I think John F'ing Kerry is a complete ass. However, I will say one thing about this recent foot-in-mouth incident and the call for his apology - I support his decision NOT to apologize.

What's that you say? I'm nuts?

Well, maybe, but here's my point.

1) I'm, SICK and TIRED of the OTHER side (whichever it may be) DEMANDING an apology for this, that or the other. Stuff your damn apologies! You have to watch EVERY SINGLE WORD you say and then someone gets a hold of it and the next thing you know everyone is calling for an apology or calling you a bigot.

2) That said, Kerry has totally taken the wrong tact on this. I don't really believe that he believes you end up a soldier if you don't or can't get an education. He should have clarified his remarks in a civil tone and laugh at himself a bit in the process. Instead he became defensive and tried to suggest that he was taking a shot at Bush - which the words just don't support. So now he's out yelling about Bush policies instead of taking his quote headon in a firm, but civil manner. What a loser.

3) Unfortunately for Kerry, even it he did do the above, this whole "I support the troops, but not the mission" is wearing thin. Kerry, especially, when he remarked that soldiers were "going house to house and terrorizing women and children in the middle of the night" comment for starters, shows his contempt not only for the mission, but the way it is being carried out by the troops.

Kerry will forever be known as a flip flopper and side winder. He will definitely never be president and he may even struggle for re-election in liberal Massachussets.

Many critics of our health care system use the argument that it is NOT socialized. But as I've been saying for years, the short comings in our current system is because it IS (almost) socialized already. We have been conditioned through employer-funded health care and HMOs to think of health care as almost FREE.

This John Stossel article describes it wonderfully. Here are the first 3 paragraphs. Please read it all.

According to the new "ABC News" poll on health care, Americans are eager to have the government force employers to provide heath insurance: "Nearly eight in 10 favor a federal requirement that all employers offer insurance to their full-time workers."

Why?! Do our employers pay for our food, clothing, or shelter? If they did, why would that be good? Having my health care tied to my boss invites him to snoop into my private health issues, and if I change jobs, I lose coverage.

Employer-paid health insurance isn't free. It just means we get insurance instead of higher salaries. I'd rather have the cash and buy my own insurance. Companies only provide it because of a World War II-era tax break that never went away.

It's expensive because we use it like it's free (i.e. don't care what the cost is) and the customer care stinks because they are not competing for customers. If you want it to be more expensive and have even worse customer care, just push it the rest of the way over the edge into gov't sponsored health care.

My friend who supports socialized medicine argues that free health care is not like "giving away free beer" (gosh I miss him). He's right, people don't rush to the hospital just for fun. BUT, people go for even the slightest problem and don't consider that the trip could be a waste of time and resources. Or they accept treatment matter of factly ("Oh sure, X-rays, a few tests and drugs - sounds good to me doc."). Instead of saying "Gee, how much does that cost and do I really need it", we just say "so long as my insurance covers it." That may not be as appealing as free beer, but as far as health care goes, it's creating a mess.

So, if you think health care is expensive now, just allow the Democrats to make you pay for everyone's health insurance through higher taxes and we'll see how FREE it is then.

Time for some home state politics. Georgia is a solid red state. Except for some a portion of metro Atlanta, there are few blue areas at all in the state. So the governor's race as well as some of the federal contests are a bit boring with the outcome nary in doubt. However, I find the governor's campaign an interesting one.

I see ads several times daily from both Sonny Perdue (R) and Mark Taylor (D). Taylor's ads, of which I see the same two over and over again, focus on alleging Perdue corruption in the form of a land deal and a tax break. Basically, he is running a purely negative campaign. A month or more ago, Taylor had run some positive ads suggesting IDEAS (I know, what a stretch) for improving Georgia. I actually thought he had a decent platform - not too liberal if you will. But all that is gone and all I see is mud.

Perdue on the other hand, has several ads. One condemns the Taylor allegations. Others focus on his accomplishments and ideas. Maybe the difference is due to Perdue's big lead in the polls, but I like to think that Sonny - imperfect as he may be - is the kind of person I want in government even if I don't agree with all of his campaign promises and such. He is a problem solver and I'll take that over a mudslinger any day even if I don't like the way he solves problems.

The latest polls that I've seen - late September - indicate a 19 point lead for Perdue. That same article about the polls has these little nuggets for all of those trying to run on mud slinging:

"I don't pay a lot of attention to the ethics allegations," said Samford, 59, who works part time in sales. "It's just politics and doesn't amount to a hill of beans."

and

"Of those familiar with the Perdue land deal, 1 percent of respondents said the allegations would cause them to vote against the governor, and 26 percent said they were voting against Perdue anyway and the allegations only reinforced their decision."

So, let's review. Allegations? People don't care, because they are just that - allegations. Anyone can make allegations that sound just horrible even if there's nothing to it. If Perdue had been indicted or convicted of something in a court of law, then it might make a difference, but allegations are useless. I'm sure it wouldn't surprise you to know that there are some equally nefarious allegations against Talyor. So what?

One of these days, politicians will realize that running mud slinging campaigns do not work and contributes to the current stunning lack of respect that Americans feel for congress (20% approval). Get out of the gutter and run on something positive!! Vote Sonny

I'll get back to the last post shortly, but I read this post and wanted to share. I recommend reading the whole post, but since very few read my blog and even less click through, I'll copy the main piece in it's entirety:

Single flat sales tax is fair, and it solves some problems

By SCOTT BURNS
Universal Press Syndicate

C.C. in Houston writes to say there is nothing fair about the Fair Tax plan for a single flat sales tax. He quotes a letter from another concerned citizen to the editor of the Houston Chronicle.

"The so-called Fair Tax scheme is a blatant attempt by the wealthy to reduce their tax payments. I call it the 'unfair tax,' as it will tax consumption rather than income. Those in the lower- to middle-income brackets usually spend most all of their income on necessities and can't save. They would be taxed on practically 100 percent of their income. Retirees, whose income may require them to pay no taxes, would end up paying taxes on all of the money they spend, which would greatly reduce their purchasing power.

'What's fair about that?'

"On the other hand, those who make more than they spend, and indeed those whose incomes greatly exceed their expenditures, would pay taxes on significantly less of their incomes, proportionally. What's fair about that? In fact it is a total reversal of the graduated tax system that we now have where we pay taxes based on our ability to pay. Our current system is certainly flawed and needs major overhauling, but it is still the fairest method of taxation.

"Let's fix the system we have rather than shifting the tax burden to lower-income Americans."

I've heard this argument before. It doesn't hold water. I believe that junking the current tax system — in its entirety — would create a modestly graduated tax system with a very broad base, consumption. By replacing both the income tax and the employment tax (among others) with a single sales tax, we would accomplish these good things:

Eliminate the fastest-growing and most regressive tax in our lifetime, the employment tax.

Massively broaden the tax base from only some income to all consumption.

Eliminate the corporate income tax and the entrenched corrupting lobbies that it has engendered.

Make visible, for the first time, the size of our collective tax burden.

Save the incredible amount of time and money wasted on tax planning and scheming.

Create a path for dealing with the unfunded liabilities of Social Security by increasing the tax base that supports it.

End the biannual festival of finger-pointing and envy that has become the hallmark of every election cycle.

Remove the embedded expense wedge that reduces the competitive position of American-made goods.

The Fair Tax proposal calls for giving all households a "pre-bate" of what they would pay in sales taxes for the necessities of life. The pre-bate would be paid to households monthly, eliminating the burden of taxes on our poorest families. Because of the pre-bate, the new tax would amount to a graduated tax.

The argument that poor people save little and rich people save much is a red herring because it ignores two realities.

First, the only benefit from having money is what we can consume with it. If you earn money that is not spent, you are deriving no immediate benefit from the money and shouldn't pay taxes on it. As long as the money not spent is used in our economy, it is providing benefits to everyone in the form of new investment, new jobs and working capital.

Second, many people who are rich or well-off spend more than their income on consumption because they are spending a portion of their capital. Some of that capital would not be taxed at all in the current system. The portion that was capital gain would be taxed at only 15 percent. With the Fair Tax, the very rich would pay taxes on all consumption. This includes mega yachts, wine cellars, and much other consumption that is taxed lightly or not at all. Instead, they would pay at the higher sales tax rate.

Right now our entire tax system is stacked against the young. The burden is getting worse, not better. It is possible that some older people would pay more in taxes than they do under the current system. That would only happen, however, if they had significant assets that they spent on consumption.

In that case, the sales tax would be highly progressive. It would tax those with assets that were used for consumption. It would not tax those who had no assets to use for consumption.

The only people who should fear the Fair Tax are the politicians, of both parties, who would lose their tools for extortion.

Most public polls show that more than 50 percent of the voting public — left, right and middle — favor a radical reform of our tax system.

That's the question I'll answer later today (or tomorrow). They've been saying it on the left for years. Even some on the right are saying it now. For now, feel free to let me know your answer...