The Democratically controlled House Ways and Means Committee has now given all Americans a view of what we can expect if the Democrats win the White House and/or majorities in the House and Senate - it's the mother of all tax increases, estimated at over $1 trillion.

This largest tax increase in the history of the United States of America is aimed directly at those who create jobs and economic growth. In their rush to implement wealth redistribution and gain votes, the Democrats are willing to throw this country under the bus and into another Jimmy Carter recession. Remember, it was the Democrats who saddled America with the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) the last time they went after the "rich" in their never ending quest for wealth redistribution. It's the middle class that is getting nailed with the AMT now.

The Democrats are assuring us, the American people, that the top individual tax rate will go from the current 35% to 44%, by not renewing the 2003 tax cuts and by adding a 4% tax surcharge to anyone making more than $200,000 per year. They also plan on raising the capital gains tax from 15% to 19.6%, and penalizing most forms of capital formation. This will place the U.S. as one the highest taxing countries in the free world.

Taxes influence behavior. That's an undisputable fact. The Democrats will destroy the very people they are trying to help. Who do you think is going to get hurt by driving those who create jobs out of the job creation business? People who need jobs are the ones who will get hurt. They will wind up on unemployment and food stamps and without self respect. If anyone thinks that the government is going to replace the private sector job creators, please read the obituaries of the communist countries that tried it.

IRS statistics show that in the U.S.
            the top 1% of income earners pays 39% of all income taxes. 
            the top 4% pays 47%  
            the top 5% pays 53%
            the top 10% pays 65%
            the top 20% pays 80%
and     the bottom 35% pays zero.
In fact many of the bottom 35% actually get money from the state and federal governments as tax credits, even though they never pay any taxes.

If you make $105,000 or more (before taxes!), you're in the top 10% and a member of the group that pays 65% of the country's income taxes,  The Tax Foundation states that three of four taxpayers in the highest income bracket are small business owners or farmers. Most of them use subchapter S or LLC tax reporting, which groups them in with individual tax returns. They are the job creators. 

What do you think the owner of a business employing 20 people is going to do when the Democrats stick him or her with a huge tax bill? History has proven that they will cut back and lay off enough people to recoup the money. How does that help the economy? How does that help the people who got laid off? 

Wait a minute. The money that comes into the government in the form of taxes to pay for unemployment checks for those laid off comes from those who are about to get soaked by the Democrats. Those who provide over half of the income tax revenue are going to cut back due to the higher tax rates. Since they make up over half the revenue, the revenue collected by the government will shrink. Due to the shrinking tax receipts, the Democrats will then have to increase the tax rates again. This time they will have to include the middle class, as Bill Clinton did, because there just won't be enough rich people to soak any more.

Why would anyone in their right mind increase tax rates, when it is a proven fact that lowering tax rates actually increases the amount of tax revenue the government collects. Even though the rate is lower, the economy grows much faster and there is more income to tax.

The Democrats are so blinded by their desire to win votes by fooling people into believing that wealth redistribution will help them, that they deny the truth of the tax reductions of 2003. The 2003 tax cuts created one of the greatest stories never told. They:

    increased tax revenue for 2007 by 6.7% over 2006 to $2,568 trillion
    increased tax receipts from 2003 by $758 billion
    increased individual tax receipts by 46.3% over the past 4 years
    increased Federal revenue to 18.8% of GDP from an 18.2 average over the past 40 years

The shame of it is that poor and middle class people are easily fooled by seductive free handouts and the thought of soaking the "rich". As history has proven again and again, it will only be a short time after they have elected the "wolves in sheep's clothing" to office that they will be told that their taxes are going up too because they have now been reclassified by the Politburo as "rich". What's even worse is that well educated intellectuals are falling for this also. And what is the absolute worst is that corporate executives, those about to be soaked, in an effort to win future exemption, are giving more money to the Democratic election campaigns. Can't they read history books? There will be no corporate exemptions.They are feeding the very beast that is going to serve them up for lunch.

If we do not come to our senses and vote against the wealth redistributors, the socialists, the collectivists and the central planners, this country will have to go through another horrible economic recession before its citizens wake up to economics 101.

For those of you that have been reading my blogs, this is the tenth tutorial class in basic economics.

This blog is about the truth. It is about economics and business. I am an entrepreneur and businessman, not a politician. I do not like politics. Politics has come to represent an example of mankind’s lowest and cruelest tendencies driven by hatred. It seems that there is no longer room for civil disagreement and open debate.  

I, along with many Americans, am fed up with politicians and the mainstream media distorting economic facts and ignoring proven, accepted economic principles, because those principles contradict their political positions. The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, USA Today, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC and other liberal media outlets are communicating distorted economic facts and omitting important economic statistics in the guise of reporting economic news.

I travel a great deal, both domestically and internationally on business. I am saddened when I observe my fellow citizens and others in airports and coffee shops reading these distortions and none the wiser. We are creating a dangerous world when we distort the truth to gain power. Every country where uninformed citizens have allowed themselves to be fooled by dishonest politicians, seduced by political pandering promises of free health care, free 401k retirement contributions, free $5,000 contributions for having children and voted like sheep to elect them, have wound up impoverished and lost their basic God given free rights.

How many examples of failed collectivist and central planning governments do we need before we get it? Before the Democrats get it? I again repeat Sir Winston Churchill's wise words: "Socialism (I add Liberalism) is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

After that introduction, let’s get on with class #10.

The economic drivers that increase GDP and personal wealth for all citizens willing to work are: technology, investment and population (people). What crushes economic growth is high taxes and excessive government regulation of business activities.

It is a historically proven fact that it is necessary for the private sector to invest capital in economic ventures for economic growth to occur. When governments have tried to substitute themselves for private investors, the results have been mostly disastrous, any good results have been temporary and eventually backfired and reduced economic growth in the sector they interfered in.

Investors demand that they receive back their original investment in an asset, plus all costs of regulation and taxes in acquiring, operating and disposing of it, plus about a 3% inflation and risk adjusted rate of return, before the asset becomes unproductive (depreciation). This gross rate of return is called the “service price of capital”.

In our current economy that rate is 20.3% (Institute for Research on the economics of Taxation). This means that you should not create an economic asset unless you are convinced that the “hurdle rate” is 20.3% or less.

AXIOM: THE LOWER THE HURDLE RATE, THE HIGHER THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS EMPLOYED BECOME, THE HIGHER INDIVIDUAL WAGES GROW AND THE HIGHER GDP GROWS.

Now let’s examine the true facts about the economy. The tax cuts of 2003, known as the “Bush Tax Cuts”, which included:

 

            reducing the capital gains tax and dividend tax to 15% from 20% (Bill Clinton reduced the rate from 25% to 20% in 1992)

 

            reducing the top 4 individual tax rates reducing estate taxes



This is a significant reduction and has translated into 3 years of 
            
            Unemployment of less than 5%

           

            Average GDP growth of 3.2%

 

            Federal budget deficit fell in 2007 by 35% to $161 billion

 

            Since 2004 deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion (one of the most rapid declines in US history)

 

            The deficit is now down to 1.2% of GDP (half of the average of the past 50 years) despite a $200 billion post 9/11 tab for the war on terror, including Iraq

 

            Tax revenue for 2007 was $2,568 trillion, or 6.7% higher than 2006

 

            Tax receipts have climbed by $758 billion since the 2003 tax cuts took effect

 

            Individual tax receipts have soared by 46.3% in 4 years (with most of the increase coming from the wealthy)

 

            Federal revenue in 2007 is 18.8% of GDP compared with an 18.2% average over the past 40 years.

There is a limited period of time that returns from initial original capital investment can continue to grow. Capital investment made due to the growth impact of the 2003 tax cuts will start to taper off 2008 -2013. It will take extending those tax cuts and additional tax cuts to keep GDP growth going.

Other countries have taken notice of the successful results of the Bush Tax Cuts and are abandoning their liberal tax and spend policies in favor of "economics 101" tax reductions. Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan and Vietnam, Austria, Northern Ireland all have cut taxes this year or are in the process of doing so. Germany has reduced the corporate tax rate from 39% to under 30%. France is proposing tax reductions of 5% for corporations. Spain and Italy are in the process of tax rate reductions. Eastern Europe is in the midst of a low rate flat tax revolution. There are now 14 nations with a flat tax system as opposed to the liberal, socialist progressive system in the USA.

Every Democratic presidential candidate along with Democratic Senators and Representatives in the House want you to ignore this truth. They are all advocating increased taxes and more government regulation in every aspect of our daily lives. They have decided to ignore time proven economic laws and the actual successful results of the tax cuts and drive the country toward a proven losing economic system of collectivism and central planning.

Knowing this will drive the country into economic poverty, why would so called intelligent people advocate this course of economic suicide? Most elected congress members have law degrees. They have received excellent educations.

In 1968 Democratic President Lyndon Johnson passed 10% war surtax on income. Investment spending crashed by 7% and it is now economists agree that it triggered the 1969-1970 recession.

In 1990 Japan imposed a capital gains tax for the first time in its history and increased individual and business taxes. It crashed stock and land prices and crushed investment. It took Japan 15 years to recover.

By repealing the Bush Tax Cuts, including increasing the current 15% capital gains tax, the “service price of capital” or the “hurdle rate” would increase by 10% from 20.3% to 22.5%. Capital investment would immediately plummet. Not only would planning for new projects cease, but many existing projects would be closed down. Hours worked would go down around 2%. Private sector output and wage and capital income would drop by 7%. The United States, our country, would plummet into the economic darkness of the Jimmy Carter years. It took many years to recover from that disaster.

If our government goes down this road, as the Democrats are planning, we should expect the same results.

Let’s spread the truth about economics. There is no need to disparage our fellow citizens who mistakenly want to distort and deny these economic truths. The truth speaks for itself. This is not about belonging to a political party. Whether you’re a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, or whatever, this is about the truth. It is about undistorted facts.

If you care about your family’s financial future, the future of opportunities that should be available for your children, and the economy of the United States of America, please forward this blog link to at least 10 friends.

Thank you and may God bless you, your family, our country and all nations

 

Today's WSJ article " "How Polarizing Job Scene Squeezes Middle" is an informative article on the changing job market. However, a more infomative approach would have examined the historical shifts in job markets in the U.S. and in other countries that have experienced industrial and technological development. I believe such an examination would yield a similar change in the job scene going back to the Stone Age. I also believe we would see that industrial and technological shifts move more swiftly than people are willing to react to their changing effects.

 

People get comfortable in their life and work habits. Many children who grew up in households where the bread winner worked on the assembly line in a unionized automobile factory in the 1950's through the early 1990's, benefited from a solid middle class lifestyle of a decent home, nice cars, family vacations, excellent paid healthcare and great retirement benefits. That experience, in many cases, motivated those children and their friends to seek the same employment, expecting the same benefits.

 

Had the public education system done its job and taught basic elementary economics in addition to its preaching of socialism, high school graduates would have at least understood that globalization and new technologies were major forces beginning to impact the structure of the job market. With the proper education, they could have predicted that these changes would cause companies to become uncompetitive in the new global market. A little bit of applied common sense, with the help of teachers not burying their heads in the sand, would have led to the conclusion that these uncompetitive companies would simply run out of money providing free health care and retirement benefits. Teachers could have used current events and newspaper articles to promote discussions in class on the prospects of companies having to automate many of the jobs their parents held in these companies.

 

We can't change the past, but we should change our public educational system that is failing so many of our children. In the interim, we should work to unseat the public school bureaucracy. That's a whole other discussion.

We should immediately make up for the failure of the public schools by providing low interest rate loans for approved vocational, college and professional educational programs to prepare people for the jobs that are in high demand. Payments on these loans should be deferred while the students are in an active program. For those who successfully complete the educational programs, the loans and accumulated interest should be offset 100% with tax credits they can apply to the income they earn from their new employment. This kind of a system motivates people to change and avoids the liberal socialist solution of free hand outs for votes, as the loan recipients have to complete the programs and earn money to be able to use the tax credits to offset their incomes up to the loan amounts.

The notion that conservatives are mean and unwilling to help those in need is a liberal myth aimed at securing liberals a seat of power at the expense of our children.

• I received a comment from a liberal to my latest blog: "Florida republicans understand economics 101". The comment stated that because of the economic adage that there is no free lunch, there have to be winners and losers for every policy. The comment continues: "Hooray for the winners in this tax cut. Now tell me who the losers are? And whether or not you're asking the losers to subsidize the winners?"
  
  I completely disagree with this negative, limited view of economic policies. There do not "have to be" losers. Losers make the choice to become losers and make the choice to remain losers. Losers want everyone else to join them in their misery. Liberal socialist policies cater to those who choose to be losers. To quote Winston Churchill: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
  
  In my blog, I gave the example of an employee owned corporation, plagued with poor quality products, late deliveries to its customers, prices much higher than market and a disregard for its customers. 
  
  In my example there are two groups of employees vying for management control. Both groups clearly understand that the company's inefficiencies are preventing it from growing and becoming more profitable. However, the leaders of one group refuse to support any effort to eliminate the inefficiencies as it might alienate those workers who do not want to take on the hard work and sacrifice that everyone would have to share.
  
  That group's desire to get votes in order to control the management of the company outweighs its concern for the survival of the company itself. Greed for power can make people do strange and even suicidal things. I call this group liberals or socialists (those who now control the Democratic Party in the USA) as this mirrors their policies in every country that has tried this form of government. These policies have only produced economic failure and misery. The other group I call conservatives.
  
  The example further introduces an economic downturn where the survival of the company is in jeopardy. Liberals respond to the crisis by recommending increased prices for the company's products and redistributing the company's total wage pool based on seniority rather than productivity and contribution. In addition they recommend increasing the wage pool.
  
  Conservatives recommend a focused effort to reduce all of the inefficiencies and reduce expenses, including a layoff of redundant personnel to align the company's cost structure with economic conditions.
  
  The losers in this example could be either the entire company and all of its employees, or those employees who are causing the inefficiencies. If the liberals are voted in to manage the company, it will only be a matter of time before it goes bankrupt. If the conservatives are voted in, they will save the company and a great number of jobs. However, there will be those who lose their jobs.
  
  The win-lose scenario referred to by the liberal commentator was caused by the free choice of those employees who chose not to work hard to eliminate the inefficient processes. Had they chosen the opposite path, many years ago, by contributing to the highest product quality, on time deliveries and excellent customer service, the company would have been strong enough to sustain an economic downturn without anyone losing their jobs. thus NO LOSERS.

 

Now to get back to the Florida republicans understanding economics 101. What they grasped were the following real facts caused by the tax reductions that liberals want to eliminate:

    Federal budget deficit fell in 2007 by 35% to $161 billion.

    Since 2004 deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion (one of the most rapid declines in US history).

    The deficit is now down to 1.2% of GDP (half of the average of the past 50 years).

    All of these improvements to the economy were in spite of a $200 billion post 9/11 tab for the war on terror, including Iraq.

    Tax revenue for 2007 was $2,568 trillion, or 6.7% higher than 2006.

    Tax receipts have climbed by $758 billion since the 2003 tax cuts took effect.

    Individual tax receipts have soared by 46.3% in 4 years (with most of the increase coming from the wealthy).

    Federal revenue in 2007 is 18.8% of GDP compared with an 18.2% average over the past 40 years.

    Federal outlays increased 2.3% last year, well below the average 7.% annual increase over the past 5 years.

    Congressional Budget Office's recently released study showing that poor families with children have improved their incomes, after being adjusted for inflation, by more than 33% from 1991 to 2005. As a matter of fact the poorest 20% in the U.S. increased their incomes by 78%, while the richest 20% improved their incomes by 54%.

All this proves that conservative fiscal policies of tax decreases are good for everyone in the country. However, you won't see this list on the liberal controlled media outlets of CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, The New York Times, etc.

Ask yourself why the country isn't celebrating these accomplishments. The answer is the same as in the corporate example I gave above. Liberals are vested in negativism. They have to convince the "sheeple" that things are doom and gloom so that they can get their votes and gain control of power. They are vested in "poverty consciousness" for the masses. They control the mass media.

Other countries, once steeped in liberal socialism are abandoning their liberal tax and spend policies in favor of "economics 101" tax reductions.

Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan and Vietnam, Austria, Northern Ireland all have cut taxes this year or are in the process of doing so. Germany has reduced the corporate tax rate from 39% to under 30%. France is proposing tax reductions of 5% for corporations. Spain and Italy are in the process of tax rate reductions. Eastern Europe is in the midst of a low rate flat tax revolution. There are now 14 nations with a flat tax system as opposed to the liberal, socialist progressive system in the USA.

There is only place on the planet where politicians are still marching to the old drum beat of higher taxes. And that's right here in the Democratically controlled congress of the USA.

I conclude this blog by repeating Sir Winston Churchill's wise words:"Socialism (I add Liberalism) is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

In my blog posting of May 23rd "Another Example Of Why Socialism Is Harmful To All Carbon Based Life Forms", I pointed to food and basic goods shortages, high inflation and a pending economic meltdown in Venezuela.

Well, here's a contrasting example of what happens when you apply old fashioned capitalism to an economic problem. In 1986 there was a country in real bad economic shape. Unemployment was running around 17% and the country was nearly bankrupt. Today it is one of the world's economic leaders. GDP has averaged over 6% annually for the last 20 years and unemployment is now 4.4%. No it's not China. It's not India. It's Ireland.

The country is know for low tax rates, especially the 12.5% corporate rate. In Europe, Ireland's per capita GDP is second only to Luxembourg.

The current elections offer an example for the U.S. The two competing parties have vowed to keep in place the policies that have created this success. Wouldn't it be great to hear on the 6 o'clock CNN news that both democratic and republican candidates vow to make the tax cuts, that have driven the U.S. economy to an all time high, permanent; to reduce spending on pork projects; and to unburden corporations from ridiculous regulations.

Imagine that you are one of the owners in an all employee-owned company. Things are going along pretty well and despite the fact that the company is terribly inefficient, it still makes a profit. 

About 25% of the employees in the company are "liberals", another 25% are conservatives and the remaining 50% are "moderates". Over time, employees have gravitated to one of two major camps that have formed in the company. Let's call one camp the "Democrats" and the other the "Republicans". Liberals tended to align with the democratic camp, while conservatives tended to align with the republican camp. Moderates move back and forth depending on which of the camps executes a superior public relations campaign.

Every year the board of directors is elected by the shareholders, in this case all of the employees. The board appoints the president. The president appoints the management team.

For years, customers have been complaining about the high prices of the products, the poor quality of the products, the length of time it takes to get a delivery and terrible customer service. Everyone in the company is aware of this problem.

For years, conservatives have been urging management and their fellow employees to improve the company's operations and customer service. They have been telling their management and their fellow employees that with improved customer service, improved quality and faster delivery, the company's sales would increase. This would make the company more profitable and since everyone is a shareholder, everyone's wealth would improve.

For years, liberals have realized that the recommendations of the conservatives probably make sense, but that the conservative plan would definitely cause some short term pain in terms of hard work and sacrifice on the part of employees. Lazy employees would be exposed and probably fired.

Liberals saw an opportunity to gain the support of the majority of employees and get elected to management by claiming that the conservative plan would never work and only bring long term hardship to the employees. They also promised raises to everyone in the company, regardless of performance. Even though the liberals knew the conservative plan would help the company grow in sales and profitability, they could not stand the thought of conservatives being proven right and probably gaining control of management. Their own desire for power outweighed the good of the company and the rest of the employees.

The tug of war continued over the years with neither the democrat nor republicans having enough power to implement either approach. Moderates in both camps kept the ruling camp from going too far liberal or conservative. The company survived and stayed moderately profitable.

Eventually, the democratic camp was firmly controlled by liberals. The republican camp was still a mixture of conservatives, moderates and even some liberals. No one group had enough influence in the republican camp to claim control.

Along comes a major economic downturn. Sales began to spiral downward and profits followed. Cash flow was drying up. Bills were not being paid. Everyone, regardless of camp affiliation, was worried about the immediate future of the company.

In response to the economic downturn, the democratic camp, controlled by the liberals, recommended that the company increase prices and that everyone's salary be lumped into a pool and evenly distributed to all employees to help their families evenly cope with the economic crisis in the country. They claimed that it was for the good of the children. The liberals in charge of the program would be exempt for this wealth redistribution in order not to be distracted and focus on solutions.

The democrats refused to address the fact that the quality of the company's products had not improved and did not warrant a price increase. Deliveries were still late and customer service was still terrible. However, Democrats felt that their plan would assure them the presidency.

Republican managers did not know how to respond. Fear of losing power gripped them to the point of inaction. Many of them sided with the ideas proposed by the democrats thinking it would at least save their own management positions.

Conservatives, regardless of which camp they were in, recommended that the company immediately cut costs. They recommended that product quality be improved to six sigma levels immediately and deliveries be measured to high on time standards. They suggested that the customer service dept be reorganized and measured against customer satisfaction. Compensation for all employees, including the president and management would be restructured to where 30% would be strictly performance based. Positions rendered unnecessary due to the economic downturn would have to be eliminated and employees laid off. Product pricing would not increase. If anything, it would be reduced to match the quality and delivery service. This was the only way to save the company.

Democrats, hearing this conservative proposal, engaged in a campaign of labeling the conservatives as evil people out to destroy jobs and insensitive to the children. When faced with the hard economic facts that the company was running out of money and that their own plan would not generate any cash for the company, the democrats finally resorted to demanding that the citizens of the country be mandated to buy more of the company's poor quality products at higher prices.

Like in the above story, an economic downturn has arrived in Florida. It is caused primarily by the housing slump. Unlike the cowardice behavior of the republicans in the previous story, Florida republicans in the state house passed HB5001C and those in the senate passed SB2C, which cut $1.1 billion out of the state $71 billion budget. All of the elected democrats, except for two, voted against the cuts trying instead to push an agenda of higher taxes on the people of Florida.

It is shameful how the mainstream media (The New York Times, The Boston Globe, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and others) serve up the "news" in a recipe designed to convince the American public that socialism is our only salvation. It seems every story is skewed with that purpose in mind. News that contradicts the benefits of socialism just doesn't get much air time.

One of the drumbeats we keep hearing from this media outlet is how the rich are the only ones improving their economic lot and, no less, on the backs of the poor. There is even a presidential candidate running on the slogan of "the two Americas". 

What you won't read in these newspapers or hear about on these TV channels is the Congressional Budget Office's newly released study showing that poor families with children have improved their incomes, after being adjusted for inflation, by more than 33% from 1991 to 2005. As a matter of fact the poorest 20% in the U.S. increased their incomes by 78%, while the richest 20% improved their incomes by 54%.

The reasons for this improvement lie with 1996 welfare reform, expansion of the earned income tax credit and tight labor markets. Some 2 million mothers have left the welfare roles for jobs since the mid 1990s.

This is good news for America. You'd think a success story like this would make the front pages and lead the news. Not a chance!

How can you really take anything these people feed us in the daily news seriously

How would you like to live in a country that has severe food shortages, where eggs are a delicacy, the chicken is an endangered species, toilet paper is a luxury and meat an extravagance? What if you couldn't get your car repaired because the stores were out of spare parts? How about having to put off a life threatening operation because the medical equipment needed isn't working due to the delay in getting spare parts? And let's sprinkle in a dose of Jimmy Carter type inflation of over 20%. If this sounds intriguing to you, move to Venezuela, because that's what's going on.

What caused this mess? Here's a few of the main culprits: State owned industries and services like oil, farms, apartments buildings, health care, banking capital controls, mandatory wage increases, nationalization of foreign owned companies, massive government spending, high taxes on the wealthy and price controls. There just can't be more principles of basic economics being trashed here.  What really scary is several of these look eerily familiar in reviewing some of the democratic presidential campaign speeches going on in the U.S.

However, based on the mainstream media, you wouldn't think Venezuela was having any problems. I haven't seen anything reported. Have you? Oh, by the way, if you live in Venezuela, you won't hear it from the media there either. Chavez seized control of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) last Sunday. The other media outlets dare not mention these problems either, for fear of being nationalized, or something even worse.

Assault on free speech is right out of the liberal/socialist play-book. In the U.S. now that the democrats are in power, they are trying to revive the Fairness Doctrine which was abolished by the FCC in August of 1987. Liberal radio talk shows have failed miserably. So the purpose behind the attempted revival of the Fairness Doctrine is to silence successful conservative talk shows by requiring them to include equal time on each show to a liberal point of view. Liberals and socialists can never win in the arena of free ideas and free choice. They can only win by passing laws that are legislated and not voted on. Welcome to Venezuela!