Posted on 05/12/2005 12:25:08 AM PDT by FairOpinion
WASHINGTON - A presidential commission looking into how to make income taxes fairer and simpler heard pitches Wednesday from experts with ideas about revamping or replacing the current system.
ADVERTISEMENT
The commission examined plans to base taxes on spending rather than income, which could mean a national sales tax or a European-style value-added tax.
As for transforming the income tax, the commission heard proposals for comprehensive change and minor tinkering.
"Not one person who we encountered as we traveled the country told us that our current tax system was good for America and that we should leave it alone," said the commission's chairman, former GOP. Sen. Connie Mack of Florida.
After hearing complaints about tax laws, the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform used this meeting to consider ways to replace the system.
Michael Graetz, a Yale Law School professor, offered an outline of how to meld income taxes with a value-added tax. That tax, used widely in Europe, imposes a levy on the increased value of a product at each stage of production.
Under his plan, consumers would see a 13 percent to 14 percent value-added tax appear on their purchases.
Individuals earning less than $50,000 and families making under $100,000 no longer would pay income taxes under such a plan. Those still paying income taxes would get a simplified system and a top tax rate of 25 percent.
"I am very skeptical that you can fix the income tax," Graetz said.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has told the commission that he supports some combination of income and consumption taxes as a catalyst for economic growth. Others have warned about the dangers of a poorly designed hybrid.
A consumption tax could take the form of a national retail sales tax, a potential replacement for income, estate and payroll taxes. Americans for Fair Taxation offered a plan setting a 23 percent sales tax on purchases, with exemptions for the poor.
An alternate plan, offered by David Burton of the Free Enterprise Fund, would reduce the rate to 8.4 percent for individuals by also levying the tax on businesses.
In the event the current income tax was retained, experts made the case for ways to promote savings and to simplify credits and deductions.
That could mean letting businesses immediately expense their investments and expanding individuals' ability to save money tax free.
"Why go searching for some new, magic elixir with unknown results?" said Ernest Christian, director of the Center for Strategic Tax Reform. He said the value-added tax was an "exotic import" at odds with the U.S. tax experience.
Others endorsed keeping the incentives for homeownership and charitable giving that President Bush wants preserved, while reducing the many other deductions and credits now available.
The commission, which expects to make final recommendations this summer, discussed options for a flat tax that eliminates deductions and credits, reduces income tax rates and erases taxes on investment income.
"There's not a human being alive today who knows what's in the code," said Steve Forbes, a one-time presidential contender who favors the flat tax.
Commission members asked about how the country could shift to such a tax, wanting to make sure the government got the revenue it needed during that transition.
Former Sen. John Breaux (news, bio, voting record), D-La., the commission's vice chairman, asked whether people could accept a system that taxes wages but not investment income. Others raised questions about eliminating the current system's progressive tax rates.
Former Rep. Dick Armey, R-Texas, said it is a "big job" to convince voters that the poor and wealthy could benefit from a flat tax.
"What's fair is to treat everybody exactly the same as everybody else," he said.
That's misleading to use inclusive rates! /sarcHow did you know they were inclusive? :-P
pigdog: In fact, even the IRS admits to something like a 20-25% revenue "shortfall" due to evasion for the present income tax.
Your Nightmare: It's more like 15-17%.
It should be noted IRS falls short of the true evasion of income taxes going on by a long shot.
from YN's link, http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=137246,00.html
Components of the Tax Gap
The tax gap can be divided into three components: nonfiling, underreporting and underpayment. Nonfiling occurs when taxpayers who are required to file a return do not do so on time. Underreporting of tax occurs when taxpayers either understate their income or overstate their deductions, exemptions and credits on timely filed returns. Underpayment occurs when taxpayers file their return but fail to remit the amount due by the payment due date.*** snip ***
The tax gap figure does not include taxes that should have been paid on income from the illegal sector of the economy.
The measurement of that IRS version of the tax gap leaves out one whale of a lot in the way of evasion as it only creates an estimate based on tax delinquency investigations, audit results and errors rates found in review of returns submitted. That IRS measure is substantially less than even the AGI gap reported by NIPA measures.
And the AGI gap does not address losses due to the under ground cash economy and illegal activites:
http://econwpa.wustl.edu:8089/eps/dev/papers/0312/0312003.pdf pages 18&19
Fiscal-NIPA discrepancies - Unreported income
In those nations that rely heavily on some form of income or consumption tax, it is possible to obtain estimates of unreported income by examining the discrepancy between income estimates derived from tax data sources (typically tax returns) and those derived from national income and product accounts (NIPA). In the U.S. the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) regularly calculates the discrepancy between actual adjusted gross income as reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and an independent estimate of adjusted gross income derived from NIPA based estimates of personal income. This "AGI gap" discrepancy measure represents a carefully constructed discrepancy measure that attempts to estimate unreported income. The AGI gap would be a conceptually approximate estimate of unreported income under the following conditions:1) personal income (PI) was accurately measured, that is, there is no unrecorded income; 2) correct adjustments are made for all conceptual differences between the economic income measure PI and the fiscal income measure AGI.
Although the AGI gap is unlikely to yield an empirically exact measure of unreported income (due to the difficulties of measuring many of the large reconciliation items required to make PI and AGI conceptually compatible), it is nonetheless of interest since it highlights the conceptual similarities and differences between NIPA accounts and tax-based source information. These conceptual interdependencies are crucial for an understanding of how under reporting of tax source information will ultimately impact NIPA measures of GNP and PI.
The AGI gap measure is best interpreted as a rough measure of noncompliance in the reporting of taxable income. It tends to understate total unreported income insofar as it takes no account of underreporting of other types of taxes nor does it capture unreported illegal income since the latter is not typically included in NIPA estimates of personal income. Moreover, to the extent that the NIPA measure of personal income is understated as a result of other unrecorded income, the AGI gap will correspondingly understate unreported income.
As the AGI gap measure depends on GDP data, which does not include anything from the underground and cash economy sectors at all. Only data from reporting entities get registered in the NIPA data series and folks involved in evading the government for whatever reason don't go reporting there financial goings on to either the IRS, Bureau of Economic Analysis or anything smacking of government period.
Well - no. The IRS site you gave discusses what they lovingly call the "tax gap" which they defing as:
"The tax gap can be divided into three components: nonfiling, underreporting and underpayment. Nonfiling occurs when taxpayers who are required to file a return do not do so on time. Underreporting of tax occurs when taxpayers either understate their income or overstate their deductions, exemptions and credits on timely filed returns. Underpayment occurs when taxpayers file their return but fail to remit the amount due by the payment due date."
They go on later to say:
"The tax gap figure does not include taxes that should have been paid on income from the illegal sector of the economy."
... so you see that the 15-17% figure you offer from their website is obviously low. It seems to me that the 20-25% figure is the more accurate one.
All that aside, though, you didn't respond to my request to be specific about the VAT/flat tax system flavor you support and there are several with quite a few differences. Please be more specific - which do you support and can you provide a link to it so it can be viewed in detail?
I differ with some of your comments in post #39 as well as the evasion amount but will have to defer responding until a bit later.
One thing that seems at odds with your debating technique in general, though, is to throw out a comment like "But some more than others." when referring to the certainty of evasion without offering readers any concrete numbers of which ones are "... more than others ...", by how much - and sources for those numbers. Seems you often attack the FairTax proponents (on some of the threads where I've seen your posts) for not being specific, not providing numbers, etc. and yet here you do the very self-same thing to try to shut off debate.
Isn't that a tad offbeat since you apparently believe it necessary?
One thing that seems at odds with your debating technique in general, though, is to throw out a comment like "But some more than others." when referring to the certainty of evasion without offering readers any concrete numbers of which ones are "... more than others ...", by how much - and sources for those numbers.And you were specific? So give me some "concrete numbers" on the evasion/avoidance incidence under the FairTax.
You must admit that we have gone way past the era of the founders' vision of taxation in this country. If we were to return to their proscirption we would put American industry at a disadvantage in the current global marketplace. If we do go forward with a national sales tax I fear that the compromises necessary to pass it will create monsterous unfairnesses and be even worse than the IRS eventually. In keeping with the spirit of Federalism, don't you think a system that shifts away from taxing individuals and back to states (the natural client of any national government) is less likely to increase Washington's intrusiveness? Pitting state governments against the federal in the arena of taxes should cause more scrutiny of spending overall.
I was merely pointing out that the current evasion is quite large; I made no comment on evasion sizes of any other tax system. Do you have some evasion numbers from the VAT/flat tax system you support ... which one is that BTW??
Or would you rather not identify it?
. If we were to return to their proscirption we would put American industry at a disadvantage in the current global marketplace.
A consumption tax laid at retail level only, replacing current taxes on income and payrolls (business as well as individual) would provide a tax free environment at manufacturing and export levels while assuring that that imports sold at retail are subject at least to the same taxation as our domestic products are.
Can't see how that would put American industry at a disadvantage in the global market seeing as today, imports only see miniscule taxes now at any stage of the economy they enter the commerce stream, while our manufactured goods are heavily burdened with income and payroll taxes through out the domestic chain of production.
Removing the tax burdens on American industry, would make this country a tax haven for international interests, tending to pull industry to the US rather than drive it away as the current system does.
Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee,
Rep. Bill Archer (R-TX)
August 12, 1996
- "A recent survey was done, in Europe and Japan, of the major corporations and I was astounded at the results. They were asked, 'If the US abolished its income tax and went to a sales tax, would that have any impact on your decisions?' Eighty percent of the corporations said they would build their factories in the United States of America. Twenty percent said they would move their international headquarters to the United States of America."
Seems those folks see an advantage to American based industry and businesses under a consumption tax system as opposed to income and payroll taxes that you appear to have missed.
I was merely pointing out that the current evasion is quite large;And I was merely pointing out that many of the panel members expressed concerns about compliance under a NRST and that just saying the current system has compliance issues doesn't address those concerns. Now you try to bog down the debate by asking for specific numbers that don't exist.
which one is that BTW?? Or would you rather not identify it?It's irrelevant.
If we do go forward with a national sales tax I fear that the compromises necessary to pass it will create monsterous unfairnesses and be even worse than the IRS eventually.
One may fear manythings as long as they lay in an undefinable future. Rather poor reason to stay with the current system that has proved how ill suit it is for a free nation over the century of is use and evolution into the monster is most certainly is.
In keeping with the spirit of Federalism, don't you think a system that shifts away from taxing individuals and back to states (the natural client of any national government) is less likely to increase Washington's intrusiveness? Pitting state governments against the federal in the arena of taxes should cause more scrutiny of spending overall.
I do believe you are missing something here, the current Constitution is primarily a National government not a Federal government for good reason. A Federal authority would be a power over the states, one that can impose its will on state government, that is not what we have under the Constitution as written.
The express authority of a National government under the Constitition does not allow federal authorites over state governments except in very narrowly limited ways and certainly does not allow state authority of the federal government in any legislative manner. Since the 17th amendment, electing Senators from a popular vote of the citizens, instead of appointment by state legislators the Constitition has further separated the link between state and federal government almost totally putting ultimate representation to be that of the citizenry in both the state and the national governments.
James Madison, Federalist #39:
- "The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"
Anti-Federalist Papers #3 NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT;
- There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution.
don't you think a system that shifts away from taxing individuals and back to states (the natural client of any national government) is less likely to increase Washington's intrusiveness?
The state is a natural client of a federation, like is was in under the Continent Congress, not under the Consitution which clearly delimits a "National" authority, not federal. And no I don't think a state is any less likely to be intrusive and overbearing than a national government, looking back in history indicates that closelness is not paricularly a great way to discourage intrusiveness. If anything, the closer a government is to the citizen the more likely it is to abuse given a lessening of authorities in its way of doing so.
Pitting state governments against the federal in the arena of taxes should cause more scrutiny of spending overall.
Why? State governments spend as readily (given tax resources to get away with it) as a National government. Allow a state to set up tax structures emulating the current national income tax through business impositions to hide taxation from the electorate, and you have the same formula for excess as the national income/payoll system does with no more scrutiny than the national government experiences today.
Furthermore, the constitution does not pitt state government against federal in taxes, they are concurrent tax jurisdictions by design:
- To form a more precise judgment of the true merits of this question, it will be well to advert to the proportion between the objects that will require a federal provision in respect to revenue, and those which will require a State provision. We shall discover that the former are altogether unlimited, and that the latter are circumscribed within very moderate bounds. In pursuing this inquiry, we must bear in mind that we are not to confine our view to the present period, but to look forward to remote futurity. Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. There ought to be a CAPACITY to provide for future contingencies as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity.
- ``A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION in the article of taxation was the only admissible substitute for an entire subordination, in respect to this branch of power, of State authority to that of the Union.'' Any separation of the objects of revenue that could have been fallen upon, would have amounted to a sacrifice of the great INTERESTS of the Union to the POWER of the individual States. The convention thought the concurrent jurisdiction preferable to that subordination; and it is evident that it has at least the merit of reconciling an indefinite constitutional power of taxation in the Federal government with an adequate and independent power in the States to provide for their own necessities.
to allow states and national governments independant revenue streams that the functions of each under their constitutions can adequately be carried out and the citizen essentially with the responsibility to assure adequate representation of his interests in each through the exercise of his vote.
In my view it is sufficient to provide for states to voluntarily administer national tax systems, howerver there is no provision in the Constitution, nor should there be, to make them do so.
One of the factors of the proposed NRST under H.R.25 that should be noted however, is that it does allow for and encourage voluntary state participation in the administration of the national tax system, and compensates the states that chose to do so.
I was saying that ALL tax systems have evasion "issues" and you respond trying to infer evasion is a big issue in the eyes of "many" panel members.
Where is it you find that in their writeups? As I mentioned to you even if some (or all) did indicate that it is hardly a surprise since it is merely a way of taking a shot at the front-running tax system --- which, I might add, seems to be what you are attempting; smear with a broad brush so some of it sticks.
Why is it you refuse to identify the specific type of tax plan you back rather than hide behind the general penumbra of "VAT" or "flat"? Is it, perhaps, because the flavor of plan you prefer will not hold up to scrutiny if you're specific?
In no way is that irrelevant. Seems more like cowardice with respect to your viewpoint allowing you to do nothing but attack other views. If your plan is so weak then that is understandable I suppose.
I was saying that ALL tax systems have evasion "issues" and you respond trying to infer evasion is a big issue in the eyes of "many" panel members.No, I stated that many (actually I think I initially said all) of the panel members had concerns about compliance under a NRST and you responded that all tax systems have evasion issues.
Where is it you find that in their writeups?What is a writeup and what does it have to do with the panel members?
As I mentioned to you even if some (or all) did indicate that it is hardly a surprise since it is merely a way of taking a shot at the front-running tax systemYou assume that the Fairtax is the front running system and then you discount their concerns by say they were just "taking a shot" at the FairTax.
which, I might add, seems to be what you are attempting; smear with a broad brush so some of it sticks.Whether that's true or not, it's irrelevant to the compliance problems of a NRST.
Why is it you refuse to identify the specific type of tax plan you back rather than hide behind the general penumbra of "VAT" or "flat"?Specifically, the type of tax plan I back is a flat tax or a VAT.
Is it, perhaps, because the flavor of plan you prefer will not hold up to scrutiny if you're specific?Or maybe because it doesn't exist yet. Any plan that might be implemented doesn't exist yet.
In no way is that irrelevant.Whatever tax reform I support is irrelevant to the compliance problems of a NRST.
Seems more like cowardice with respect to your viewpoint allowing you to do nothing but attack other views.And it seems like bad debating skills for you to try to change the subject.
If your plan is so weak then that is understandable I suppose.You must be going down the list of logical fallacies. Are you going for a record or something?
But eliminating the income tax and taxes on business altogether and replacing them with a retail sales tax would indeed be the FAIR and straight forward way of doing it.
How is taxing a service or new home sales for example not a tax on business?
The Fair Tax is applied to both goods and services.
Whatever tax reform I support is irrelevant to the compliance problems of a NRST.
Not if you are implying that the system/s you support such as Flat Tax or VATs are actually better in control of evasion and fraud and result in more revenues to government at lower cost to business and the individual.
You make a comparative judgment when in order for you to assert one system is better or another worse. It would be appropriate to show some examples of empirical data demonstrating it not just claims and might be's. FairTax proponents merely claim no worse results than the current national income/payroll tax system for good reasons it seems to me, considering all it takes to evade the current system is to hide income in barter and cash transactions avoiding reports on any wages or income to be taxed.
Heck for that matter all one has to do is legitimately live off municipal bond interest as certain public figures have managed to do to reduce their income and payroll tax bite to nil.
You must be going down the list of logical fallacies. Are you going for a record or something?
I haven't seem much in the way of any kind of logic on your side, mere claims and little substance.
You are aware that the underground economies and black markets in invoices allowing businesses claims on credits in VAT nations are going through the roof do you not. As a consequence of the fraud that attends the VAT implementations, the VAT systems grows ever more complex with ever more burdensome regulation and red-tape on small businesses driving them right out of the legal markets. In fact the situation is so bad VAT nations have found it necessary to except businesses (primarily single proprietors & self-employed) operating below threshold levels of sales volume from the VAT altogether or levy of some alternative amounting to a retail sales tax based on their gross sales turnover instead.
Of course the alternative to thresholds and regulatory methodologies and one way to deal with the high levels of VAT invoice black marketing going on, is to deal with the problem like China:
WTO ACCESSION TO PROVIDE TIGHTER TAX SYSTEM IN CHINA
By Peter Kung and Bolivia Cheung, KPMG
http://www.prctaxman.com.cn/wto_accession_and_tax_rules.htm"Current Tax Administration Law labels tax evasion a criminal offence if the amount evaded is over 10% of the tax payable and over RMB10,000. The taxpayer may be subject to the death penalty if the tax evasion involves fraudulent VAT invoices. In July this year, a Hong Kong resident who has engaged in VAT frauds was sentenced to death, subject to a two-year suspension. While more than 70 PRC citizens who committed VAT fraud have been sentenced to death, this is the first one that involves a Hong Kong resident in a PRC tax case."
Nothing like a little overkill to get the citizen's attention and whip em into line to squeeze more blood out of that turnip.
Somehow I prefer a giving abit more latitude and less control over to the citizen, rather than more power to squeeze that turnip to government, myself:
"Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. "
"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess.
They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue."
Compliance to tax law, comes at a cost in property, liberty and at times more. Going for the tax that claims higher compliance to feed government coffers should be examined with extreme skepticism as to how that is achieved and at what cost to the business and the citizen.
The only recommendation for a VAT seems to be its capacity to squeeze that turnip with less squeaking from the citizen.
A New Money Machine for the U.S.
by Bruce Bartlett
http://www.ncpa.org/abo/quarterly/20043rd/clip/20040729lat.htm
"The United States needs to adopt a value-added tax. Passage of the prescription drug legislation last year demonstrated that there is no longer any hope of holding the line on government growth -- especially when Republicans voted for the multitrillion-dollar entitlement program.
That being the case, the only relevant question is how to finance the growth of government. A value-added tax, or VAT, isn't the complete answer. Other taxes are also going to rise."*** snip ***
The lack of transparency and the low economic cost of a value-added tax make it possible for this tax to raise substantial revenues relatively easily, both politically and economically. The average VAT in Europe is 20%, and European governments raise about one-third of their total revenue from consumption taxes, including excise taxes on gasoline, tobacco and other items. The U.S. raises about half that, including sales taxes at the state and local levels.
Bottomline, if you don't perceive the cost, and the otherguy appears to be hauling the freight:
It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?
Walter Williams
The Honorable James DeMint (R-SC)
United States House of Representatives
APRIL 5, 2001
- "There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government.
The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
-John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790.
"articles of consumption" (in federalist #21)
I have a hard time believing that the founders on iether side of that argument would have considered labor as one of those taxable "articles". It has to be obvious to anyone who considers it that it would be the most direct kind of taxation, would necessitate an enforcement agency (IRS) and leave the individual under constant threat of loss of property, liberty and subsquently life.
I did missunderstand the original term of "substitution bias" but, I still can never endorse taxes on labor directly. It would always result in the perpetual condition of servitude and prohibit true ownership of assets that had already had a tax payed on them.
Do you really suggest that I earn $100 dollars by raking leaves, send $23 dollars in "service taxes" to the feds and then pay another 23% tax on the grocieries I buy that evening?
It's like this: if you earn money from your efforts (labor or profits from managing sales) you keep it all. If you head downtown and consume an "article" you pay tax once on that article. I am simply dissagreeing that the lack of tax on a labor based service would create any significant problems for the economy or society. Worst case is that the courts would flesh out what an "article" is over the first few years.
The fairtax bunch is not proposing services taxes as far as I know.
And please re-read my most basic requirements for a good tax system. I would never endorse "hiding" taxes under the idea of finding "alternate revenue sources". visibility is one of my top requirements. Alternate funding could be had by borrowing (yuck!) or investing standing accounts or gaining rental/use income from government assets (park fees, leases of buildings or whatever).
I hope that makes me a little more clear. No direct taxes, especially labor or property. It is the anti-thesis of liberty and we have it now. As I said before, it's criminal. Why do you think IRS field agents are armed?
Put me on that ping if you can. I want te hear about those type of bills. Gives me a reason to smile, ha.
I would be a bigger fan of the sales tax if it is run by the states who then send a big check to the feds. That would short circut the micro managers in high places that I mentioned previously and most importantly... give the states some of there original powers back.
No more coersion by the feds when they threaten to pull federal funds for state failure to comply with some new law. The state could turn right around and "withold" state funds from the feds. What a beautiful stale mate that would be.
Feds will never let the states run it to that degree though. it will be ultra controlled commerce under the federal thumb when they are done. And we can all get ready to sign up for the "mark" in order to legaly do business.
"if you built (say) a barbecue (i.e. a good) and sold it to your neighbour he wouldn't pay you sales tax on it; why would it be any different if you went over there and physically built him a barbecue? only transactions between businesses and consumers should be taxed (i.e. not consumer to consumer like you posit)."
I don't know how we got messed up here but, I agree with that statement exactly. It is what I am saying. consumer to consumer, the government can just butt out.
even if I get a business license to build barbeques all over town though, I would not be interested in collecting tax on my wages charged. the poor guy already paid taxes on every brick I layed down for him. he and I should not pay twice.
Sure barbecue sales will suffer a bit at homedepot but, brick sales would go up cause I'll have to go buy the bricks for my neighbor's really sweet barbecue pit. (it would be awesome if I built it, he he.) the markets will naturally level out as always.
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.