Posted on 12/29/2004 5:03:43 PM PST by FairOpinion
Here's a simple proposal that would capture the world's attention, and which a majority of Americans would almost certainly support. President Bush should announce that because of the colossal losses suffered by millions of people in Southeast Asia and East Africa, he will make an exception to his promise not to raise taxes. Bush should propose a Tsunami Disaster Relief Surtax for 2004 and 2005, with very simple components that everyone can understand.
Since Americans, like others, are now experiencing both deep compassion for the surviving family members of the Tsunami's victims and a sense of impotence at the sheer magnitude of the calamity, it is unlikely that there would be much opposition to such a proposal -- especially if it contains an invitation to the other developed nations to provide similar funds. I believe that Americans would overwhelmingly embrace the proposal.
So -- where is the imagination in our national leadership?
----
PNS contributor Robert S. Rivkin is a San Francisco lawyer who has trained foreign judges and prosecutors on human rights and rule of law issues for international development projects.
I won't donate any money to an organization unless they promise NOT to go through the UN. Wouldn't trust a stack of Monopoly money with Annan and his Gang of Thieves.
Mr. Rivkin, if you want government to have more of your money, all you need to do is write out a check for any amount of your money you want it to have, make the check payable to the "U.S. Treasury" and mail it to the IRS. Nobody will stop you, and the IRS will take it.
***...so that we, Democrats, can beat him politically to a pulp just like we did to his dad after George Mitchell bamboozled him into raising taxes (read my lips).***
Absolutely right, Winner. But I think W learned from his Dad's mistake. NO NEW TAXES.
Anyway, Pres. Bush announced this morning that he's formed a coalition with India, Japan and Australia to send money to the victims of the tsunami. SMART MOVE, PRES. That money will not go through the U.N. Maybe they'll learn to stop bad mouthing us and calling us cheap when they see that this preisdent is not Clinton.
Some tings government must never be allowed to do: administer coerced charity, among others. It is now hidden and beyond the reach of the average American to understand.
Some people simply refuse to accept that charity is a profoundly personal virtue. Personal. When it ceases to be a personal choice it is no longer charity by any stretch of its definition.
In 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees. Someone stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James madison
They better quit calling Americans "stingy" -- some people might just take it personal and close up their wallets.
Americans don't like to be "forced" to give.
We certainly don't need any more taxes. People will give according to how their hearts freely want to give. And the U.S. government will surely give its generous amount.
Some people (and nations) will use any event to criticize the U.S. I say we ignore them all.
No, Mr. Lefty Lawyer, the right thing to do, if do you must, is to reduce taxes so that American citizens have more discretionary income to contribute to charities and to generate yet more income. Contributions do not require government assistance. This morning, for example, my wife and I decided to make a contribution to a charity we like in Asia and it took us less than two minutes to do so.
I actually can name a temorary tax that was temporary.
In my city, they raised the city sales tax .25 in order to build The Ballpark in Arlington, where the Texas Rangers play. A couple of years ago, when the ballpark was paid for, they rolled back the tax hike. I was astonished and pleased.
In a week, the tax is going back up .25, because we are going to build the new stadium for the Dallas Cowboys. I am sure if the promise hadn't been kept regarding the ballpark, the voters would not have voted to fund part of the stadium.
However, that is local----would never, ever count on a "temporary" national tax.
"Wouldn't trust a stack of Monopoly money with Annan and his Gang of Thieves."
That's why, very wisely, Bush set up a separate coalition, having nothing to do with the UN, for the relief effort.
Bush forms coalition to coordinate [earthquake] relief efforts; promises long-term help
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1310493/posts
Wow... figures that a true temporary tax would be from TEXAS. :-)
And NO aid to ANY Muslim areas.
Our national leadership has a hell of a lot more respect for its citizens than this pretentious yahoo.
Our national leadership doesn't have to imagine the fact that we are the most generous and giving people on the face of the earth and we'll give voluntarily of our own money to the aid agencies of our choosing.
This character can have a heaping helping of ST*U.
(I am totally ticked about the tack the left and media have taken almost immediately here, so I beg indulgence for my strong language)
A Barf Alert would have been appropriate.
You can say that again.
Keep one thing in mind: the democrats can't win unless W loses. Therefore, they will do everything in their power to bring him down anyway they can.
Yeah, I know he can't run again, but his party can. So if they destroy W, they weaken the party and have a chance to win.
Iraq, dead American heroes, tsunamis, it doesn't matter to them. The game is: get Bush!
You are right and the Dems are so stupid that they don't realize (or the don't care, which is worse), that while they are yelling how Bush is being SO insensitive to the victims of the the disaster, THEY are the ones that are using the deaths of 100,000 people (a lot of which are children) to once again bash Bush and try to make themselves look righteous. SICK, SICK, SICK, I say!!!!
And no situation too horrific for the liberals to abuse it for their political desires. A funeral turned political rally comes to mind as a recent example prior to this abuse.
This is what passes as "moral" on the left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.