Ken Vaughn on the tax code (WITH SLIGHT UPDATE)

I keep hearing the same lies coming from Perkins supporters about Ken Vaughn wanting to raise taxes.  The latest batch of misinformation comes from a new blog called Collegiate Conservative, and I do think it’s about time to address the obvious distortion.

In his last article, this person makes the false claim (once again) that Ken Vaughn is going to raise taxes. I commented on this article, rather respectfully, I thought, and encouraged this person to do an actual bit of research.

He is running on the national debt, abortion, and the Second Amendment. Even though he is running on the debt as his main issue, people in league with his campaign have stated that he intends to INCREASE the heavy tax burden which is already laid upon the taxpayers of this nation. Rather than tackling the budget, medicare or social security, people speaking on behalf of his campaign have stated that he intends to raise taxes to eliminate the debt.

This false, pathetic little claim flies straight in the face of actual truth, since it’s Chris Perkins, who has stated on his website explicitly that he wants to reinforce “the social safety net,” NOT Ken Vaughn.

Ken Vaughn believes in charity – the charitable will that is in every citizen – the charitable will that makes the United States the most generous nation in the world, as witnessed by our unified and bountiful giving during disasters in Haiti and Indonesia, as well as here at home. And we did it WITHOUT government forcibly taking our money and giving it away to the “needy.”

But, Alas! My comment is still “awaiting moderation,” and has not been approved by the blog owner, which is a bit telling. In any case, here’s what I said.

I find it instructive that people who support Col. Perkins are bound and determined to spread lies about Ken Vaughn, rather than tout their candidate’s actual views on anything. They insist on using Perkins’ military service as a crutch – as THE reason to elect him, rather than examine his positions.

Ken Vaughn has plainly and clearly spelled out his ideas on his website. He has a solid budget plan that includes massive cuts.

Chris Perkins has no such detailed plan. However, his desire to “balance the budget” coupled with his desire to “reinforce the social safety net” can NOT be accomplished without massive tax increases.

I’m not sure whether you just misunderstand Ken Vaughn’s positions or whether you’re intentionally misstating them. I would hope it is not intentional, because eventually we will need to band together behind one candidate to defeat Connolly, and alienating future allies is not a smart strategy.

I would encourage you to closely examine Ken Vaughn’s plan, assess its feasibility, and then make an independent decision about which plan will lead to tax increases. I can guarantee you that if you examine both with an objective eye, you will see the error you are making here.

Pay special attention to the emphasized bolded part. Entitlements comprise the largest portion of the federal budget. Without massive reductions, there’s no way to balance the budget without massive tax increases. None.  Does Chris Perkins have enough economic acumen to get that?

Ken Vaughn wants to reform and restructure our tax code. Nothing more, nothing less.  Want proof?  Here are his own words during the debate Chris Perkins was supposed to attend, but chose to bow out at nearly the last minute. Ken attended, and let the people hear his plan. Where was Chris Perkins? Unwilling to face his opponent.

I don’t know if the misinformation put out by the Perkins campaign is intentionally misleading, or whether his supporters are just running away with complete misinformation.

Either way, it’s time to examine the issues, instead of spreading lies.

Will Chris Perkins actually face his opponent and allow the people to decide in an honest and honorable manner?

That remains to be seen.

UPDATE:  It appears our friend, the Collegiate Conservative, is nothing but a shill. Looks like he’s commented on this blog several times under different pseudonyms, including David Smalley, Jon Rigley, and the ever-unhinged Collegiate Conservative. And I had warned him to stop trying to spam my site under different names to make Col. Perkins’ campaign look like it had more support.

I guess he didn’t listen, or didn’t care that I can see the email address and the IP that originates the comment.

Like I said, people like this do nothing but harm to a campaign. Witness the unraveling that ended up with him deleting his blog altogether.

What’s amusing is that he accused ME of needing a padded cell!

Thanks, for the laugh, David Smalley, Jon Rigley or whatever your name is today!

Oh my God!

I’m taking a break from my usual outrage and anger on this blog to bring you a bit of optimism and beauty.

If you aren’t moved to tears by this, you need someone to melt your cold, cold heart.

Enjoy!

Where’s the blood? (UPDATED)

I will say, this Martin shooting is getting interesting. A surveillance video taken the night George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin shows no visible blood on the guy, despite police reports and the lawyer’s contention that he had a broken nose and blood on his head.

What does this mean?

I have no idea yet.

I guess we shall see.

UPDATE:  I thought the video was really unclear, but it certainly didn’t look like Zimmerman was bloody in it. However, someone said he was cleaned up before being taken to the police station, and the Daily Caller enhanced a still from the video, which clearly shows a pretty large gash on the back of Zimmerman’s head.

You be the judge.

I’m surprised it took this long (UPDATED with some unbelievable shit!)

CBC is crying RAAAAAAAAAAAAACIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISM in the Trayvon Martin shooting.

Dimwit #1: Bobby Rush removed from House floor for sporting the ever-so-fashionable hoodie.

Rush was wearing a grey hoodie under his suit jacket. He took off his jacket, pulled the hood over his head and put on sunglasses while saying “racial profiling has to stop, Mr. Speaker. Just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum,” he said. [emphasis mine]

Because hoodies are obviously limited to black people. I’ll have to tell Rob, my son, my daughter, and… well… me to stop wearing hoodies, lest I be accosted and shot by a neighborhood watch captain. (Yeah, good luck with that!)

Dimwit #2: Frederica “The Hat” Wilson, who did not sport a hoodie, but did wear the ever so fashionable glitter hat.

Not one person has been arrested in Treyvon’s murder. I want to make sure that America knows that in Sanford, Florida, there was a young boy murdered. He is buried in Miami, Florida, and not one person has been arrested even though we all know who the murderer is. This was a standard case of racial profiling. No more! No more! We will stand for justice for Treyvon Martin. [emphasis mine]

Dimwit #3: Hank “Guam is Capsizing” Johnson.

“He was executed for ‘WWB’ in a ‘GC.’ Walking While Black in a Gated Community.” [no emphasis needed - stupid enough to stand on its own]

Dimwit #4: Maxine Waters, who claimed the shooting was a “hate crime.”

Personally, I hate it when some kid slams my head into the ground several times after he has broken my nose. Yep. Hate crime.

The usual suspects are creeping out to claim racism in this case.

I’m surprised it took this long.

UPDATE: Among all the screeching by the Congressional Black Caucus, the current Administration is accusing Republicans of politicizing the Trayvon Martin issue. Not even kidding.

Mr. “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon” is accusing Republicans of playing politics!

“People have to stop politicizing it… It’s no surprise that some of our Republican opponents are trying to make an issue with this. But the President spoke from the heart and we need to let the investigation take its course.”

I don’t know whether to laugh, or to beat my head against the wall until I can UNSEE this insanity!

“…the mandate fundamentally changes the relationship of a citizen with the government.”

Those were the words of  Supreme Court Justice Kennedy during the debate on ObamaCare yesterday.

And he is correct. Mandating an individual to make a purchase – an ostensibly extremely expensive one over time – from a third party is initiating force against said individual. Period.

No, this is not the same as using tax dollars to pay for the military. Lest you forget, national defense is one of the few functions of the federal government actually authorized in the Constitution.

No, this is not the same as using tax dollars to fund police and fire department services, because this is the federal government mandating – obliging – forcing – private citizens to purchase a service from an insurer, not to pay for a public service that affects every one of us.

Health care is not a public service. It is a service provided and paid for when used, much like any other service.  Everyone needs health care at some point, yes. But can a service facilitating its purchase be mandated?

Chief Justice Roberts had an interesting response to the government’s claim that it can and should be forced upon us by government guns.

Well, the same, it seems to me, would be true say for the market in emergency services: police, fire, ambulance, roadside assistance, whatever. You don’t know when you’re going to need it; you’re not sure that you will. … So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services? You can just dial 911 no matter where you are?

From all the reports I’m hearing, the liberal Justices such as Sotomayor and Kagan already have their minds made up, and no amount of arguments will change it.

This is another reason why Kagan, especially, needed to recuse herself from this case. Her biases were well known in advance, and yet, she didn’t have the integrity to step aside and allow the process to work as it was supposed to.  The fact that she refused, choosing instead to play defense for her team, instead of being an honest arbiter, is a travesty.