebellious teen agers. However, the results were disastrous. Child suicide and alcoholism ran rampant and the government had to give up its program, to the consternation of the parents.
Representatives and Senators, do you want to be party to deprive illegal immigrant children of their right to parental love and local living conditions? Let's remember that those Central American Parents have the responsibility of providing a better life for their children. If conditions in their countres need fixing, it is their responsibiliuty to fix them; not to dump off their children on the US taxpayer in a massive exercise of US Child Protective Services.
You have been dragging your feet on this sisue and it only gets worse. I have previously said ALL illegal immigrant children should be flown back to their home countries. Let's get going!

Militarizing Police Forces

The Washington Times says that police forces in the US are militarizing at an alarming rate. This presumably disturbs some people, who feel that the militarization will somehow be used against them. To be more specific, militarization means in this case the use of military equipment, such as armored personnel carriers, which are outmoded equipment from the US Department of Defense.
I expect my local police department to protect my private property. I pay a real estate tax for that purpose. I do not own a liquor store, or convenience store, but I expect my local police to protect those property rights as well.
We have recently seen rioting and looting in Ferguson, MO, and this has not been a unique situation in our recent history. If our police force in Lubbock, TX anticipates a possibility of riots in Lubbock,with the destruction and stealing of private property, I want our police force to have a cheap armored personnel carrier, if that will help to minimize loss of property.
It is possible that some time in the distant future, there may be a popular physical revolt against an autocratic government, such as the colonies originally had against the English government. However, that is only a remote possibility. Loss of property from riots is a clear and present danger. Physical revolt against government is not. We need to address the problem, which is with us now.

Families Need Protection from Government

Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:

Dear Speaker Boehner,
Your weekly newsletter said that you intended to continue passing commonsense legislation by the House, even if it stymied by a Democrat-controlled Senate and Marxist President. While there is an essence of futility in this, it makes some sense, because it at least develops a list of projects to be applied, when we have more a reasonable Senate and President.
However, there is one aspect in your quotation, with which I take issue. Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia said in this week's Republican address.
"We're going to keep passing common-sense solutions to help American families".
That is a wrong philosophy. The federal government should not be helping American families. It should be eliminating federal government hindrances to American family development. For example, the federal government should not burden taxpayers with the care of illegal immigrant children at the southern border; it should not be spending billions of dollars involving war and which increases the national debt to the public; it should not be fostering fear of climate change to force the public to pay higher prices for energy usage. I am sure you can think of many others. My main point is that American families do not need help from the federal government; they need protection from government.

Expensive Illegal Immigrant Children

Open email to House Representatives and Senators:

Dear Representatives and Senators,
The Washington Times reports that from culturally sensitive music to special meals for the lactose intolerant, the organizations the federal government is paying to house and care for the children who have surged across the border illegally are taking pains to make sure they are as comfortable as possible.
Dietitians scrutinize the menus each day to make sure they include enough whole grains but not whole milk. Counselors offer life skills classes in Spanish, and intensive English language training, including use of the Rosetta Stone program. Doctors and dentists treat the children at taxpayers’ expense — often the first medical care of the children’s lives.
The children also are guaranteed phone privileges, including the right to call back to their home countries.

This is absolutely ridiculous! I have previously said when the children first appeared at the borders that they should be immediately placed on airplanes and sent back to their parents in their home countries. Since that time, I have heard a lot of talk from various members of Congress, but you have done nothing. Those children are still here and more are still still coming. I was under the impression that we elected you to run this country. Is this what you call running it?

Sen. Coons and Corporate Taxes

Sen. Chris Coons was on Fox News Sunday discussing corporate taxes.
He said he has a problem with the corporate Tax Code that allows American companies to reincorporate overseas and avoid paying taxes. Business Roundtable President John Engler supports Sen. Coons' position.
What Sen. Coons is talking about is the trend of major corporations to move their headquarters from the US to another country. The object of transferring basic residence is to reduce corporate taxes. It would not be possible to eliminate corporate taxes contrary to what Sen. Coons implies. The average corporate tax rate for the US is 35%. The average corporate tax rate for all of the countries of the world is 20%.
Sen. Coons goes on to say that the corporate moves to reduce taxes is un-American. "They are not following their duty as Americans, as folks to contribute to carrying their costs of the burdens of our country."
Baloney! First of all, the "burdens of our country" are arbitrarily shouldered by taxpayers from an irresponsible freespending Congress with the Democrats, such as Sen. Coons, being most irresponsible. Presumably, Sen. Coons wants corporations to kick in more money to the IRS, so that he and his Democratic associates will have more to fritter away, including buying votes.
Secondly, and I have discussed this previously, international corporations do business throughout the world. They have responsibility to customers and stockholders in every country where the products are sold and stockholders exist. That should be reason enough not to pay higher taxes in the US for some kind of unrealistic allegiance.
To get on to the specifics, I am a minor stockholder in various corporations that do international business. My corporations pay corporate taxes, whether 35% US or 20% foreign, which is the first bite of the apple. This reduces availability of profit to pay me dividends, on which the IRS will take the second bite of the apple. Double taxation is unjust. It is equivalent to double jeopardy in a court of law.
I am a citizen of the US and reluctantly pay taxes on my corporate dividends, but when those dividends are significantly reduced by the IRS having taken the first bite of the apple before it gets to me, I am significantly annoyed.
My word to Sen. Coons is, "Do not castigate my Corporation. Even if it pays corporate taxes overseas instead of to the IRS, you are still hitting me for taxation on dividends. If you want to maintain corporate tax revenue, in addition to taxing my dividends, get your corporate tax rate in line with the rest of the world. It will still be a bad deal for us stockholders, who have retirement incomes from 401(k)s and various pension funds".

Avoiding National Wars

Very seldom do I agree with the programs of Pres. Obama. However, the Washington Times reports that "Obama [is] ‘determined’ to avoid prolonged military action in Iraq", and I agree completely.
The reason I agrees is that the nature of war has changed. In the Middle Ages, wars of aggression were started by nations with financial advantages primarily in mind. If an enemy country was defeated by the war, all of the assets reverted to the winner. This included natural resources, gold and silver in the national treasury, and taxes from the defeated inhabitants. Even from the defeated party point of view, there are now advantages to having been defeated.
The primary change occurred with World War II. Japan, Germany, and Italy initiated the war from the previous traditional viewpoint. Great Britain, US, and other allies also defended their position from the previous traditional viewpoint. That is, they were attacked and needed to retaliate to avoid being taken advantage of as losers. However, the defendants prevailed militarily and the change came about with the defenders actually spending there money to rebuild infrastructures of the defeated enemy. Historically this was known as the Marshall Plan.
Subsequent wars, in which the US wise engaged, were the Korean War, Vietnam War And the Iraq War. All these wars were four on the same new basis. That is, they were fought with no potential spoils in mind. They were not being fought from a defensive position. Rather, they were ideological wars involving a US inflated ego of believing that it was the US's God-given right to protect other people of the world from political and military action contrary to the ideology of the US. History shows that the US attitude was not sufficiently strong to carry through with success, and all those world wars were lost. Since they were lost and the US never had intention of obtaining spoils, a great burden of financial loss to conduct those wars fell upon the US populace.
With respect to current conditions, I don't believe that Pres. Obama has any real concern about additional wall costs to the US populace. In fact, I don't know what he believes, but he is appearing to stay out of the ridiculous wars in which we have been involved in the recent past. From Obama's point of view, the idea of nationbuilding, such as was our intention in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be out. This leaves only the necessity of defending ourselves against aggression. That aggression now exists not in the form of a country such as Germany or Japan, but rather a subset of militants within various countries. The best way we can protect ourselves is by use of high technology to control the so-called jihadists at the source. Pres. Obama appears to be doing that.
In addition , Pres. Obama is demonstrating some compassion for underprivileged persecuted minorities in various countries of the Middle East; particularly Iraq, by some strategic bombing. I am not a person of particularly high compassion. My attitude is generally that the underprivileged have usually brought themselves to negative conditions, primarily through their own efforts of negligence, or lack of foresight and desire to defend themselves. However, I will not fault Pres. Obama for his show of compassion, which is consistent with normal American attitudes. However, compassion can be abused, and we must guard against that abuse to avoid our own self-destruction.

State Department Efforts to Mute Congressional Interrogations

The Washington Times reports that State Department officials have approved a contract worth up to $545,000 to help train themselves for how to brief lawmakers and to testify at hearings. The contract with Orlando, Florida-based AMTIS, Inc. includes classes entitled “Communicating with Congress: Briefing and Testifying” and pays for one-on-one sessions to hold a mock hearing with questioners playing the role of lawmakers asking hard questions of the would-be witnesses.
In commenting on this, Leslie Paige, spokeswoman for Citizens Against Government Waste said it best. She said that if officials were doing their jobs correctly, such training would not be needed. All they have to do is sit there at a microphone, read their testimony and answer questions truthfully, honestly and thoroughly and explain to the American people what they’re doing.
Half a million dollars, as an expense item, is not a lot of money in the way Congress thinks on having developed a national debt of $17 trillion, but it is another waste, with intention to deceive. If this were a court trial with the State Department as defendant, it might be justified to spend a half $1 million on a good lawyer. However, that is not the case. Congress is only asking State Department officials to describe their actions as witnesses.
The House of Representatives and Senate approved legislation to establish a Department of Foreign Affairs on July 21, 1789, and President Washington signed it into law on July 27. In September 1789, additional legislation changed the name of the agency to the Department of State.
Since Congress set up the State Department, Congressional members have every right to question State Department officials on any aspect of the business, in order to determine whether the State Department is properly doing its job, as intended by the original Congressional legislation. It is also a felony for any individual, including State Department employees, to lie to Congress.
Training State Department officials on how they can best handle congressional questions in their favor without lying, will be a typical deceptive maneuver. However, it will be up to the Congressional interrogators, many of whom are lawyers, to tack down the witnesses to specific answers to specific questions to get at the facts, or force the witnesses to take the Fifth Amendment.

Maxine's Birdfeeder

Open Email to House Representatives and Senators:

Dear Representatives and Senators,
       I am sending you below a parody concerning Maxine's birdfeeder. I have eliminated the cartoon in the interest of better presenting the text. 

       As you may know, Maxine is a fictitious older woman with an unusual sense of wisdom. Here's what she had to say about a birdfeeder.
      "I bought a bird feeder.  I hung it

on my back porch and filled it

with seed. What a beauty of
a bird feeder it was, as I filled it

lovingly with seed.

Within a week we had hundreds of birds
taking advantage of the
continuous flow of free and
easily accessible food.

But then the birds started
building nests in the boards
of the patio, above the table,
and next to the barbecue. 

Then came the poop. It was
everywhere: on the patio tile,
the chairs, the table .
everywhere!

Then some of the birds
turned mean. They would
dive bomb me and try to
peck me even though I had
fed them out of my own
pocket.

And others birds were
boisterous and loud. They
sat on the feeder and
squawked and screamed at
all hours of the day and night
and demanded that I fill it
when it got low on food.

After a while, I couldn't even
sit on my own back porch
anymore.. So I took down the
bird feeder and in three days
the birds were gone. I cleaned
up their mess and took down
the many nests they had built
all over the patio.

Soon, the back yard was like
it used to be ...... quiet, serene....
and no one demanding their
rights to a free meal.

Now let's see......
Our government gives out
free food, subsidized housing,
free medical care and free
education, and allows anyone
born here to be an automatic
citizen.

Then the illegal's came by the
tens of thousands. Suddenly
our taxes went up to pay for
free services; small apartments
are housing 5 families; you
have to wait 6 hours to be seen
by an emergency room doctor;
Your child's second grade class is
behind other schools because
over half the class doesn't speak
English.

Corn Flakes now come in a
bilingual box; I have to
'press one ' to hear my bank
talk to me in English, and
people waving flags other
than ”ours” are
squawking and screaming
in the streets, demanding
more rights and free liberties.

Just my opinion, but maybe
it's time for the government
to take down the bird feeder."

House Bill on Illegal Immigrant Children

Open email to TX Rep. Michael McCaul:

Dear Rep. McCaul,
I have received your latest newsletter and viewed your video clip on your interview with Fox News.
Congratulations! You are absolutely on target, with respect to illegal children immigrants at our southern border.
In a previous essay, I criticized you for a Marxist philosophy on four points in your previous newsletter. I will still hold to that opinion, until such time as you make corrections on those individual items. Meanwhile, your addressing the illegal children at our southern border as a new item, is completely on target.
The House bill to return illegal immigrant children to the custody of their parents is obviously the most humane approach. Parents can provide the love and affection needed for children, even if their opportunities for advancement and physical sustenance are somewhat diminished. It is up to the foreign parents to change the conditions within their countries to provide better lives for their children, rather then dump them off as burdens to US taxpayers.
The amount of money specified by the house for the operation of returning children to their homelands seems appropriate. Conversely, the much higher Senate amount is inconsistent with the requirements. It is apparently loaded with pork. Since the majority of the Senate is freespending Democrats, that is no surprise. We all strongly look forward to a hopeful change in the Senate composition in the forthcoming November election.
However, with conditions as they are and until a possible change occurs in November, your bill will go nowhere. Harry Reid will will have the Senate pigeonhole it. That will leave the situation unchanged, in which Pres. Obama will use executive action to continue to disperse illegal immigrant children around the country, without any advice to governors and local officials.
The only advantage I can see for your bill is that it calls attention to the general public on how the situation should be handled. To capitalize on that, the House needs to propagandize its position. You have started to do that with your interview with Fox news. Good job!

and Carson for President?

The Washington Times says that Ben Carson has his hat in hand ready to throw into the ring of presidential contenders for 2016.
I like Ben Carson. He is personable, believable, and stands for the same things in government that I do. However, it is too early for me to support him.
I have to be convinced that the candidate I support for President in 2014 has a good chance of beating Hillary Clinton or anyone else the Democrats may put up. I want to be completely pragmatic about this. My primary consideration is winning. I am even willing to concede some aspects of my beliefs in order to get most of the points I consider important into a new government.
Let's see how Ben Carson relates to the potential voters in the next two years. The presidential election is not based on issues. It is really a popularity contest. Will Ben Carson be able to develop popular support? We will see.

President Obama Uses Taxpayer Money for Democratic Fund-Raising

Pres. Obama uses Air Force One to make political fund-raising trips. The fundraising is from wealthy Democrats donating money to support reelection of Democrats mostly in Congress.
Pres. Obama also includes a government justifiable visit on each trip, so that the cost of Air Force One operation is not judged a political expense but rather a government operational expense. The cost of operating Air Force One is estimated at about $260,000 an hour, which is up from the $180,000 estimated in 2012.
The time of each trip is variable, but one trip to Florida and back cost about $700,000 in Air Force One flight time. Another three-day swing for eight fundraisers cost 2.1 million or about $300,000 per fundraiser. On average, let's say that a fundraiser trip cost $500,000.
After this latest West Coast swing, Obama will have done 77 fundraising events across the country through July of this year. At the same rate, he will have completed 132 fund-raising trips for the full year. At half $1 million per trip, total fundraising costs for operation of Air Force One for political purposes will be $66 million
However, the President or his campaign reimburses the government for a portion of the Air Force One operation cost. They pay an amount that is based on the number of people on board Air Force One at a rate consistent with commercial affairs, which is small. Let's say the reimbursement is $6 million. That still leaves taxpayers picking up a $60 million Air Force One operating cost for Pres. Obama's fundraising trips to gather money for reelection of Democrats.
I don't know about you, but I am strongly opposed to President Obama using any of my money to reelect Democrats, who I consider a major enemy of the United States through their efforts to convert the US to a Marxist culture.

Federal Income Tax

Open Email to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz:

Dear Santa Cruz,
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont castigated American companies in international business from not paying corporate US taxes. I subsequently advised Sen. Sanders of facts concerning US corporate income taxes, suggesting that he had no basis for complaint unless he wished to take a Marxist attitude on the subject, which he appears to have done. I also suggested that he should get his corporate tax rate in line with the rest of the world at worst and eliminate double taxation of corporations and stockholders at best. I sent you a copy of my essay.
You replied with a general mailing saying that we need general tax reform and referred to your cosponsorship of Senate Bill S.122, also known as the Fair Tax Act of 2013. You did not supply any details, but I looked them up.
The bill was introduced to the Senate on January 23, 2013. It was also assigned to a congressional committee on the same date. The congressional committee will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole.
The bill is intended to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States. As you see, it has remained in committee for more than a year and a half. The general consensus is that it has 0% chance of getting past the committee and 0% chance of being enacted.
I have two suggestions to make.
Stop wasting your time on developing bills which have a 0% chance of going anywhere. In essence, you are taking too big a bite. Confine your efforts to smaller actions of the whole, which have a chance of being enacted. In the case under consideration, I am suggesting that a reduction in corporate income tax, to be consistent with corporate income tax on a global level, might have a chance of passage. It would be less likely that elimination of corporate income tax would be possible, but if that is judged a possibility, include that in the discussions.
My second suggestion is that you advise your staff not to send out general mailings in response to specific situations, which are only remotely related. It creates a bad impression of attention and understanding on your part.