There’s a tough primary taking place in Indiana’s 9th Congressional District, but the candidate who lost the seat in the national 2006 massacre, Mike Sodrel, just landed an enormous endorsement that could permanently shift the tide of the primary in his favor. That’s right, Indiana’s own Mike Pence came out in support of his former colleague in the House of Representatives. While we haven’t endorsed anyone in this race or any other race yet, I would be lying if I said that I didn’t like Mike Sodrel. Not as a politician – as an ordinary guy. He’s the kind of person you just want to be around. Coincidentally, that’s what makes him a good public servant.

This was from a campaign e-mail blast tonight:

To a packed room full of supporters young, old, and in between, Congressman Mike Pence endorsed Mike Sodrel in the Ninth District U.S. Congressional Campaign at the Clark County Republican Headquarters on Saturday. In front of the backdrop of a new campaign logo and in front of supporters waving signs “Mike Pence. Mike Sodrel. 2010,” Pence enthusiastically put his full support behind Mike Sodrel and the Sodrel family citing them as not only friends but a family “standing in the gap” for citizens whose voices aren’t being heard on Capitol Hill.

The topic of focus at the press conference was not only Mike Pence’s endorsement but what this election means for the nation. Mike Pence said, “The cliché in politics is that ‘this is the most important election in our lifetime.’ This isn’t the most important election in our lifetime. I think this is one of the most important elections in the life of this nation.”

Congressman Pence said he supported Mike Sodrel “before it was cool.” Sodrel and Pence shook hands at the press conference and were off to a luncheon at The Grand in New Albany.

At the Grand, Mike Sodrel introduced Congressman Pence but before doing so, recognized that Congressman Pence wouldn’t endorse him just on the basis of their friendship. “If he didn’t think I were good for this country, if he didn’t think I were good for the economy, for his children and his grandchildren, he wouldn’t have endorsed me. That’s why his endorsement is so important.”

Pence delivered a signature knockout speech to a room full of Sodrel supporters who were at the luncheon. Pence’s first words were “Mike Sodrel is going to be the next congressman from this Congressional District,” and the audience erupted with a resounding applause. While Pence recognized the Sodrel family for rising up for “Rocky V,” the point of his speech was to challenge Americans hungry for freedom, traditional values, and individual responsibility that their duty was to “rise up.” The Sodrels cannot win this election with “all the money in the world and all the tea in China” on their own. The Sodrels need Ninth Congressional District residents to “rise up” and do everything in their power to get them elected to make the next century an “American century built on American ideals and freedom. This is our calling. Now is the time. Let your voice be heard” Pence compellingly said.

Pence’s endorsement definitely pulls sway toward Mike Sodrel’s campaign in the four-way race for the Republican nomination to face Baron Hill in November. Congressman Pence’s job, as the third ranking Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives, is to get fellow conservative Republicans elected to the House. The Pence endorsement was fully welcomed by the Sodrel campaign and comes as an important turning point in the acceleration of a campaign that is promising to be different this year.

You can get more updates about the exciting campaign for Mike Sodrel by going to www.mikesodrel.com.

…and the winner is…Debra Medina!

On the Glenn Beck show, Debra Medina made a statement regarding the 9/11 “Truth” Movement that should be crippling to her campaign (and if it isn’t, then I’ve lost all faith in Texas). Here is the quote, taken from an Associated Press article:

‘[C]omments made by Debra Medina on the Glenn Beck Show that there were “some very good arguments” that the U.S. was involved in bringing down the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

“I don’t have all of the evidence there, Glenn,” Medina said. “I think some very good questions have been raised. In that regard there’s some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there.”‘

Wow.

Well, needless to say (and very very unsurprisingly) her two rivals in the race couldn’t wait to assert that THEY weren’t retarded.

“Perry said Medina’s remarks “were an insult to the thousands of Americans who lost loved ones.” He countered that anyone “should be ashamed” for suggesting involvement by former President George W. Bush’s administration. Bush was Perry’s predecessor as Texas governor.

Hutchison stressed that it was “al-Qaida terrorists who declared war on America. To suggest otherwise is an affront to the men and women who are sacrificing their lives to root out the terrorists in Afghanistan and around the globe.”"

Perhaps a bit more diplomatic than I think I could have been able to stay, but they both made their points quite clear. Of course, after the cat was out of the bag, Medina still tried to get that mangy feline back in with this statement, pulled from her campaign website and printed in it’s entirety (with some occasional interruptions by me, of course).

I know, I know…just leave this one alone Travis. But you all know that I can’t do that! It’s some kind of mental illness I have. When something absurd is talked about I NEED to write about it.

The Associated Press printed a story today about First Lady Obama’s decision to take on child obesity. First, before I go all critical on her, I want to talk about the couple of things that I don’t have a problem with.

Major elements of Mrs. Obama’s campaign include:

“The Food and Drug Administration working with food manufacturers and retailers to make food labels more “customer-friendly.” The nonalcoholic beverage industry said Tuesday it will start putting calorie information on the front of its products.”

I have no problem with people being more aware of what they are putting into their bodies. Of course it won’t make me think twice about demolishing that wonderful McDouble and that large fry, but some people may, and that’s fine. Good for them. I’ll think about them while I lick the grease off my fingers.

“Offering $400 million in tax breaks to encourage grocery stores to move into “food deserts,” areas with limited supplies of nutritious food, and spending $5 million more to establish and promote farmers’ markets. Both steps would require congressional action.”

Tax breaks=good. As long as it is a tax break to ENCOURAGE, not DEMAND grocery stores to move in one direction or another, I’m fine with it. The 5 mil to promote farmers’ markets? Well, at first thought I was against, but considering 5 mil isn’t anywhere near the trillions that we need to stop spending, I’ll bite the bullet on that one.

“Encouraging children to exercise more; an hour a day is recommended.”

Encourage away.

“Setting up a Web site, http://www.letsmove.gov, with shopping tips, a recipe finder and other resources”

No problemo with that one either.

Now, let’s get critical.

“The American Academy of Pediatrics is encouraging doctors to monitor children’s body mass index or BMI, which is a calculation of height and weight used to measure body fat.”

In one paper or magazine you’ll read about children having issues about their weight, in the next you’ll read that the American Academy of Pediatrics is going to start encouraging doctors to monitoring kid’s weight. Which should we be concerned about again? Should little Susie Bingeandpurge really have her body fat measured? I say leave this part out of it. Fat children have enough of a complex as it is, thank you very much.

“Serving healthier food in schools. Congress is due to rewrite the Child Nutrition Act this year, and the administration is asking lawmakers to spend $10 billion over the next decade to give schools more money to make needed changes. More than 31 million children get meals through the federal school lunch program, and many kids eat up to half their daily calorie total at school.”

Here we go again. More cradle to grave crap. More money allocated to public schools to fix the problem (which never seems to fix it, so therefore more money gets thrown at it). As I recall from my own hot lunches in school, it was a pretty healthy lunch anyways (except for pizza on Friday! God forbid!!) Not only that, reread the above paragraph. Did you see the kicker? “[K]ids eat up to half their daily calorie total at school.” So, while we have an issue with child obesity from pretty damn balanced public school lunches, we also have an issue where children aren’t getting enough food while at home? Then, shouldn’t we, in theory, make the lunch foods have MORE calories and MORE fat since the kids aren’t eating as much at home?

Maybe I’m out of line here, but I think the whole idea is ludicrous. In one speech you can hear a politician piss and moan about needing more food stamp services because people are starving (which is crap, because a good portion of those people just sell the stamps for cash anyways) and then we hear about “needed changes” regarding childhood obesity.

Here’s a thinker. Don’t worry if my kid is fat! If he’s fat then that means he has enough to eat at home then doesn’t it? Why is that liberals (and to be fair a good many conservatives) feel the need to worry about stuff like this? I know the other side of the argument: if we can thin down these kids we won’t have to pay for their health care in the future. Well, I have a solution for that too! Don’t pay for their health care!

I don’t mean to rant and rave about such a mundane topic here, but good Lord, there’s only so much stupidity a man can take. Now excuse me. I believe my 4 meat pizza is almost finished cooking.

Let’s pretend for a moment that the NRSC wasn’t led by a corrupt Senator with too much time on his hands that he has to mess around in other states’ primaries. 

Okay, are you pretending?  So Dan Coats announced he was going to run for US Senate here in Indiana.  Before he even returns home to Indiana, the National Democratic Senatorial Committee launches a series of negative attacks bashing Coats relentlessly for clients he represented, where he’s been registered to vote (Virginia) and where he said he wants to retire (North Carolina).

Now, undoubtedly, Coats is going to have to answer these attacks in the very near future, but why have the Democrats been so quick to go on such a ferocious campaign against the guy? Well, there are two possible explanations and the truth can be either.

1. Democrats are afraid of Dan Coats.
2. Democrats are see Dan Coats as an easy target of opportunity.

If these explanations seem familiar, it’s because we’ve used them before when talking about Sarah Palin. In Palin’s case, I honestly believe that she’s too incompetent to pose a serious threat to President Obama in 2012, that they’re just taking shots at an easy target of opportunity who really is her own worst enemy.

Dan Coats and Sarah Palin are in different boats, however. First of all, Dan Coats is probably intelligent enough to be able to tell Katie Couric what he reads. Secondly, and more importantly, Dan Coats isn’t the only challenger of Evan Bayh in Indiana. Richard Behney, who has no experience to speak of, is among the Republican contenders in this primary and if Democrats were looking to embarrass Indiana Republicans, they would have been lambasting this guy months ago. Likewise, they’ve mostly stayed out of the hair of Marlin Stutzman, John Hostettler, and Don Bates, as well.

Of these four, I personally think Stutzman and Hostettler are the best candidates to give Republicans a chance at ousting Evan Bayh. So if this was an instance of Democrats being afraid of Coats, why in the world haven’t they attacking Stutzman and Hostettler with the same vigor? The answer to that is simple: money. Dan Coats has been a lobbyist for quite some time and has acquired some very powerful and very rich friends. Although Stutzman and Hostettler are amazing candidates, they haven’t been able to raise the funds necessary to get their message out to the voters. This is why I was upset last year when the corrupt politicians in the NRSC said they wouldn’t send any money or support to Indiana’s Republican candidate for US Senate in 2010. Granted, Coats has NRSC support, but we’re pretending that hasn’t happened because I want us to look at Coats objectively.

The other thing to remember is that money alone doesn’t make the candidate, unless you’re giving that money to the NRSC… in which case money is all that matters. Yes, Dan Coats has money in his corner, but the other thing Democrats have to be afraid of is his message. If Dan Coats were a liberal Republican and campaigning on a liberal record, the Republican primary voters here in Indiana will reject him regardless of how much money he spends. Dan Coats may be a lobbyist and arguably a carpetbagger with loyalties to states other than Indiana… but he’s probably a conservative lobbyist and carpetbagger and it certainly seems as if Evan Bayh and the Democratic Party at the State and National level are afraid of this guy and that means he could be very good for us.

Look, I’m not endorsing anybody in this race yet. I do have my favorite, but I’m holding off on endorsing him until I hear what Dan Coats can bring to the table. I’m also not saying we should give Dan Coats a free pass. I have serious problems with him as our candidate and the Democratic Party has done a very good job of summarizing them. But he’s still a candidate and until we see where he stands on the issues, I think we’d be doing a disservice to the State of Indiana not to consider the guy at all.

With that said, Dan Coats needs to hit the ground running when he gets back to Indiana tomorrow. Indiana Republicans (including myself) are a lot more skeptical of Coats than are the people he’s been playing paddy-cake with inside the I-495 Beltway since he left Indiana more than a decade ago.

The title of this post is meant to be sarcastic. The entire population has witnessed how corrupt and idiotic the National Republican Senatatorial Committee can be when they endorsed the liberal Governor and Obama stimulus supporter, Charlie Crist, over conservative Speaker of the Florida House, Marco Rubio with more than a year left before the Primary. Conservatives rallied behind the young and energetic Republican, however and what was once an enormous gap in support between Rubio and Crist has been closed and the race is tighter than ever.

Well, the corruption of the NRSC under Republican Senator Cornyn (Texas) truly knows no bounds. The Senate Race against Senator Evan Bayh in Indiana has been underway since the summer of 2009. Unlike Florida, we have a plethora of candidates with various backgrounds and ideologies… it’s also been a shockingly positive Republican primary by modern standards. Well, out of nowhere came Dan Coats. Dan Coats is the former Senator of Indiana who resigned just as Evan Bayh was completing his time as Governor and made it clear he wanted to run for Senate. Coats knew he wouldn’t have been able to beat Bayh… but in 2010, Bayh appears vulnerable and, what do you know, the guy is back from his time as a lobbyist out east.

Say what you will about Coats, I don’t care. We have an endorsement process here at www.ktracy.com and we’re going to follow it, which means we’re going to support the best candidate. Coats isn’t really the issue here. The issue here is the NRSC endorsing Coats when there are three other credible contenders in the race, including Marlin Stutzman, who has already spent a ton of money and time on his campaign.

The NRSC did this after vowing not to spend money or time in Indiana. While that annoyed me at first, I really wish Cornyn and his cronies kept their corrupt fingers out of my state. Since this happened, insiders in the state party and NRSC has supposedly asked Marlin Stutzman (and probably the others) to step aside and let Coats take the primary without a fight.

UPDATE: Stutzman is now saying he was never pressured by the IN GOP to get out of the race. This was contrary to what I had heard from a usually reliable source earlier. That actually comes as a huge relief to me. Not only am I allowed to continue my love fest for my state party, but it lets us focus more on the Evil Empire of the Republican Party, the NRSC.

These guys have put MONTHS of hard work in across the state, meeting with countless party activists and officials at all levels, exposing themselves and their families to state media scrutiny, and you want them to just step aside like it never happened?

Thankfully, Stutzman and the others are doing the right thing and staying in the race. But here’s what I don’t understand: If the NRSC and GOP insiders in Indiana want to play politics like this, why the hell do we have a primary in May that costs taxpayers a fortune? It would be a LOT cheaper for the State of Indiana if we just went back to the Convention system and nominated all of our candidates that way. This would save taxpayers a lot of money and allow the corrupt politicians like Senator Cornyn screw around in state politics all their greedy little hearts desire!

No, I’m not advocating that. I’m a strong supporter of the primary process. What I am advocating is that the NRSC gets the hell out of Indiana, Florida, and every other state where there is a primary battle underway. Who the hell does Cornyn and the NRSC think they are to decide what kind of representation conservatives need and deserve in their states?

The Republican Party used to be a party that believed the best decisions in the country were made by individuals, not by Washington elitists. Senator Cornyn has repeatedly betrayed that conservative value and when Republicans fail to take back the US Senate in what SHOULD be a sweeping election, he deserves to be held directly responsible for that failure.

Let Dan Coats earn our support like every other Republican in the race.

UPDATE: This didn’t take long…

Sexting. I never, honestly, thought that such a thing would become an issue worthy of passing state laws over, but apparently it has become enough of a problem that such laws are necessary.

“Sexting” is the phrase given to text and picture messages that contain lewd acts/words and/or nudity. I’ve read other pieces that asked if this was a high-tech version of “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours,” and from what I can ascertain that is apparently the case.

The big question, however, is whether a new law regarding these instances will eradicate the problem and whether a law violates individuals’ freedom of speech.

I’m not sure I’m qualified enough to throw my five cents in on that question in particular, but I have to say the idea of children sending nude pictures to other children is alarming. The parents should shoulder a good portion of the blame (whether the parents will admit to their own neglect is another question entirely), but the children who send the messages have to be held accountable and have it explained to them why their actions have consequences.

In this new age of technology, future employers are scanning people’s Facebook and MySpace pages and are looking up their job hopefuls on Google before considering whether to hire them. A Facebook page with pictures of an individual doing a keg stand (or, with the issue of “sexting,” a picture of an individual in the nude) does not put that person to the front of the line for a job, to say the least.

Is it disheartening to see that it may take the passage of a law to make this fact apparent? Of course! Everyone likes to think that people have more common sense than that! Unfortunately, that isn’t always the case, and one has to weigh internally which of the two scenarios he or she favors more: a law against “sexting” which might, technically, have the chance of infringing on a persons rights, or a new flock of job seeking young men and women who can’t find any serious employment because of stupid mistakes made when they were younger whom we, as society, must now pay for in the form of welfare and unemployment benefits.

Neither sounds particularly pleasing, and I’m not the type of person that usually favors societal infrastructure, but when given the choice between two very bitter pills, I find the former a bit more palatable.

Besides the societal effects of not passing legislation regarding this problem, there is the blatantly obvious reason that pops into one’s head: children shouldn’t be sending pictures and messages of a sexual nature anyway!

Written for and originally printed in the NWI Times

I wanted to follow up on what Travis just wrote. I recently got back in touch with a good friend of mine from High School. Since the time I became a Republican to the time I graduated High School and left for the Air Force, this guy was my political sparing partner. He was a left wing liberal and I was a right wing conservative. We drove people absolutely nuts talking about tax policy, social justice, and just even things one wouldn’t consider political issues – we found ways to fight over it.

Well, it turns out he joined the US Navy. When I asked him if they made him a Republican yet, he quickly shot back that he was 20 times more liberal than before and asked, disapprovingly, if I was involved in the Tea Party protests. Now, my response, unfortunately in my opinion, is uncommon among most of my fellow conservatives. I laughed and offered to buy him a drink the next time he’s in the area. I was amused that despite all the years we hadn’t spoken and all the changes our nation has seen over that period of time, we still had the same argumentative friendship.

I can’t begin to tell you the number of times that I’ve seen personal relationships be completely destroyed by politics. To be fair, it happens on both sides. I’ve seen just as many liberals excommunicate conservatives from their lives as conservatives do the same for liberals. Not only do they let politics destroy their friendships, but they also let it destroy their families. That to me is absolutely unfathomable.

I know we like to focus heavily on politics here, but let’s take a look at the people who lived under the dictatorships, monarchies, and oppressive governments in world history. These people had no political freedom and, in many cases, entire generations didn’t even dare to dream of political reform. We have images of these people being absolutely miserable, but that’s not always the case. In fact, billions of people live and have lived politically oppressed, yet happy lives. The truth of the matter is that happiness can be found just about everywhere in the world. That’s because whatever the meaning of life is, it’s more important than politics.

Those of you who know me know that family means virtually everything to me. You may also know that I have a lot of liberals in my family. If I had to choose between politics and them, you would have one less blog to read everyday. Personally, I truly believe true, honest happiness comes from your relationships with other people. Therefore, whatever it is that can come between you and the people who inspire your happiness; be it money, jealousy, politics, etc.; THOSE are the things that need to be excommunicated from your life.

That isn’t to say that nobody should be allowed in politics unless they are resigned to being miserable human being. Rather, I’m telling you never to let politics come between you and your family and friends if they disagree with you. If you’re not able to do that, then I highly recommend finding something else to do with your time that builds upon your personal relationships rather than tears them down. Maybe bowling?

With the latest surge of TEA Party activism combined with an over-all nationwide jerk towards the right, names of TEA Party candidates, third party “conservative” candidates, and candidates that proudly yell from the highest roof top that they are not a part of the “establishment” (whatever the Hell that means) are coming out of the wood work. Lets get this straight right off the bat since I know far too many people don’t read past the first paragraph or two of these posts before writing mindless, driveling remarks of a derogatory nature in the comment section: I’m not saying these qualities make a BAD candidate.

ALL that I am saying is that I certainly hope that people thoroughly vet and examine these candidates before buying every cock and bull thing that pours out of their mouths. It takes a Hell of a lot more than good rhetoric and convenient timing to make person a good conservative candidate. Sure, the rhetoric at this time may make for a very winnable candidate, but that does not mean that the person is right for the job.

Depending on the position that the candidate is running for (lets use, for the sake of this post, a Senate seat) there are a lot questions that should be asked about that individual. What, exactly, is this persons qualifications? Would the seat be better filled by a person that is, on a scale of 1-10 regarding “conservativeness”, a 10 with no experience what-so-ever, or a person that is a 7 but knows the ins and outs of politics and perhaps was a high ranking member of the military? Me, personally? I would easily vote for the latter of these two candidates.

The same, obviously, goes for presidential candidates. Heck, George W. Bush is a prime example of a person who won the primary because he ran a great campaign (with the assistance of Karl Rove) and smeared the opposing candidates so much (with the assistance of the Evangelical community) that he won the primary and went on to beat Gore. Not that I thought that Bush was a bad President. I have my good things to say right along with the bad things (and usually my arguments for Bush are others’ arguments against him, but that’s besides the point) however I feel there were probably others better suited for the position. But, because of timing and good rhetoric (and EXCELLENT campaigning) he became the face of the Republican party for 8 years.

Another thing that I hope everybody thinks about is relativity. No, you don’t have to be Einstein to get this (budda cha!), you only have to have more than two brain cells rubbing together and can’t be a mindless ideologue who screams one word slogans over and over again because you don’t have any substance in your arguments. However, I’ve fallen off of my beaten path for a moment (or rather, down a rabbit hole), my point regarding relativity is whether or not that candidates views are relevant to that position. For example, a person running for city council doesn’t need to give a crap one way or another about the Iraq war. It’s irrelevant. Like wise for abortion, the national debt, etc.

Many are probably thinking: “well, duh!” However, too many are probably either seething because they support a candidate that has the right rhetoric but lacks the qualifications or are wiping the drool from their chin and saying, “Ohhh…I get it!”  

*Sigh*

That’s why I’m here. To put that little touch of common sense, a dash of reality, a pinch of sarcasm, and a whole pound of awesomeness in each and every day of your life.

There is an almost never ending list of reasons to support the Fair Tax, but I’m convinced that this 10 is enough to sway those that are on the fence. This list, which is a variation of a list that pushed me over the edge and convinced me, is found in the book “FairTax: The Truth”, by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder.

1. No Capital Gains Tax. Those the feverishly oppose the Fair Tax will tell you that this just makes the rich richer, and yes, it does. You know who else it makes richer? EVERYBODY ELSE. What this really is is a tax on capitalism. With no capital gains tax, everybody will be free to invest in whatever they choose with out worrying about being double taxed. Having a capital gains tax at all is a determent on real “progress”.

2. No Death Tax. The fact that there is a tax even after you DIE brings new meaning to the phrase “Nothing is certain in life but death and taxes.” The death tax was the most ridiculous idea ever conceived. Why shouldn’t I be able to leave ALL of my wordly possesions to my son and wife? All the death tax is is a cheap trick to bring in some extra revenue, and it is unfair.

3. No Keeping Records of Financial Transactions. Hell, I don’t do that now, and I’m probably screwing myself out of a whollllle lot of money. Those pesky receipts are washed and lost and chewed up (between a dog and a baby, EVERYTHING gets chewed up) and are NEVER around when tax time comes around.

4. No More Filling Out Tax Forms. The amount of time that is spent by every family in the US just to comply with the tax code is ridiculous. The only other option (which I have to admit is what I do) is to forfeit a huge chunk of my tax check in order to have somebody else do my taxes (yes, I’m lazy, leave me alone). Eliminating this waste of time would not only free me up to do other things, but would give me an opportunity to spend my money and stimulate the economy because, let’s face it, we all like to buy useless crap.

5. Will Help Keep US Jobs IN The US. I actually wrote out a huge piece specifically about this, see a couple blog posts down on the INFairTax site to see it.

6. No More Penalties For Messing Up On Your Taxes. No tax forms to fill out, no more bogus mistakes that continually hit your wallet. Let me tell you all a little story about a friend of mine that I work with and the number of times that his home state, the state of Michigan, has contacted him with new “mistakes”, claiming that he owes more money. Between him and his wife, they make around 200 grand. His salary is around 60 grand. ALL of his salary plus a good chunk of his wifes goes towards taxes. Just something to think about.

7. The Government Will No Longer Have Access To Your Financial History. Why should they, after all? What business is it of the governments to have that kind of information that is reserved for my wife and I?

8. No More Class Warfare Used In Politics. In case you haven’t noticed, President Obama used class warfar A LOT during his campaign. He continually talked about raising taxes and having “the rich” pay their “fair share”, and he isn’t the only politician guilty of such rhetoric. If the tax system is broken down and replaced, no longer will the “soak the rich” rhetoric be useable, and it will help to keep me from blowing my brains out while watching political debates.

9. Less Lobbyist Influence. Lobbyists are, in my opinion, one of those necessary evils. I know that this is a hotly debated subject, but it’s just how I feel. For example, I’m a big fan of my gun rights, and so I enjoy the political pull that the NRA has in Congress. Sue me. However, if the Fair Tax were to be enacted, I wouldn’t protest to less lobbyist influence because the lessening of influence would be across the political board.

10. America Will Become The New Tax Haven. There is a very good reason that people have Swiss bank accounts: they HAVE paying unfair taxes. No more unfair taxes, no more foreign tax havens. In fact, it would probably be the exact opposite! The US would become the tax haven!

I could have probably made this list go on…and on…and on…but hey, I write a weekly column here! I have to save something for me to write about!

Cross-posted and originally written for Indiana Fair Tax