How Could I Live Without Filing Taxes?

Radio stations are welcome to play it on air royalty-free.

Send this link to a radio station near you and ask them to play it.

List of radio stations that have played How Could I Live Without Filing Taxes?

Lyric

No related posts.

These are some of the findings of a new report from the Government Accounting Office which uncovers massive redundancy in the federal government.

Congress needs to tell the legions of Special Interests knocking on their doors for favors everyday that duplicate federal agencies will not be tolerated. Struggling taxpayers, workers and businesses need that money.

“You may have just one lollipop. Not 15. Not 20. Not 80. Just one.”

We want one-stop shopping. No more than one government program or agency per objective.

But this is just the first step. We still need to examine the one agency that remains for redundancy and waste.

We also must determine whether government belongs in this area at all. 99% of all problems are worse served by government than by the marketplace, charities, churches, social groups, family and friends.

Congressmen and women, especially those who call themselves Tea Party Supporters:

1. Immediately defund every redundant agency and program. Leave no more than one in any area of government.
2. Reduce and remove redundancy and the money spent for it. Do not “consolidate” overstaffing and overspending under one bigger roof.
3. Cut TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Don’t blow the freed up money on something else.
4. To be sure the savings move out of government coffers, cut taxes or reduce deficit spending by the same amount. If you eliminate $200 billion in redundant spending, then cut total federal spending or taxes by $200 billion.

End the grab for handfuls of lollipops. This is the first step towards fiscal sanity.

###

Carla Howell talks about federal government redundancies on WRKO with host Barry Armstrong: http://audio.wrko.com/a/37329573/carla-howell-on-wasteful-government-spending.htm

Wall Street Journal March 1, 2011: Billions in Bloat Uncovered in Beltway

No related posts.

They’re easy targets. Jim Rooney, who oversees the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority, makes $276,000. Outgoing Massport manager, Thomas Kinton, makes $295,000 – and will pocket a cool $495,000 payout for unused sick time. Coming right out of the hide of taxpayers.

This column asks rhetorically, “Who thinks the head of the airport should make twice as much as the governor? ”

But that’s the WRONG question.

Similarly, it is wrong to compare salaries of heads of state bureaucracies with the salaries of heads of other states’ bureaucracies. Neither is competitive. Or as Michael Cloud likes to say, comparing governments is like looking for the soberest drunk in a bar.

It makes even less sense to compare an agency head’s salary with that of a governor, who spends millions to get elected. They pay dearly for the privilege of enacting laws and indulging of the many perks of being a powerful politician.

Rather, the questions should be:

1. What is the job of running an airport or a convention center worth? If you posted it on Craig’s List for $80,000 (don’t even include the usual lavish government employee benefits), would plenty of qualified people step forward happy to take the job? There’s a lot of very skilled managers looking for work right now.

What usually “qualifies” a person for a politically-appointed job is their allegiance to the political powers-that-be.

But managing airports, convention centers and parking lots should be based only on relevant management skills that would be needed to do these jobs in the PRIVATE sector.

2. Should the salary actually be $0? That is to say, should the job – or the agency – even exist?

What on earth is the state doing in the business of building convention centers anyway? Especially since its track record for building them at a reasonable cost and turning a profit is abysmal. (Pioneer Institute published a good analysis on this topic.)

Try this: Sell off all state-owned convention centers, get the state out of the business, and let the marketplace decide what the job is worth – or if the property should be sold off for another use.

There’s a long list of state-owned properties, especially in Boston, that should be sold – along with their unnecessary, overpriced and ineffective bureaucracies. Let the free market determine where money should go and where jobs should be created (at market prices, not inflated prices).

As with any spending cut, the saving should be realized by the taxpayer alone – not horded in state coffers. Proceeds from the sale of assets should be used to pay off existing government debt, thus reducing debt payments. Total government spending should be reduced by both (a) the amount saved in debt payments and (2) the agency’s operating costs – with commensurate cuts in broad-based taxes.

If we don’t cut total government spending and total tax revenues, politicians will merely gobble up the savings and spend them on other Big Government boondoggles – and we will make no headway whatsoever.

No related posts.

Now that he’s running for president, let’s compare his words with his deeds.

Taxes

Romney claims to be anti-tax. He even “took” a “no new taxes” pledge when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002. “Took” is in quotes because he refused to sign that pledge. His signature wasn’t necessary, he claimed. He assured us that he’s a man of his word.

But Mitt Romney has been a champion of new taxes.

Mitt Romney proposed three new taxes while campaigning for governor: a new tax on vehicles, a new tax on campaign donations, and a new tax on building construction. They didn’t get much fanfare in the media and were quickly forgotten.

Right before the 2002 election, he ran millions of dollars in ads portraying himself as a “no new taxes” governor. The media refused to set the record straight.

But that was only the beginning.

Each of the four years Romney served as governor, he raised taxes – while pretending he didn’t. He claims he only raised mandatory government “fees.” But government mandatory fees are nothing but taxes, and taxes are nothing but mandatory government fees. Romney’s new tax-fees raised hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax revenue for the state government every year.

In addition to:

• scores of new tax-fees,

Mitt Romney also increased several other taxes by:

• “closing loopholes” to enable collection of a new Internet sales tax
• passing legislation that enables local governments to raise Business Property Taxes
• enacting a new tax penalty that raises Income Taxes on both individuals and small businesses.

This, he claims, is not raising taxes.

I suppose you could say Romney merely enacted bills that force taxpayers to hand over billions of dollars – which end up in the coffers of the government.

Quacks like a tax increase?

In 2008, Romney boasted that he was the first presidential candidate to sign a “taxpayer protection pledge,” in which he promised to oppose “any and all efforts” to increase income taxes on people or businesses.

So he’ll call his tax increases “government fees” or “closing loopholes” or “penalties” or something else. But if Romney is president, the IRS will collect this money from you, your family, your friends, and millions of Americans just like you.

Government Spending

Mitt Romney claims to have cut the Massachusetts budget by “$2 billion.” Sometimes he claims he cut it “$3 billion.” The media gives him free advertising by parroting this myth repeatedly. They repeat it so often that even many fiscal conservatives and libertarians assume it must be true.

But these “cuts” were merely budget games. Spending cuts in one area were simply moved into another area of the budget.

In fact, not only did Mitt Romney refuse to cut the overall Massachusetts budget, he expanded it. Dramatically.

The Massachusetts state budget was $22.7 billion a year when he took office in January of 2003.

When he left office four years later, it was over $25.7 billion – plus another $2.2 billion in spending that the legislature took “off budget.” (Romney never reminds us of this fact.)

The net effect of budgets proposed and signed into law by Mitt Romney? An additional $5.2 billion in state spending – and a similar increase in new taxes. Every year.

He claims to have done a good job as governor of liberal Massachusetts in light of the fact that it’s a “tough state” for poor “conservatives” like him. He infers his hands were tied by the predominantly Democratic legislature.

But when it comes to tax and spend policies, he’s not only in lockstep with the Democrats. He leads the way.

Each of the four years Romney served as governor, he started budget negotiations by proposing an increase of about $1 billion in new government spending. Before the legislature even named a budget figure.

Romney initiated massive new spending – without any prodding.

The legislature responded with a handful of line item budget increases. Romney agreed to some of them and vetoed others. The media helped him out again by making fanfare of his vetoes and portraying him as tough on spending – after he had already given away the store!

The Romney-Kennedy Alliance

But his grande finale was the worst of all: RomneyCare, Mitt Romney’s version of socialized medicine.

By his own admission, he didn’t plan his socialized medicine scheme until after the 2002 election.

During Romney’s governor campaign, he convinced voters that his Democrat rival would be worse – because she would saddle us with socialist tax-and-spend policies, he said.

But soon after he was elected, Romney started the drumbeat for socialized medicine. Three years later, he signed RomneyCare into law.

Voters of Massachusetts did not vote for RomneyCare. Mitt Romney foisted the granddaddy of Big Government expansions upon them without warning. He championed it from the beginning. Again, without any prodding from his Democrat rivals.

When Romney ran for U.S. Senate in 1994, his campaign popularized the derogatory term “Kennedy country” to describe the devastating effects of Ted Kennedy’s “liberal social programs” on poor neighborhoods in Massachusetts.

Yet Mitt Romney stood proudly with Ted Kennedy while he signed RomneyCare into law.

Ted Kennedy has pushed for socialized medicine for decades. Romney fulfilled his dream. Kennedy lobbied the legislature hard to get Romney’s bill passed. It was a Romney-Kennedy alliance.

Welcome to Massachusetts: Romney-Kennedy country.

Romney’s socialized medicine law mandates everyone who doesn’t have insurance to buy it – or suffer income tax penalties. Both individuals and small businesses face steep fines if they refuse to give up their freedom to make their own health care choices. There’s yet another “off budget” Mitt Romney tax increase.

Romney’s mandate will cost individual taxpayers many thousands of dollars every year in health insurance premiums for unwanted policies – or force them to pay sizable tax penalties.

The total cost of RomneyCare in mandates and new spending? At least several billion dollars every year – to start. It will rise from there, as socialized medicine programs are wont to do.

Romney’s law went into full effect in 2009. It’s harmful effects were not felt  until after the 2008 presidential election was over. Romney’s time-release tax increase.

Romney’s Words Versus Romney’s Deeds

Smart moms tell their kids, “Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.”

That advice saved me a lot of heartache. And it will do the same for Republicans who are leaning towards voting for Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential primary.

Candidate Romney campaigns for president with the words we’re aching to hear. Words we want to believe. Candidate Romney tells us that he is a:

• “fiscal conservative”
• “friend of small business”
• “tax cutter”
• “waste fighter”
• “opponent of runaway spending”
• “tough leader who vetoes new taxes and needless government spending”

Let’s follow Mom’s advice: ignore candidate Romney’s words. Look at elected Governor Romney’s deeds.

What does he do when he’s elected?

Mitt Romney hits up taxpayers with a variety of new taxes – while pretending he doesn’t.

Mitt Romney jacks up government spending as much as any Big Government Democrat would.

Mitt Romney champions massive Big Government Programs – that made Ted Kennedy proud.

###

Carla Howell sponsored the 2002 Massachusetts ballot initiative to End the State Income Tax – which Mitt Romney opposed. Her initiative nearly won with 45% of the vote. She ran two additional tax cut ballot initiatives (to end the income tax again in 2008 and to roll back the sales tax from 6.25% to 3% in 2010). She is Co-Founder and President of the Center For Small Government.

No related posts.

Third Open Letter to the 242 Republicans

in the U.S. House of Representatives

From Michael Cloud and Carla Howell

The Center For Small Government

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Honorable Republican Representatives,

With your new 242-member majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, you now have the full authority and power to Veto all Federal over-spending and to quickly balance the federal budget.

From this day forward, no federal spending, no federal over-spending, no federal deficit spending can take place without your consent. Not one dime of federal spending can happen without your authorization.

Unlike President Obama’s Veto, your Congressional Veto cannot be overridden.

President Obama cannot stop you. The U.S. Senate cannot block you. Nor can the Democratic Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

It’s all in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

To pass a federal budget, you need a majority vote of the House, the Senate, and the signature of the President of the United States.

If the President disapproves of a budget, he can Veto it. But there are two ways you can pass a budget after a president has exercised the veto.

The House and Senate can change the budget to what the President asks or reach a compromise with him, get a majority in the House and Senate, and send it to the President for his signature.

OR: the House and Senate can each get a 2/3 vote for the budget, and override the President’s Veto.

But what if you 242 Republican Representatives want to block a federal budget that’s too high? Or has a deficit too high? What does it take for you to Veto a federal budget?

Simply cast your 242 votes for your House budget – say $3.1 Trillion – and vote against any budget over that level. Your 242 votes limit the budget to $3.1 Trillion – and Veto additional federal spending.

Re-think what the word “veto” means. It’s Latin for “I Forbid.” It’s the power to unilaterally stop a piece of legislation. With your Republican majority in the House of Representatives, you have the authority and power to forbid higher spending. To Veto it.

Here’s exactly how you can exercise your Veto.

Federal spending this year (fiscal year 2011, ending this September 30th) is $3.8 Trillion. Estimated federal revenue is $2.6 Trillion. This year’s deficit is on track for a staggering $1.2 Trillion.

Right now, you’re coming up with a federal budget for the last 7 months of FY 2011. For the first 5 months, the last Congress authorized a “continuing resolution” to spend at a yearly rate of $3.8 Trillion.

Suppose you 242 Republicans pass a federal budget for the next 7 months at a rate equal to that of President Bush’s FY 2008 federal spending: $3.1 Trillion.

$3.1 Trillion was one year’s federal spending just 29 months ago.

Nobody called the FY 2008 Bush budget “an austerity budget.” Nobody screamed that it would cause people to starve or be thrown out of their homes or forced to stand in bread lines. No one claimed the $3.1 Trillion Bush budget was so low that it would cause economic collapse or drive up unemployment.

Most Americans thought the $3.1 Trillion Bush budget was way too high.

Rolling back the current budget from $3.8 Trillion to a $3.1 Trillion-per-year rate of spending would have knocked $700 Billion off the deficit for the current year – if it were passed and put into effect last September. But because the fiscal year is almost half over, reducing it on March 4th – when the continuing resolution expires – to a $3.1 Trillion-per-year spending rate will reduce the deficit by $413 Billion this year. This is a start. But it still leaves us with a federal deficit of $800 billion.

This September when you pass the FY 2012 budget, suppose you limit it to $3.1 Trillion again. Estimated federal revenue is $2.9 Trillion. This reduces the deficit to $200 Billion.

Then the following year (FY 2013), suppose you again hold the budget to $3.1 Trillion. Estimated federal revenue is $3.1 Trillion. This balances the federal budget. During your first term in office. 35 days before the 2012 Elections. Just in time for a landslide victory.

How do you Veto all spending above your $3.1 Trillion budget?

Easy. Pass your $3.1 Trillion budget in the House. Send it to the Senate.

They’ll wail and moan and gnash their teeth. They’ll make pompous speeches.

Then they’ll send you back their proposed budget of $3.7 Trillion or more – at least $600 billion higher than your budget. .

House leaders will conference with Harry Reid and Senate leaders to try to hammer out an agreement.

Speaker Boehner and Representatives Ryan, Cantor, and McCarthy will probably speak for you, the 242 Republican members of the House.

All they have to say is this: “We 242 Republicans were elected to put the federal government – and America – on a sound financial footing. We have approved a first year budget of $3.1 trillion. We are willing to consider all revenue neutral proposals you have to offer. We’re willing to consider substitutions for our spending. If you want to replace our $50 billion expenditure with your $50 billion expenditure, we will discuss it with you. Negotiate with you. But we will not agree to add even a dollar to our spending. Our $3.1 Trillion House budget is our spending limit, our spending ceiling.”

You do not need to argue with the U.S. Senators. You do not need to appease them or make spending concessions.

Sit tight. They have no power over you. All you have to do is hold fast to your vote for a $3.1 Trillion federal budget limit.

You are giving the U.S. Senate 100% of the 2008 Bush budget and spending.

Neither the U.S. Senate, nor the President of the United States can override your Veto of spending more than $3.1 Trillion – or any frugal budget ceiling you 242 House Republicans decide.

You have the authority and power to roll back and limit federal government spending for the year to $3.1 Trillion.

You have a 242-member House Republican Veto.

Use it.

On behalf of over 10 million Tea Party activists, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, common sense independents and revitalized Republicans who voted you into office last November, we request that you boldly roll back federal spending as we suggest – and Veto any and all spending above it.

Reducing Federal Spending Is Possible,

No related posts.

Second Open Letter to the 242 Republicans

in the U.S. House of Representatives

From Michael Cloud and Carla Howell

The Center For Small Government

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Honorable Republican Representatives,

Last year, you campaigned against President Obama’s reckless, irresponsible, ’socialist’ budget of $3.8 Trillion.

You promised voters to roll back federal spending. To reduce the deficit. To get the federal government on the path to solvency and fiscal sanity.

We elected you to do just that.

What are you giving us? A federal budget of $3.7 Trillion. A $1.2 Trillion Deficit – which increases the national debt to over $15.3 Trillion.

Speaker John Boehner is working on a Republican budget that will reduce total federal spending this year to $3.74 Trillion.

The Conservative Republican Study Committee Representatives are calling for a budget that will reduce total federal spending to $3.7 Trillion.

Your ‘frugal, budget-cutting, conservative’ reforms cut federal spending between 1.7% and 2.6%*. That’s it? That’s your idea of serious budget cuts?

Obama’s $3.8 Trillion in federal spending is ’socialist’, but your $3.7 Trillion federal budget is conservative?

The Tea Party Test: How much is your federal budget? Write that number next to last year’s total federal government spending of $3.8 Trillion. If it’s not a lot lower, you fail.

Cutting a mere $38 Billion from last year’s budget is only a 1% reduction. Chump change.

You need to make spending cuts for this year’s budget in multiples of $38 billion – not fractions of $38 billion.

This is the political Honeymoon for your 242 member Republican Majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

This is your time of maximum goodwill and the strongest support from those who elected you.

This year, give us a first Republican budget that’s 5% to 15% lower than last year’s federal spending.

Next year, make your second Republican House budget another 5% to 15% lower.

Two steps toward balancing the federal budget.

Two steps toward keeping faith with Tea Party supporters and sympathizers, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and independents. Toward attracting more like-minded supporters – and voters for 2012.

Two steps that just might jump start the American economy, revitalize small businesses, and trigger a 2012 hiring boom.

Much Lower Federal Spending Is Possible,

Carla Howell and Michael Cloud
Publishers, Small Government News
Center For Small Government
Sponsors of Massachusetts Ballot Initiatives:
2010: Roll Back the Sales Tax to 3% ( RollBackTaxes.com)
2008 and 2002: End the State Income Tax ( SmallGovernmentAct.org)

No related posts.

The Center For Small Government

Honorable Republican Representatives,

On behalf of roughly 45 million Americans who voted for you in the November 2nd Elections,

On behalf of the more than 10 million Tea Party Supporters and Sympathizers among them…whose votes gave you victory,

For the purposes of federal government and state government fiscal responsibility, solvency, and financial common sense,

We request that all 242 Republican Members of the U.S. House of Representatives pledge to actively oppose and vote against all federal government bailouts for state governments or local governments.

No Funding bailouts for state or local governments.

No Loans for state or local governments.

No Loan Guarantees for state or local governments.

No cash. No loans. No loan guarantees. No co-signing.

Not for California. Not for Massachusetts. Not for Illinois. Not for New York. Not for any state or local government.

They must live within their own means. They must reduce and remove fat and non-essential spending from their budgets. They must seek and find ways to accomplish their essential duties – with lower overhead and less money.

Just like private sector businesses.

You must not enable them to continue their reckless and irresponsible spending.

You must not enable state and local governments to postpone the day of financial reckoning.

They have behaved like spending junkies, like money drunks. Now they face detox. Some are begging for ‘just one more’ drink, ‘just one last dose’ of narcotics. Tomorrow they’ll get clean and sober…

That’s the addiction talking. Ignore it.

Once state and local officials realize that you will not bail them out, they will solve their own spending problems.

Once they come to terms with economic reality, they will seek and find cheaper, better, smarter ways to do their government’s essential tasks.

They will become more responsible and accountable stewards of government.

Because almost all of you 242 Republican Members of the U.S. House of Representatives ran campaigns promising to roll back federal overspending, to exercise fiscal restraint, and to end federal bailouts, we ask you to notify state governments and local governments that you will vote against bailing them out.

Together, your 242 Republican U.S. House votes against bailing out state and local governments give you a “Veto.”

Promising to exercise this Republican “Veto” – and using it, if the Senate or White House demands bailouts for state or local governments – will show Tea Party supporters, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and independents that you keep your campaign pledges.

This may create momentum for your proposed federal spending cuts.

It may create momentum for 2012 Republican candidates for the U.S. House and Senate who promise to substantially cut federal government spending, borrowing, and taxing.

Perhaps even a like-minded Republican candidate for President.

It starts with you. Now.

Will you make this pledge?

We eagerly await hearing about and publicizing your No Bailouts Pledge. It will be a beacon of hope during these crucial months of budget negotiations.

Small government is beautiful,

No related posts.

Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein shaped his political thinking. The 1964 Goldwater for President campaign whetted his appetite for bold and principled politics.

But David Nolan shaped his own political destiny in the early 1970’s.

January, 1971: ‘The Individualist’ Magazine published David Nolan’s ‘beyond only left and right’ essay and 2-dimensional political map – later called ‘the Nolan Chart’ – which was later developed into “the world’s smallest political quiz.”

August, 1971: Republican President Richard Nixon imposed wage-price controls on America AND David Nolan published his provocative essay: “The Case for a Libertarian Political Party” in ‘The Individualist’ Magazine.

August-November 1971: David Nolan telephoned and wrote hundreds of libertarians, making his case for a Libertarian Party, and asking them to join him in founding it.

December 11, 1971: Several dozen libertarians met in David Nolan’s living room to found and launch the Libertarian Party.

Since that fateful year, David Nolan has worked to grow the libertarian movement and Libertarian Party — and increase their impact on American politics and economics.

“I first met David Nolan more than 33 years ago,” said Michael Cloud. “Because we both chose the path of libertarian activism, our lives and projects crossed repeatedly. Again and again, he demonstrated that he was a man of libertarian principle, practice, and possibility. David Nolan was indispensable to the creation and growth of today’s libertarian movement.”

No related posts.

In a typical election year, there are state and local ballot initiatives across America, many of which aim to increase taxes and government debt (often dubbed “school bonds”). Or to increase government spending.

If you think government spending and taxes are too high, you probably vote against these campaigns for more Big Government.

We celebrate when we defeat them. “Holding the line” on taxes IS better than losing ground. Avoiding a loss IS better than suffering a loss.

And yet…
The states and local communities where tax increases go down are no better off after the vote than they were before the vote.

They still have the same Big Government and high taxes they had before the vote. They just don’t have even bigger government or higher taxes.

“No new taxes” is only enough to keep Big Government from getting bigger.

Or is it enough?

Government grows faster than the private sector – in good times and in bad. When there’s a severe contraction, Big Government Special Interests hang onto every dime they possibly can by raising taxes, borrowing and dipping into reserve funds. When the economy’s booming, big government grows even faster.

“No new taxes” slows the growth of Big Government. But it can’t even hold the line on growth given the insatiable greed of those who work to maintain the size of government.

“Repealing, removing, reducing taxes” – and forcing lawmakers to cut government spending – is the only way to make government small. And small government is the only way to make taxes low and keep them low.

Lobbying occasionally works to stop the growth of Big Government, but it almost never causes Big Government to actually shrink. The only way to create even a possibility for reducing Big Government from its existing size is by campaigning – for candidates and for ballot initiatives – that propose specific, bold cuts in tax and government spending.

Huge tax cuts now. Huge spending cuts now. Boldly move toward small government.

Why?

So taxpayers can reap the big, immediate, direct benefits of tax cuts and repeals.

To cut taxes, cut spending and advance liberty, we must go on the offensive.

To cut taxes, cut spending and advance liberty, we must put the supporters of Big Government on the defensive.

We must keep them on the defensive. Make them expend their energies trying to “hold the line” by running ballot initiatives – and candidates for public office – on proposals to cut taxes, reduce government spending and scale back or eliminate Big Government programs.

Instead of tax cutters always fighting for “No new taxes,” let them try to rally their supporters around “No new tax CUTS.”

Pro-taxpayer candidates and supporters must relentlessly launch ballot initiatives and campaigns that shrink government. Again and again. Year after year. Until we win.

Until federal, state and local government is small and constitutionally restricted to defending our lives, liberty, and property.

We must make small government – shrinking today’s oversize government, high taxes, high spending, and needless government meddling – the #1 Priority in America.

This could be the start of something small.

Related posts:

1. Tax Limitation: A First Step, Not the Last One
2. The Forgotten Truth About the Original Boston Tea Party — and Why We Desperately Need it Today
3. Everything You Need To Know About Big Government, But Were Afraid To Ask
4. Big Government is Even Bigger Than You Think
5. 10 Critical Ingredients To Ignite Small Government Campaigns

“A vote for Ron Paul for President is a vote for Barack Obama,” said the 2008 Republican emails and robo-calls (against Ron Paul’s 2008 Republican Presidential Primary Campaign.)

“A vote for Joe Kennedy for U.S. Senate is a vote for Democrat Martha Coakley,” say the 2010 Republican emails and robo-calls (against Independent Tea Party Candidate Joe Kennedy’s Campaign for the vacant Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat. This Joe Kennedy is NO RELATION WHATSOEVER to the Kennedy clan. And his politics are the diametric opposite.)

Which 1992 Presidential vote had a bigger, longer-lasting, positive impact on America: a  vote for “Read My Lips, No New Taxes” George Bush (Sr.) OR a vote for Ross Perot?

Which 2008 Presidential vote will produce a bigger, longer-lasting, positive effect on America: a vote for small government Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul OR a vote for John McCain?

Which 2010 U.S. Senate Special Election vote will produce a bigger, longer-lasting positive effect on America: a vote for Big Government, high tax Republican Scott Brown OR a vote for small government Tea Party candidate Joe Kennedy?

Ross Perot’s 1992 Presidential Campaign demanded an END to deficit spending – and for fresh ideas, fresh faces in government. Results? It forced the Democrats and Republicans to give us almost 10 years of balanced budgets. It set in motion independent activists who gave us the 1994 Republican Revolution.

Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential Campaign attracted and mobilized hundreds of thousands of young Americans who understand and love the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution — seek to roll back and reduce today’s Big Government. In fact, many of these patriots helped build the Tea Party Movement. This is just the beginning.

Joe Kennedy’s 2010 small government Tea Party campaign for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts may well set in motion a positive, America-building avalanche this year – with an even bigger impact in 2012 and beyond.

Why will voting for Joe Kennedy for U.S. Senate this January 19th give your vote 100 times the impact of voting for Big Government Republican Scott Brown?

First, there are 435 U.S. Congressional seats PLUS 36 U.S. Senate seats up for Election this November 2nd.

If the Republican Establishment can manipulate Tea Party Protesters, Town Hall Meeting Activists, Tax Cutters, and small government voters in Massachusetts into voting for Big Government Republican Scott Brown this January 19th – then they will field and support more Big Government Scott Brown candidates for the 2010 Elections.

Only one thing can stop the Republican Establishment from filling the 2010 ballot with Big Government Republicans: your vote for Joe Kennedy. And ours. And those of 10,000 to 25,000 of our fellow small government, tax cutting, Tea Party voters.

Only one thing will push the Republican Establishment into fielding and supporting real small government candidates this year, in 2010: your vote for Joe Kennedy. And ours. And those of 10,000 to 25,000 pro-Constitution, small government voters.

What’s more, Tea Party Protesters and supporters all across America are watching this Special Election for U.S. Senate. The higher the vote total for Tea Party U.S. Senate Candidate Joe Kennedy, the better the odds that more Tea Party Protesters will throw their hats in the ring for U.S. Congress and U.S. Senate this year.  Your vote for Joe Kennedy may well inspire and activate thousands of Tea Party Movement members.

Have you read or heard the savage attacks, insults, arguments, fear tactics, false charges, half truths, and lies about Joe Kennedy?

Did you know that this is exactly what the Big Government Republican Establishment said about and did to Republican U.S. Congressman  Ron Paul when he ran for President in 2008?

Did you know that this is what the Big Government Republican Establishment did to Ross Perot when he ran for President in 1992?

Don’t let them get away with the con. Vote Joe Kennedy.

Ross Perot lost the 1992 Election, but the people who voted for him CAUSED the Democrats and Republicans to balance the federal budget for a decade.

Ross Perot’s 1992 voters precipitated the 1994 Republican Revolution.

Dr. Ron Paul lost the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination, but, paraphrasing  the words of Obe-Wan Kenobe to Darth Vader, “If you strike me down, my supporters and small government cause shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.” And that IS happening now.

Voting for Ron Paul for President was an INVESTMENT in the Constitution and small government that keeps paying off. A vote we will NEVER regret.

Joe Kennedy is the ONLY small government candidate running for this open U.S. Senate Seat.

Joe Kennedy is the ONLY candidate in this race who will vote for dramatically lower federal spending, lower taxes, and a smaller federal government than we have today. Who will vote against ALL government bailouts of businesses. Against ALL government stimulus packages. Against ALL unbalanced budgets.

Voting Joe Kennedy is the ONLY way you can get more tax cutting, spending cutting, small government candidates for the 434 Congressional districts which do NOT have their own Ron Paul. And for the 35 U.S. Senate Seats up for grabs which do NOT have their own Rand Paul.

Voting for Joe Kennedy may be the only way to prevent the unexpected betrayal: Republican ObamaCare.  Can’t believe it could happen? Look at
Scott Brown’s proud Massachusetts political love child: RomneyCare. Imagine U.S. Senator Scott Brown proudly taking it federal. ObamaRomaCare.

Your vote for Joe Kennedy may be the vote that makes the difference. Your vote may be the Tipping Point vote that sets in motion more and more Tea Party candidates, more and more Ron Paul candidates, more and more small government candidates.
For 2010. And for 2012.

To our fellow Tea Party Protesters, Town Hall Meeting activists, Tax Cutters, our fellow Ron Paul supporters, and all who are committed to small government:

We endorse Joe Kennedy for U.S. Senate this January 19th.

Join us and thousands of others – and vote Joe Kennedy for U.S. Senate(MA) this January 19th.

With your vote, small government is possible,

Carla Howell                                                                          Michael Cloud

Part 1 – WARNING to Tea Party Activists and Supporters, Town Hall Meeting Protesters, and Tax Cutters living in Massachusetts who are even considering voting for Scott Brown for US Senate January 19th

Part II – Warning to Tea Party Activists: Republicans Concede We’re Right About U.S. Senate Candidate Scott Brown’s Voting Record

Please send this to every Tea Party blog or web site, every Town Hall Meeting blog or web site, every tax cutter blog or web site, and please share it with your friends in Massachusetts. You may hold the fate of the Tea Party movement in your hands.

No related posts.