I sure don't trust him either. It's awfully familiar to how we got the income tax in the first place. From The FairTax book:
" Those who favored the idea of an income tax met with considerable success, capturing public sentiment with promises that the tax would "soak the rich." and leave the vast majority of Americans alone. Economic class warfare was as alive and well in the early 1900s as it is in the early 2000s.
The historical timeline now brings us to Texas Senator, Joseph Bailey, a conservative Democrat. Deciding to play the game of partisan politics, Bailey cooked up a scheme to humiliate Republicans. Though he was opposed to the idea, Bailey introduced a bill calling for an income tax. He mistakenly thought that the Republicans would rush in to kill the this legislation, thus furthering the image Democrats were trying to cultivate of Republicans as hostile to the poor and concerned only about protecting the wealthy. Wouldn't you know it, things didn't turn out as Bailey had planned. Liberal Republicans, backed by Teddy Roosevelt, actually came out in support of the bill. Passage seemed all but certain.
Conservative Republicans were panicked. They needed a way to derail the Bailey bill and the growing threat of an income tax. In one of the worst examples of legislative play-calling in history Republicans came up with the brilliant idea of announcing that they would support the idea of an income tax on one condition: if and only if it came about as the result of an amendment to our Constitution. Even though this group of conservative Republicans felt that there was some slight chance the proposed amendment might actually make it through the House and the Senate, there was just no way in the world that three-fourths of the states could vote for ratification. Yeah...right.
Big opps.
The amendment sailed through the House and the Senate. The vote in the S3enate was 77 to 0, and the House approved it by 318 to 14. It was off to the House for ratification. Conservative Republicans were still confident that the effort was doomed. They were as wrong as they could be.
Smelling victory for one of their long-held goals, the Democrats launched a massive effort to convince the people that any income tax would be directed only at the wealthy, and that ordinary Americans would be left virtually untaxed.. Conservative legislatures in the West and the South convinced their constituents that the adoption of the income tax would have little effect o them, since incomes big enough to be taxed were rare in these areas. The people, thus anesthetized, raised little objection and the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified on February 12, 1913. This date should be added to December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001, as date in American history that shall live in infamy."
Do you see any similarity to what Johnny Isakson is attempting? This time it's not one side of the aisle against the other side. It's the politicians against the people. The Tax Code Termination Act, S.2182, that is, Isakasons agenda, is to provide cover for members of congress to do anything but pass the FairTax. Thus leaving the present in place or a watered down version -- VAT, flat or otherwise -- that retains tinkering with the tax code, class warfare, special interest sweetheart deals.
The second thing on his agenda is to divide and conquer. Throw an obvious bone into the mix. A bone much more tantalizing to politicians than HR25 and S25 (The FairTax), easier for the main-stream media to facilitate and draw man-in-the-street to get behind.
If I stretch far enough to blow out a few tendons. I think Isakson has caved in to the pressure of the fair tax and is worried because it has so much support in Georgia and he isn't a co-sponsor.
I'll tell you this though, it wouldn't be very hard for me to get a very obstreperous bandwagon on Isakson's butt if he is trying to pull something here. I'm not as cynical as you guys but I'll not be tampered with by this guy.
My thots two.