Fair Tax Solution for Ford, Delphi & American Manufacturing

Supporters of a Legislative package commonly called the FairTax, point out that no other tax reform and replacement idea comes close to providing the economic benefits for American working families and the growth of American Manufacturing like the Fair Tax HR 25/ S25. Major U.S. Manufacturers like Ford Motor and Delphi Corporation are facing difficult challenges and are planning or proposing major changes in order to compete in the global marketplace and to compete within the American marketplace.

Talk Radio has been a buzz on the plan by Ford to cut 30,000 jobs and close several facilities. For months, cities with Delphi Parts plants have be stewing over negotiations and plans that want to cut wages and possibly close facilities. Though part of the solution is to be more efficient and certainly to produce what the customer wants to buy, the other part of the debate is unfair trade practices and unfair labor wages in these competing countries.

Radio Talk Show host Neal Boortz is one talk show host that has discussed the solution for American Manufacturing repeatedly. He has also written a New York Times best selling book, “The FairTax Book” in conjunction with Congressman John Linder of Georgia. The book lays out the problems with our archaic income and payroll tax system and than reviews the benefits of the Legislative Replacement package sponsored by Congressman Linder and based on the 10 years of work and research conducted by Americans for Fair Taxation.

On Television, CNN's Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly show their outrage on how American Manufacturing Jobs are leaving American Shores but provide no comprehensive solutions in their form of “sound bite journalism”. They and many other Americans misunderstand and dismiss the serious grassroots support and supporting research for a solution that will truly help the "little guy" and restore good paying American Jobs. (The Fair Tax HR 25/ S25. www.fairtax.org)

The solution for Ford, Delphi and American Manufacturing in general is not trade barriers or tariffs but is fair trade. But how do you get Fair Trade when competing countries do not pay a Fair Wage. American Workers do not need to compete globally by lowering their wages to such Draconian levels. Fair Tax supporters point out that the solution for better paying American manufacturing jobs at home is to have the lowest taxes on American Manufacturing companies.

American Manufacturing goes where it costs them the least to do business. Even with the higher costs of fuel to ship those goods from overseas, the low wage is what helps some countries compete and it is the Lower business taxes that helps other countries compete.

In Europe, Ireland has had the strongest economic growth and best employment numbers because they have the lowest taxes on business (Corporate tax 12 %). The Solution for America is Lower Taxes on American Manufacturing not Lower Wages on American Workers. The incentive for business to stay in America and not outsource is lower taxes on Corporate earnings with less tax compliance costs.

Ultimately, It is the consumer that pays the business tax in the end on all products and services. Business taxes like business costs for manufacturing are just worked into the price. The Consumer pays the tax not the business.

What if the United States had the lowest Corporate tax in the World? Would not business flock here to manufacture? What if instead of the Bahamas being the Offshore tax haven for business or Corporate headquarters that for Tax purposes those businesses made New York, or California, or Chicago their Corporate home and their preferred place to manufacture from and ship around the World?

There is such a tax plan in Congress waiting in the wings to rev up our Economy, by providing the right incentive for American Manufacturing to stay in America, for Good paying manufacturing jobs not to be outsourced, for American Families to have more take home pay, to make U.S. Soil a Tax free zone for business that can export products around the world Tax-Free. This is how we save American jobs and this is how we compete against substandard wages paid by our global competitors.

The Legislative Package in Congress has been around for several years; it is well researched and has sound economic data to back it up. It is commonly called the FairTax and has over 45 Co-Sponsors in the House and Senate. The bills are HR25 and S25. According to the Fair Tax Scorecard 155 Legislators are leaning in favor. Last Spring 75 Economists sent an open letter to Congress and the President in favor of the Fair Tax. They were joined by Alan Greenspan’s testimony in favor of a consumption tax as a replacement for an Income tax.

From an American worker stand point, the key point is that the Fair Tax helps save American jobs and promotes American Manufacturing that stays on U.S. Soil. It allows American workers to take home an average 30% larger paycheck each and every week by eliminating any federal withholding for income tax or payroll tax from an American workers paycheck. American workers take home 100% of their paycheck!!

American Manufacturers have the incentive to stay in the US and not outsource because they pay no Corporate tax. New American Manufacturing is created because Capital investment in the US is tax-free. Building new plants in the US will cost them less because of lower taxes. The Exports they send overseas pay no tax and are cheaper for sale in the global marketplace. This allows American Manufacturing to compete globally because of lower taxes and not lower wages like Delphi is trying to accomplish.

The Fair Tax is a revenue neutral replacement of the individual and corporate Income tax; payroll tax, capital gains tax, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and the Death Tax (Estate Tax). It is replaced with a National Sales Tax on retail purchases of all new products and services and supports the funding of the National Budget including Social Security and Medicare.

According to the Legislation, the national sales tax will be included in the price tag you see on a product and will be broken out as a separate line item on your receipt so that Americans know how much they are being taxed and how much they are sending to Uncle Sam with every purchase.

American Families do not have to wait until April 15th to get a refund of their own money. Middle Income Families will take home an average 15% more because of no Income tax withholding and an additional 7.65% because of no payroll tax withholding. Under the Fair Tax, the tax collected replaces the income that funds the national budget and replaces the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare.

The Fair Tax Legislative package is much more than just a national sales tax it is a package that also has a Prebate (rebate) system that truly untaxes the poor and treats everyone equally and fairly. No forms to keep, no receipts to log in or file. Everyone gets the same prebate check based on family size and valid Social Security cards for each family member.

Maid or Millionaire; the simple way to be sure no one pays a national sales tax on the essentials is not complicated exemptions but to simply send each household a monthly check (debit card) to cover the national sales tax on all spending up to the poverty line for that Family size.

Health and Human Services calculates the poverty line for a married couple with 2 children at $25,660 for the year 2005. The Fair Tax assumes every family of 4 will spend at least that much and sends them a prebate to cover the national sales tax on every dollar up to $25,660. The Inclusive tax rate is 23% or $5,902. The Fair Tax sends each month $492 (5902/12). If that family makes less than $25,660, they still receive the monthly check for $492.

It is a fact, if you make more you spend more. Under the Fair Tax if you spend more you pay more. With the Prebate, the Fair Tax is progressive in that the net tax rate for those American families at the poverty line is a true ZERO; for those at twice the poverty line the net rate is about 11.5%; at 4 times poverty that family is about 17.2%; and the wealthy at 10 times the poverty line and higher, average between a 20 to 23% net federal tax rate.

The Fair Tax truly untaxes the working poor by eliminating the payroll tax of 7.65% and allowing the working poor to take home 100% of their paycheck and receive an additional $5,902/ year to cover the National Sales tax on essentials like clothing, food, housing, or daycare. (Family of 4)

Trillions of Offshore dollars that wealthy individuals and wealthy Corporations hold offshore because of America's current tax laws will return to US shores under the Fair Tax. This capital will find a tax free zone in America and want to invest in American Manufacturing and business that will not only sell to Americans at home but to the entire world. American Exports will not have the 23% national sales tax on them for export. These exportable products will also drop in price because we have removed a major cost element from the supply chain. With no business income or payroll taxes, the cost of those products will go down. With no IRS you reduce the compliance costs dramatically for complying with the IRS rules and regulations. This savings throughout the supply chain will also be reflected in a lower price at home and for export.

It depends on the economist and it depends on the economic model but the estimated price drop on products and services is between 10 and 25% on average. Something you bought for $100 under the income tax will drop to somewhere between $75 and $90 dollars. When you add in the National Sales Tax the final price will be between $97.50 and $117.00. (30% exclusive tax rate equals 23% inclusive or income tax equivalent rate)

Under the Income tax a lower middle income tax family had to earn $129 in order to take home $100. This is based on a 15% income tax withholding and a 7.65% payroll tax withholding.

Under the Fair Tax you take home more money and you have more money to spend even after buying the same items and paying the Fair Tax. You take home $129 and spend $117 with the Fair Tax to buy the same $100 worth of goods you bought with $100 in take home pay under the archaic Income and payroll tax system. You are $12 ahead and on top of that will receive the monthly Prebate check.

Under the Fair Tax Legislative package you lower taxes on business; you give them the incentive to produce and manufacture here within the US and not in China or India, or Mexico.

The way to compete in the 21st Century is not to cut our wages in half. The way to compete in the world is to provide the incentive for business to do business inside the US.

The Fair Tax Legislative package does so much in so many ways. Our American Economy will boom when American manufacturing is growing in the US. The Fair Tax is the best vehicle to do that.

When the Lobbyists and their paid economists come out against it beware. With out the convoluted tax code, Lobbyists, Congressmen, congressional aides and "K" Street will lose a lot of their power and influence. If they come out against it than it must be good for average American families.

Every Politician that came out in support of this idea last election cycle won. This is a winning issue for politicians and when average American people are presented all the facts of the Fair Tax 80 to 90% love it. Get the Facts at www.fairtax.org

If Average American workers can get people like Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly to truly study all the facts that support the Fair Tax, perhaps we can get them to join the over 75 economists that wrote a letter to Congress last Spring in support of the idea. The Fair Tax is the most comprehensive solution to aid American Workers, American Families, American Manufacturing and the American Economy.

... I believe it [the EITC] is an offset for income tax - hence its name ... [and therefore doesn't address the regressivity of payroll taxes].

What you believe is incorrect. The EITC is a refundable credit ... even if you paid NO income tax amounts. It's net effect in such cases is to offset payment of payroll taxes.

My problem so far ... [is that] ... we will have generational warfare.

That is precisely what we have today, and precisely what you advocate under the FairTax: the current working generation pays the benefits of the retired generation. You do NOT solve that problem.

My SS/MC reform DOES solve it: after full transition, workers are funding their OWN retirement plans; retirees are living off their OWN retirement plans and MOST are not taking a DIME of government money!

People retiring at 65 and living to 95 will have 30 years of great benefit with little to no taxation.

Yep, and most will not require a DIME of government assistance; the tax burden on the working generation will be SUBSTANTIALLY reduced (because they are not paying for ever-expanding intergenerational transfer payments;) and the size of government will have been reduced about 50%. Are you saying you don't like those outcomes? or are you saying you PREFER to have a system intergenerational transfer payments where government remains present (or increases its presence) in everyone's personal finances and intergeneration warfare is continued?

But that is exactly what we do with the flat income tax. The more you make the more you pay for a loaf of bread. The bread is all the services Government provides its citizens. If you make $100,000 you pay a flat 17% and pay 17,000 for the same amount of Government the FAmily earning $50,000 that pays only $8500.

And so it is with the FairTax. The more you spend, the more you pay for you share of government services. Are you suggesting that the FairTax is any different?

Your argument here is specious. Given you seem to think that a flat percentage tax (like the FairTax) is "unfair" perhaps you'd rather entertain a Head tax where every PERSON pays the same AMOUNT (regardless if wealthy, income, spending, family size, etc.) Actually, I like that idea best ... but even I don't think such a plan would have a chance of passage. Besides, if this is what you're advocating, then you'd better revisit and reconsider your screed on Regressivity.

They [SS/MC taxes] are taxes that go into the general fund in a "pay as you go system" just like everything else goes into and out of the federal budget.

Well, no they don't. They are accounted for differently than the general fund, AND they are specifically linked, by statue, to benefits. I'm all for reforming SS/MC; and I'd rather perpetuate the funding "Sword of Damocles" over the head of the programs to kindle real reform than ease the funding burden and forever perpetuate and grow the welfare state. Apparently, you prefer the welfare state.

... Whether you ae a maid or a millionaire , you should receive a flat payment for SS that covers up to the poverty line ...

Well on that point we'll have to simply disagree. I do not support ANY "guaranteed annual income" program. I do NOT support providing government assistance to ANYONE who is not demonstrably in need. I do NOT support the expansion of the welfare state, the role of government in funding retirement, the expanding role of government in providing healthcare, nor any other similar government program.

I want the government taking as LITTLE from the private sector as possible. I certainly wouldn't support everyone giving it tax money equivalent to a poverty like stipend just so it can give it back (hey, that sound suspiciously like the "prebate!")

That's another reason why I don't support the FairTax.

Let's see - Did I hear you correctly ????

FAIR TAX WINS AGAINST THE FLAT TAX SAYS NIGHTMARE !!!
at post 468

You find specific examples where someone might pay less with one system than another and you seem to think that settles the issue.

Yes - it Does !!! Because I actually posted 3 scenarios less you forget. One at $25,660 and two at $50,000.

More importantly, I still haven't used all my possible exemption from the FairTax that a typical family might have.

And more importantly you have not corrected your own Math when comparing two plans. Neither for the SQ or for the Nightmare Flat TAX.

THis is a win against YOUR Flat Tax using your preferred assertions that the price drop can't be as high as 25%. So in one case I use No price drop , in another I use 10% and in another I use 5% to keep Dimples happy. I win the Math each time.

You continue to use "Revenue Neutral" to apply to an individual instead of the actual meaning is to apply it to total receipts to the Government. You need to fix that.

Cheerleader or Squirrel It does not matter- the Math has proved you wrong even without using all the tools available to the Fair TAx's benefit.

Your Doom and Gloom approach does not win over the Math in my examples at post 408, 413, 422 and 461.

So let me ask you -- You are admitting that at least in my examples these families are ahead with the Fair Tax???

Thank you Dimples for conceding defeat.

The Fair Tax beats the Flat Tax and the SQ income tax in my 3 examples with varying price drops and dollar amounts.

Dimples writes:

All you have proved is you are able to create an individual scenario that appears to have more disposable cash under the FairTax; one that I don't believe anyone has challenged (I certainly didn't.) I believe that the ability to create a favorable scenario is a truism. ANY change to a system that purports to have a neutral outcome in the aggregate will have so-called winners AND losers. While your scenario shows a "winning" outcome, I have already shown you a "losing" outcome. So far you have never bothered to utter a single comment about it.

Don't worry I will get to your example, later. But let's clarify the standings to date.

Merrill has put on the table 3 examples that the Fair Tax wins and provides extra purchasing power over what the Squrrels have proposed.

Merrill also contends that in order to use Dimples analysis or numbers from his NET Effective IRS Tax Data tables from 2003 or so; Than we have to use similar Math to get to a final Net effective rate for the Fair Tax.(i.e. including those things that are not taxed but spent under the Fair Tax.

I Demonstrated this Math so as to include only 2 common categories that average families do not pay the Fair Tax on.
I shared the Math in post 408,413,422 and 461.

The final example in that series subtracted from the comparison a $500/m mortgage payment and an annual Church Contribution of $1,000.

I restricted the Fair Tax benefit by applying the Dimple rule for Price drop of only 5%.

The Fair Tax Family WON and had an additional $2991 in purchasing power after all taxes were paid and the same products and services were bought. Review post 461.

I handicapped the Fair Tax and it still won.

And as you state in Your post you have stated 6 areas of concern.

I have so far responded to 5 of those areas and have incorporated your concerns into my Math examples and have beaten your assumptions to the effect on American Taxpayers and FAmilies.

Granted you don't like some my answers but I have answered.

Price Drop - Heck I used your minimum 5%

TAx Base- illegal alien, illegal income, tourist dollars, the fact that consoumption is a different pool of money from Income therefore a larger tax base has a net lower rate over that larger tax base.

Revenue neutrality - I answered you just don't like those economists because they don't give you the answer you want.

I eliminated the Jorgensen concern and wage drop by going with either the 10% price drop or the 5% price drop and keeping your Gross salary. "the Dimple Rule"

Bottomline the family making $50,000 and using YOUR numbers for effective tax rate and a 5% price drop WINS with the Fair Tax.

That is NOT a created situation to make the Fair TAx out in the Best Light. That is tying one hand behind my back -restricting the beneftis of the FairTax and still beating you with your own numbers. BIG Difference.

I'll review again your Senior example later tonight and post a response. The Math has to be FAIR. and same for each side as far as benefits and deductions. I should be allowed some deductions or must I tie another hand behind my back?

You like Nightmare also confuse the term "Revenue neutral" to mean there has to be an equal amount of winners and losers.(Not True if you tax a differnet POT of Money)

Let's see: Try this one. 25% of a POT of Money with $100,000 in Income means you have a revenue of $25,000.

A 20% TAx on a different Pot of Money that has $125,000 means you have a revenue of $25,000. That is what REVENUE NEUTRAL means.

So, The overall tax rate on Consumption can be lower in this comparison.

TAx Base- illegal alien, illegal income, tourist dollars, the fact that consoumption is a different pool of money from Income therefore a larger tax base has a net lower rate over that larger tax base.

Illegal aliens - This isn't nearly as big a difference as you might think. First, the reason people hire illegals is that they are cheap. They aren't rolling in money and aren't big spenders. Second, quite a few of them actually do pay taxes. The SSA estimates about $7 billion of the yearly contributions to SS/MC are due to illegal immigrants.

Illegal income - The FairTax gets the money leaving the underground economy - the current system gets it going in. No net difference. In fact, quite a bit of the money leaves the U.S. before it is spent (e.g., used to buy illegal drugs from Columbia) so the FairTax could actually be a net loser in this category.

Tourist dollars - Tourists come here just like we go to other countries. It's pretty much a wash (another one of your shell games). And any significant purchase of goods in the U.S. by a tourist could easily be legally avoided by having the business ship it to their home in their country (it would be an export).

I have neither conceded defeat nor ceased holding your feet to the fire.

You again avoid the central theme: the FairTax is being marketed under a cloud of misrepresentations. (And you've thus far ignored any direct engagement about that fact.)

You appear overly enamored with your examples to the point of losing focus in the big picture. Unless and until the FairTax propaganda is changed to reflect an honest portrayal of the program and its impacts the ability truly measure its effects remains clouded.

Don't worry I will get to your example, later

I'd rather you get to it now. You've had a couple of days to think about it, but you keep avoiding it.

I have so far responded to 5 of those areas ...

But you haven't refuted any of them. Let's recap:

Price Drop - Heck I used your minimum 5%

Great. Get the FairTax machine to make the same change and I'll stop talking about it.

TAx Base- illegal alien, illegal income, tourist dollars, the fact that consoumption is a different pool of money from Income therefore a larger tax base has a net lower rate over that larger tax base.

All you have done is offered the size of the 2003 FairTax base (which I did as well) and you completely ignored the demonstration that the FairTax base is SMALLER than the the Income Tax base. Unless and until you offer some analytical comparative sizing of the base, my charge remains: FairTax claims of a larger tax base are a myth.

Revenue neutrality - I answered you just don't like those economists because they don't give you the answer you want.

Hardly. I claimed your propagandists were wrong and gave you an analytical basis for the claim. Offering the same false propaganda as a rebuttal is hardly "answering" (especially since your sources do not address my specific objections.) Unless and until you can address my specific analysis debunking revenue neutrality, the claim remains a myth.

I eliminated the Jorgensen concern and wage drop by going with either the 10% price drop or the 5% price drop and keeping your Gross salary. "the Dimple Rule"

Except you didn't apply that same principle to revenue neutrality or the misrepresented magnitude of the take-home "raise."

Of the 6 issues raise so far, you have conceded three: price behavior, and the effective tax burden of the income tax system, and the magnitude of the take-home pay increase.

I expect you will continue to use a 5% pre-tax price decline, honestly reflect the true effective income tax burden and we will never again see the "you get a 30% raise" falsehood. And I presume you'll do your best to get the FairTax marketing machine to make these same changes ... they have a lot of re-writing to do.

You have danced around two: the size of the tax base, and revenue neutrality. You've offered nothing except the "because I said so" rebuttal using the same suspect sources which do not even discuss, let alone refute, the specific issues raised about these two issues. It appears you're having difficulty scaring anything meaningful up.

And, so far, you've completely ignored the problem of the Single Senior. (I await your response.) Please note that the mere existence of this example serves to make my point: that the claim that "most every individual scenario" comes out ahead under the FairTax is untrue. And that claims that "seniors as a group" come out ahead under the FairTax is also untrue. Unless your response somehow demonstrates that my example of a Single Senior losing 12% purchasing power is flatly untrue, then my contention stands.

Since you are so enamored with your anecdotal skills, let's also revise the tally of examples. You've shown that a family of 4 can come out ahead with the FairTax. I've given you that ... but in the process you proved that the FairTax propaganda overestimated the benefits to that family of 4 by from 600% to 1500%. Since that has been at the core of my issues, I'll take point for your proof of my allegation. I expect you'll do your best to get the FairTax marketing machine to revise its propaganda to reflect this situation and abandon the Keep all your salary and get a 30% increase in purchasing power crap. Again, they'll have a lot of rewriting to do.

The Math has to be FAIR.

The math IS fair. It's your assumptions that are often misguided.

As for your attempt to rationalize the tax base, perhaps your time would be better spent researching the real thing. Making up some fictitious, and unrepresentative, example is neither proof, nor help. It just wastes your time and mine.

Perhaps you're not as far ahead as you think you are; you've actually done a pretty good job of helping me prove my points. If you think you've been helped too, great, I love a win-win situation.

Respectful humor and polite jabs preferred
It does depend on the Math method one uses and you do need to be consistant to be fair.
You're right, consistency, fairness, math methods and frankly stop with the lying would be a refreshing change coming from AFFT.

Oh, BTW your cordial, fun loving cohort pigdog informed us "it's not math it's arithmetic". You'll need to get with the program...jab-jab.

merrillbender needs to spend more time at the AFFT re-education camp. If you go here you'll find where:

A married couple, two children and mortgage
(Assumes consumption spending at 100% of income)

Has $65,000 gross income, BUT with the Fairtax, thanks to the miracle of "prebates", they would have $70,470 spendable income. Claiming a whopping 34.7% increase in spendable income.

There's more, plenty more, in fact too many to list.

A family of four making $100,000 per year

would have $105,575 "spendable income". Claiming a whopping 48% increase in spendable income.

Under the Fairtax your "spendable income" can exceed your gross income..."spendable" is now more than gross (and gross payments doesn't really mean "gross payments") in the new Fairtax dictionary.

Thanks to Karen Walby, Director of Research for AFFT for directing me to this most informative report. Perhaps this is an example of her fine work there. Maybe merrillbender or Karen Walby could explain where the "spendable income" that exceeds gross income comes from.

There's nothing like truth, fairness and consistency to bolster a good plan.< /sarcasm >

You like Nightmare also confuse the term "Revenue neutral" to mean there has to be an equal amount of winners and losers.(Not True if you tax a differnet POT of Money)
Let's see: Try this one. 25% of a POT of Money with $100,000 in Income means you have a revenue of $25,000.
A 20% TAx on a different Pot of Money that has $125,000 means you have a revenue of $25,000. That is what REVENUE NEUTRAL means.

Did anyone say "an equal amount of winners and losers"?

I'm not surprised Merrill doesn't see the winner or the loser in his own examples...

TAx Base- illegal alien, illegal income, tourist dollars, the fact that consoumption is a different pool of money from Income therefore a larger tax base has a net lower rate over that larger tax base.

A tax base isn't WHO is taxed it's WHAT is taxed.

the fact that consoumption is a different pool of money from Income therefore a larger tax base has a net lower rate over that larger tax base.

Actually a larger tax base COULD have a lower rate...there is nothing written that says if "illegal alien, illegal income, tourist dollars," are suddenly taxed that our rates WOULD be reduced...Saying they would is just wishful thinking.

For someone so hell bent on a sales tax you sure talk a lot about taxing "pots of money" and taxing "income" a lot.

Dimples Senior Example was as follows:

Look at this Senior couple living solely on Social Security. Your mileage may vary. Let's try that again: Now let's suppose you're a retired single filer living off of a combination of Social Security income and a small Private Pension (no savings to speak of.) You earn the same $25,944 as the AFFT example; you pay NO income Tax, you pay NO FICA tax. Prices are inflated 5% because of embedded taxes removed by the FairTax. Net spending power is $24,644. Under the FairTax, that same retiree gets a $2.2K prebate for a total spendable income of $28,144, 23% of which is used to pay FairTax. That leaves net spending power at $21,671: a NET DECREASE of 12%. Even if I allow the ENTIRE 10% price reduction you claim, but will not happen, the single retire is still over 7% behind! And, until the retiree starts paying over about 10% effective income tax, the bigger his pension, the "behinder" he gets!

Are we sure that is correct? This Senior pays no federal tax at all?

Let's say this Senior making $25,944 has $1162/m for Social Security and $1,000/ month for his pension. I understand he pays not tax on the Soical Security up to a certain income limit but I thought he still paid something on the $12,000 in pension?? I know Dimples is going out of town but perhaps lewislynn or nightmare could clarify for me?? and what is the limit before you start paying tax on your Soical Security??

If I was this Senior's 25 year old Grandson, and made this same amount I would pay $1962 in payroll tax and a net $2,297 in federal income tax. Just keep those Grand kids paying for their Grandparents tax free lifestyle choice.

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.