To include "v Fair Tax" in the title of these videos is a bait and switch. The plan isn't mentioned, except in passing, by the interviewer, Geo. Noory (at 7:31, part 1). The issue examined is getting rid of the IRS.
There are two major problems with the proposed "Fair Tax":
By Attorney Tom Cryer
1. It fails to put the government back on its intended 1500 calorie diet, which is an essential step if we are to put the government back in its limited and very specific role--after all, the freedom movement is not about money, it's about restoring a Constitutional republic that confines itself to those few powers delegated to it; and
2. Moderation in Constitutional excess is an improvement, but it is not enough.
The first: The object of the freedom movement and of Truth Attack is to "put the federal government back in its box . . . one tentacle at a time." While many flail away at the limbs of the tree of tyranny, we need to chop at the roots. The founding fathers knew they had to restrain the new federal agency government because the second they injected power into its veins it would crave and demand more. That is the nature of government, to seek more power at the expense of liberty. One of the chains they put on the government was the limitations on not only its taxing authority, but on the manner in which it could tax. They made it "impossible" for the federal government to impose a mandatory tax on citizens . . . period. The 16th Amendment did not change that (See the Supreme Court in Brushaber, Peck v. Lowe, Baltic Mining, etc., etc., etc.).
If one compares the powers granted the limited federal government, including the enabling clauses of various amendments, to the budget headings alone, he would discover that there are many departments for which he cannot find any Constitutional authority. I did that for the 2007 budget in researching the book I was writing, "Liberty Lost, A Treasure Map to Buried Freedom", and when I moved those extra-Constitutional expenditures (headings alone, no drilling down and finding many other usurpations) into their own column, I found that 56% of the federal budget is devoted to expenditures the federal governme0nt had no right or power to incur in the first place.
Those excesses could not happen without there first being an excess in the exercise of taxing authority, in the case of the income tax, the taxing of rights. The abuse and misapplicaiton of the income tax has enabled the government to break through the financial barrier imposed by the founding fathers. The only way to ensure that the government does not outgrow its britches is to put it back on its intended limited diet. It has broken into the feed shed and the fair tax doesn't drive it back out of there.
The second: In an interview with Joe Banister I asked him what he thought about the fair tax proposal and his response was that the IRS would abuse and misrepresent any tax it was entrusted with administering. A former Special Agent with the IRS's C.I.D., he should know. While I know of no reason to question, and don't doubt, the honesty, integrity and good intentions of those advocating the fair tax, those honorable men and women will not be the ones who administer it. Substituting one tax on our right to earn a living with another is not solving the problem, either to protect our other rights (the power to tax is the power to destroy) or to limit the federal government's financial ability to exceed its authority.
With that starting point, that the tax as applied (not as written) is taxing our right to earn a living through our own labor, and is being applied to receipts that are not income in the first place, doing it less is not enough. I'm sure that Rodney King would not have been satisfied with the cops' merely slowing the pace of their blows. Neither am I.
We are entitled to our rights, every one of them, and if the government is permitted to tax/destroy one it can and will tax/destroy another. The IRS cannot be trusted to follow the written law, which does not impose any liability for the tax on working America, so why would they stop there? Privileges, not rights, are taxed. Does the government grant you its permission to exercise a right? No. It grants privileges and can tax those privileges because it has the power to destroy privileges by merely denying them. They have no authority to tax/destroy our rights, though, because those come from a higher sovereignty.
The Tennesee Supreme Court said it best in Jack Cole v. McFarland. Governments can only tax privileges and only the "privileged" enjoy those. If everyone can engage in an activity then it is not the exercise of a privilege and it is not a subject of taxation. The fair tax would only be a moderation in Constitutional excess. Moderation is not enough. We have to insist on complete compliance because every thread of that document is precious. You cannot injure one part of the Constitution without the rest feeling the pain.
The fair tax would allow the illegal and unconstitutional application of the income tax to our labor, whether as written or as misapplied, would continue. Nothing would be accomplished.