JPFO FairTax position

Monday, July 17, 2006

Not quite the fact, my friends

After reading the JPFO position on the FairTax and being a supporter and fully trained on the benefits of the FairTax, I am dissapointed in the unrealistic views stated by JPFO. The article I created this blog in response to can be found here:

Here are the JPFO points and my opinion on their claims.

JPFO:We're likely to end up with both a national sales tax and an income tax. Even if legislation required abolition of the income tax (as HR 25 does), a “national crisis” would soon cause the income tax to be “temporarily re-instated” and the Internal Revenue Service would remain in our lives on an “emergency basis” that never ended
Rich:really do you think the american people will acyually vote for their legislators if this was their doing? The FT is visable. Very visable at each transaction. Unlike the current system where we are taxed before we even get the money and then reconcile at the end of the year. The FT will call for the abolisment of the income tax. Once folks really see the benefits and see the dollars all coming to them from their employers, no dice, they will never let this happen! Remember, once the FT is passed the greatest shift in power will happen this country has ever seen. We will not be held hostage by promises of tax cuts etc!

JPFO:The rate of a national sales tax would be colossal. Remember, even the proponents admit they'd need a 23 percent tax rate to fund the current size of the federal government. However, they are starting out their new “fair” tax system with highly deceptive language
Rich: This is a normal raction to the 23 percent. If you want to figure it at 30 percent, the n you must at least admit that using the same math, the top tax bracket is around 50%!
If you want to know how the 23% was reached, try researching the economists who supports the bill: here are some as well as some groups who support the FT:

-80+ economists in an endorsement letter including economic department heads, professors, former members of the federal reserve, and a Nobel Prize winner (no endorsement letter of any kind for any other tax proposal) -National Small Business Association - -National Association for Senior Concerns - -National Taxpayers Union - -Council of Smaller Enterprises - -Associated General Contractors - -American Farm Bureau - - -Physicians Who Care Here are the non-partisan group of economists that researched the FairTax with the $22 million in private money from the non-partisan (ended in the most researched/documented bill ever sponsored in Congress - HR25/S25, Only tax proposal to have never been developed by a politician) -Marty Feldstein, professor of economics at Harvard University and president of the National Bureau of Economic Research -Larry Kotlikoff, Professor and chairman of the Economics Department (Ph.D., Harvard University) of Boston University, member of National Bureau of Economic Research -Jim Peturba chairman of Massachusetts Institute of Technology -Dr. Dale Jorgenson, Frederic Eaton Abbe Professor of Economics at Harvard University -CATO Institute’s Dave Burton and Dan Mastromarco, partners in the Argus Group, an Alexandria, Virginia-based law and government relations firm; -Dr. George Zodrow, faculty scholar of Rice University’s Baker Institute. -Bill Beach, John M. Olin Senior Fellow in Economics and director of the Center for Data Analysis to program software for supercomputers to do dynamic studies of whatever they came up with. -Dr. Kahn and Dr. Ferguson, coordinator of the Decisions and Ethics Center (Stanford University) -Malcolm Gillis, president of William Marsh Rice University -Ervin Kenneth Zingler Professor of Economics also joined the team, did his doctorate work on consumption taxes and has also been a consultant for countries around the globe to ensure that their tax plans are beneficial in their outcome.

JPFO:Inflation will kill you. For decades, the income tax gradually crept up as government-caused inflation pushed Americans into higher and higher tax brackets. This outrage caused horrific hardship before Congress was finally forced to index the income tax to the inflation rate (meaning that if your income goes up with the inflation rate, your tax rate doesn't). There is no indexing with the sales tax. As goods become more expensive, you have only two choices: pay more in taxes or do without the things you need.
Given the U.S. government's eternal spending spree, the mounting deficits, and a national debt whose true long-term obligations run into the tens of trillions, it's a virtual certainty that the federal government will inflate the currency in an attempt to keep Medicare and Social Security afloat and to keep its fiscal house of cards from collapsing. As your food, clothing, vehicles, and medical care get more and more expensive, you'll pay more and more and more sales tax.
Consider just one example. You've been saving to buy a new house. That house now costs $260,000 (which is already 10 times what your parents would have paid for an identical house in 1968). Your “FairTax” on that home will already be a whopping $78,000, for a total purchase price of $338,000. Then government printing presses go into high gear. While you're still saving up for your down-payment, double-digit inflation takes over and the price of your house zooms 20 percent in one year. The house now costs $312,000. Your “FairTax” on that house is now $93,600 for a total purchase price of $405,600. And you have to wait another year to buy it. And if inflation continues to go up, your hopes recede even further. (And all this is without mentioning the increased mortgage interest you'll have to pay over the decades to cover both the government-caused inflation and the government-benefiting tax.)

Rich:Well, herin lies the problem with this argument. The 260,000 new house will not cost 260,000 under the FT! Because of "embedded taxes" inherent in everthing used to make that house, the costs of home will likley decrease 20 percent or more! So when adding the FT the cost will be the same 260,000. Except your money that needed to be saved for the down payment and all mortgage payments will come to you pre-tax! hello? how is this going to be worse than what we have now. Here is a link to a discussion that proves economic growth:

JPFO:The FairTax is monumentally unfair to retiring Baby Boomers. People who have paid 1/4 or 1/3 of their income in taxes for 40 years will now have to pay an equally high tax on all the after tax income they've managed to put aside for their retirement. Every time Boomers buy anything with their lifelong savings, they'll be double taxed

Rich:I am a baby boomer myself and I want the FT! somtimes you have to take it on the chin to help future generations. That said I am not convinced the Ft is all that unfair to me. Here is why:

• The FairTax ensures Social Security’s soundness by funding it with a
progressive, broad-based national retail sales tax, rather than the current
regressive, narrow payroll tax.
• The FairTax rebate zeros the retail taxation of necessities, up to povertylevel
spending, for seniors.
• The FairTax repeals the taxation of Social Security benefits and adjusts
Social Security indexing to protect seniors.
• The FairTax ends all record keeping and income tax filings of any kind for
seniors, totally insulating them from the high costs and abusive tactics of tax
• The FairTax does not tax used goods, giving low-income seniors choices.
• The FairTax reduces manufacturers’, services’, and retailers’ costs, allowing
them to lower costs to seniors.
• The FairTax delivers a tax holiday on IRAs and other tax-deferred plans.
• The FairTax ends gift and estate taxes, along with all of the unfairness to
heirs and complex planning for those who earned the money.
• The FairTax allows seniors to sell their homes and pay no capital gains
• The FairTax generates an economic boom, which eases future budget
pressure on seniors’ entitlements.
• The FairTax ensures your grandchildren have the same opportunity you did.

Senior citizens are becoming a larger portion of the overall population and the
overwhelming majority of them are much better off under the FairTax. In 1970,
those over 65 years of age were 9.8 percent of the population. By 2000, seniors
were 12.4 percent of the population. In 2010, seniors will account for 13.0 percent
of the population and in 2020 they will account for 16.3 percent.
As would be expected, the average household income of persons over 65 –
retirees no longer in the workplace, for the most part – is about 55 percent of the
average of all households.2 However, at any given time, a smaller proportion of
seniors are poor than in the population in general.3 Those persons 55-64 years old
have the highest net worth4, with those 65-74 years old coming next.5
The FairTax ensures Social Security’s soundness by funding it with a
progressive, broad-based national retail sales tax, rather than the current
regressive, narrow payroll tax.
Currently, the Social Security system is funded by a payroll tax from workers, a
very regressive tax that will only have to go up as more and more baby boomers
retire and fewer and fewer workers fund seniors’ retirement.
The FT benefits Social Security with a progressive, national retail sales tax, supported by the
spending of every consumer in America, even teenagers, tourists, illegal
immigrants, and the army of 18-million people who (illegally) do not file and pay
The FairTax rebate zeros the retail taxation of necessities, up to poverty-level
spending, for seniors.
Under the FairTax, senior citizens, like others, receive a monthly cash rebate that
exempts consumption of necessities (up to the poverty level as determined by the
Department of Health and Human Services) from federal taxation. Thus, seniors
living at or below the poverty level pay no sales tax at all under the FairTax. The
FairTax is the only tax plan, including the current income tax regime, that
completely “untaxes” the poor. Under the FairTax, a household spending twice
the federal poverty level pays an effective tax rate of 11½ percent or less.6
A couple living solely on Social Security and receiving the average benefits
for a husband and spouse of approximately $12,500 receives a cash rebate of
$4,402 per year. This allows them to spend up to $19,140 per year tax free and
increases their after-tax purchasing power compared to what they have today.7
The FairTax repeals the taxation of Social Security benefits and adjusts
Social Security indexing to protect seniors.
The FairTax legislation totally repeals the current income tax on Social Security
benefits. The bill also adjusts the Social Security benefits indexing formula,
commonly known as the cost of living adjustment or COLA, so that benefits
increase to the extent, if any, that the federal sales tax results in higher costs to
The FairTax ends all record keeping and income tax filings of any kind for
seniors, totally insulating them from the high costs and abusive tactics of tax
Seniors (and their heirs) no longer need to keep tax records of any kind. Planning
needs (and costs) are minimal and simple. There are no income tax filings of any
kind. With this change, seniors no longer need assistance with complex The FairTax taxes only new goods and services. So seniors at all levels can make
choices in their spending to reduce the taxes they pay. They can buy used cars,
used appliances, used homes, even used clothing. They are very much in control
of their tax burden.
The FairTax reduces manufacturers’, services’, and retailers’ costs, allowing
them to lower costs to seniors.
Because income tax, payroll tax, and compliance costs are so high, manufacturers,
service companies, and retailers pass them on by raising retail prices. If
competition does not allow this, these companies reduce payroll costs, putting
working seniors out of jobs. And the last place these companies can pay for the
high cost of the income tax system is by reducing profits to shareholders, which
hurts pension plans.
The FairTax delivers a tax holiday on IRAs and other tax-deferred plans.
The income tax imposed on investment income and pension benefits or IRA
withdrawals is repealed. No form of savings or investment is taxed. Pension
funds, IRAs, and 401(k) plans had assets of over $11 trillion in 2003.9 An income
tax deduction was taken for contributions to most of these plans. All beneficiaries
and owners of these plans expected to pay income tax on them upon withdrawal,
but are not required to do so once the income tax is repealed. Roth IRA owners
and post-tax retirement savers break even.
The FairTax ends gift and estate taxes, along with all of the unfairness to
heirs and complex planning for those who earned the money.
Under the FairTax, gift and estate taxes are repealed.
In 2003, private pensions had assets of $5,937 billion and state and local pension funds had assets of $2,284 billion.
In 2003, Individual Retirement Accounts had assets of $3,007 billion.
Heirs no longer
need to sell the business or farm out of the family or borrow heavily, putting the
business at risk, in order to pay the estate tax.
Repeal of the corporate and individual income tax, and the estate and gift
tax has a substantial positive impact on the stock market. Those seniors who
own stocks either directly or through mutual funds, individual retirement accounts,
401(k) plans or otherwise, experience significant gains. In 2001, one-fifth of
seniors owned stock and/or mutual funds. In addition, unrealized capital gains
that would have been subject to the income tax when realized are no longer taxed.
The FairTax allows seniors to sell their homes and pay no capital gains taxes.
The FairTax plan imposes a sales tax on newly constructed homes but exempts
existing homes and other used property from any sales tax. Currently, equity
payments on homes must be paid from after-income tax earnings (i.e., principal
payments are not deductible). The purchase of existing housing is thus subject to
the income tax. All owners of existing homes experience large capital gains due
to the repeal of the income tax and implementation of the FairTax. Seniors have
dramatically higher home ownership rates than other age groups (80.5 percent for
seniors compared to 68.3 percent on average in 2003). Homes are often a
family’s largest asset. Gains, which are not taxed, are likely to be in the 20
percent range.
The FairTax generates an economic boom, which eases future budget
pressure on seniors’ entitlements.
A federal retail sales tax makes the economy much more dynamic and prosperous.
Consequently, federal tax revenues grow, spending is under less upwards pressure,
and the deficit declines. Budget pressure on Social Security and Medicare
spending, already significant, will become much more pronounced once the post-
World War II baby boomers enter their retirement years. There are 37 million
people in the population age 65 and older today. By 2025, this number is
estimated to rise to 62 million, a 68 percent increase. In contrast, by 2025 the
number of workers is estimated to rise by only 13 percent.
The FairTax ensures your grandchildren have the same opportunity you did.
Seniors are able to take comfort in the fact that their children and grandchildren
are no longer laboring under the yoke of the income tax, and are once again able to
see their own standard of living improve, one generation to the next.

The national sales tax is subject to manipulation in even more direct ways than the income tax has been. Let's say that Congress or some powerful regulatory agency decides that fatty foods or sugar or potato chips are bad for you – wham! Suddenly there might a 200 percent tax on those items.
Government won't have to ban firearms; they'll just place a 500 percent sales tax on them. Or a 1,000 percent sales tax on ammunition. Cigarettes? Imported clothing? “Gas-guzzling” SUVs? Given the wonders of the computer age, the eternal greed of government, and the unquenchable meddling of social engineers, we'll soon have custom tax levels for them all, constantly calculated and adjusted by computer.

Rich:Aren't most of these risks here now? If somone has it out for guns, they have it out for guns with or without the FT. The difference being that fat cat lobiests will no longer have power. Is that what the JPFO is worried about? Not being able to grease the hands of politicians? One main reason for taxes the items you mention is not to ban them or curtail use. We know that does not work. The reason is to get more tax money for a growing national debt in the trillions!

The tax will be used to track your entire financial life. While H.R. 25 does not contain any requirement that every purchase be linked to an individual's ID, the trend toward tracking every purchase is growing. We expect that eventually, your “national ID cash card” will be required when you buy anything. Or giant databases will combine the records of your credit cards, store loyalty cards, radio-frequency ID tags on merchandise, government ID, etc. into one vast set of interlinked records, immediately accessible to – and subject to manipulation by – government agencies.
Therefore, the national sales tax will eventually be used to track – and manipulate – what we purchase. Instead of merely being profiled by Wal-Mart or Safeway, your buying habits will be available in detail to the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, university researchers – you name it.

Rich: Come on now! Really this is being done now by each and every tax return. ever get auduted? Bend over and let it all hang out! Each and every legitimate transaction can be traced by the sales recepit today! Only now the IRS is there to intimidate when they can.10,000 FBI agents in this country, 30,000 border patroll and 90,000 IRS agents! Who is watching you now?
I mean really, this is a weak arguement.

JPFO:A national sales tax will create a huge black market. A punitive sales tax on everything you buy will lead to enormous black markets. You'll soon see gang violence and vast new prisons being built to house the millions of people illegally trading DVDs, cigarettes, canned foods, TV sets, and clothing. This will be true even if the underlying prices of goods drop – as the FairTaxers assure us will happen. If people can evade a 30+ percent tax – they will. Even if the price of items is 20 or 25 percent lower than today (a claim we'll examine in a moment) people will still want – and go after – their 30 percent black-market discount.

Rich: And there is no black market now? It is huge and what aboout all the trillions that go untaxes in foreign accounts now? It all comes back into our economy! Under the FT it takes 2 dishonest people to conspire to cheat. There will always be cheaters! What you are really adressing here is tax evasion.
An old aphorism says that only two things are certain in life − death and taxes. Perhaps a third
certainty should be added to the list − tax evasion! Taxes are unpopular and breed resentment
today – as they undoubtedly always have, and to some degree probably always will.
Accordingly, some people will evade taxes no matter what the governing tax system, but perhaps some tax systems will “inspire” less tax evasion than others.
Under today’s income tax system, tax evasion is a major, continuing, and growing problem.
Under the pressures of a much larger Internal Revenue Service (IRS), more burdensome
information reporting requirements, increasingly stiff and numerous penalties, and a host of
legislative initiatives, the problem is getting worse. Based on IRS figures, tax evasion has
increased by 67 percent during the most recent 11-year period for which data is published. As a
percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), tax evasion has reached 2.0 percent in 1992 as
compared to 1.6 percent in 1981. Tax evasion continues to amount to approximately 22 to 23
percent of all income taxes collected (see table next page). And these IRS figures do not include
taxes lost on illegal sources of income.
The income tax is collected with a heavy hand. In 1997, the IRS assessed over 33 million
civil penalties on American taxpayers in an effort to force compliance with the tax system. Of
these, about 4.1 million were forgiven. About 22.7 million penalties involved the income tax,
and about 9.7 million involved the payroll tax − both taxes that the FairTax replaces. Under the
FairTax, even if we assume that every business in America is a retailer and is required to file a
tax return, no more than 19 million businesses are required to file returns compared to over 154
million returns (of all types) filed today.
The tax gap is the difference between what is theoretically owed in taxes and what is
actually collected in taxes. In a comprehensive look at the tax gap, the General Accounting
Office stated:
In the parlance of modern tax administration, the question is whether the FairTax will increase or reduce voluntary
compliance. Many taxpayers, however, find the term “voluntary compliance” to be oxymoronic, since failure to pay taxes can result in a prison term.
Conclusion:Tax evasion will undoubtedly be a problem under any tax system. It is a major and growingproblem under the current tax system, despite very substantial efforts and increasingly harsh
treatment of the taxpaying public. Almost 40 percent of the public, according to the IRS, is out
of compliance with the present tax system, mostly unintentionally due to the enormous
complexity of the present system. This breeds disrespect for the tax system and the law, and it
makes a system based on taxpayer self-assessment less and less viable.
The FairTax is likely to reduce rather than exacerbate the problem of tax evasion. The
increased fairness, transparency, and legitimacy of the system induce more compliance. The
roughly 85- to 90-percent reduction in the number of filers enables tax administrators to address instances of noncompliance more effectively, and increases the likelihood that tax evasion is
discovered. The relative simplicity of the FairTax promotes compliance. Businesses only need
to answer one question to determine the tax due: How much was sold to consumers? Finally,
the dramatic reduction in marginal tax rates reduces the gains from tax evasion. If the cost of
noncompliance remains comparable (or even increases due to the increased likelihood of getting
caught caused by the much smaller number of filers), then both the expected profit from and the
frequency of tax evasion will decline.

This tax is designed to put every single American household on welfare. The FairTax is regressive – that is, the poorer you are, the more you pay, proportional to your income. Sponsors of the new tax have come up with the worst possible solution for making it more “fair.” They want to put every single American household on the dole.
Instead of simply not taxing staple items like food, health care, transportation, or clothing, they want the federal government to send each of us a check every single month. Think of the dependence this would create. It's very hard to imagine a “limited government” -- which many of the FairTaxers say they want – buying the loyalty of every American household with a monthly government payment of $478.83 –

Rich: Funny, you call it welfare, we call it a "prebate". Yes all new goods and services are taxed.
What you are talking about here is how the Ft will treat low-income, young families.
There are several reasons why the FairTax (HR 25/S 25), a proposal to replace the current
income tax system with a highly progressive, revenue-neutral, federal retail sales tax, will benefit
low-income, often young families. And those on fixed incomes for many of the same reasons.
The FairTax is the only plan that completely “untaxes” the poor and also dramatically lowers tax
rates on young, low-income families living above the poverty level. The FairTax achieves this
result by:
(1) Eliminating all federal payroll withholding taxes, allowing wage earners to take home their
entire paychecks – it's the full paycheck plan. Social Security taxes, the most regressive tax
of all, are no longer withheld from paychecks.
(2) The FairTax also ends the income tax system, so paycheck-to-paycheck families have no
income tax withheld. Neither do they have to keep records, file returns to get their refunds,
hire preparers for complex earned income tax credit (EITC) forms, or defend themselves
against EITC-targeted IRS audits.
(3) The FairTax allows every family to purchase necessities tax free via a rebate system that
exempts all spending up to the poverty level, as determined by the Department of Health and
Human Services.
(4) The FairTax ends the sham of corporate taxes – government can levy taxes on business,
which will collect and remit them, but never pay them. Business “pays” such taxes by
raising prices to consumers, lowering the wages paid to workers, or by lowering dividends
paid to shareholders. The FairTax removes these hidden taxes.
(5) Used products are not taxed, allowing these consumers yet another means to reduce their tax
burden on spending above the poverty level.
The FairTax is a revenue-neutral proposal, raising no more or less tax than the current
system. In addition, used products, used cars, homes, etc., are not taxed under this legislation.
Only the FairTax honestly and transparently achieves the goal of completely untaxing
America’s low-income strata up to the poverty level.
The FairTax provides individuals with the maximum choice over what to do with their
income: They can consume it (and pay taxes) or save it (and pay no taxes). If one
chooses to consume for personal benefit beyond the necessities of life, one pays a tax. If
one does not, but chooses instead to save and invest for education, a home or a better
retirement, one defers consumption and the tax. Unlike current law, the FairTax is not
biased towards consumption. It encourages young families to save and invest. If we had
enacted a FairTax ten years ago, according to Dr. Jorgenson, we would each be ten
percent better off today.
Save faster under the FairTax.
Since the FairTax does not tax savings and investment and makes the payment of the tax
largely elective, it enables young families and new homebuyers to save for their purchase
faster. Why are individuals able to save so much faster under the FairTax? First, the
FairTax removes the enormous disadvantage to savings and investment under our income
tax system. Today, savings and investment income is greatly disadvantaged. Wage and
salary income is included in the income tax base when it is earned originally. If that
income is consumed, the benefits of consumption go untaxed. However, if what is left of
the wages and salaries is saved (for example, for a new home), the earnings are taxed as
the income from that investment is generated. Then, if the income-producing asset, such
as a stock or bond, equipment or real property interest is sold for more than it was
purchased, the benefit of the capital investment – the capital gain – is taxed a third time.
If these investments are inherited, they are taxed yet again. A principal advantage the
FairTax has over an income tax, therefore, is that a down payment can be saved without
fighting against the cascading taxes on savings. Furthermore, since you keep 100 percent
of your paycheck, you only have to earn $100 to save $100. Under today’s
income/payroll tax system, most people have to earn at least $121 to save $100.
Education is not taxed.
An equally important feature of the FairTax and its impact on young families is its
treatment of education. The FairTax exempts education, recognizing that education is an
investment in our nation’s intellectual capital and is every bit as important as our
investment in physical capital. Education is often a large expense for young families.
The FairTax creates jobs, not destroying them as our income tax system does.
The FairTax additionally benefits lower-income families through increased economic
growth. Slow economic growth or recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact
on the poor and low-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to
lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and
are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing
economy provides. The FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and improves
wage rates, while retaining the present tax system needlessly delays economic progress.
Why the FairTax is good for young and low-income families
In addition, the FairTax eliminates approximately $250 billion dollars in
compliance costs (more than three years’ worth of spending on the Iraq war and
rebuilding efforts!), an annual savings of nearly $3000 for every family in America.
These are funds that could be spent on a better education for our children, for a home, or
for a better retirement.

Some religious people will be penalized. The monthly rebate check is to be paid by the Social Security Administration, based on the number of SSN holders in a household. Tens of thousands of Americans (for instance, the Amish, or those who believe the SSN is the biblical Mark of the Beast) do not have social security numbers. Therefore, they would have to pay the heavy national sales tax without being compensated in any way. When we asked AFT how their proposal addressed this inequity, their reply was one sentence long: “There is no requirement that any individual apply for the rebate.”
Rich: Yes you must have a SS number. You can not hide under the FT, that is the point. Harder to cheat also. Everyone spends so everyone pays.

You'll pay a higher sum for your new home. If the tax passes as written, new homes would suddenly become 30 percent more expensive than existing ones (because all new construction, but not existing homes, would be subject to the tax). Two homes could sit side-by-side – each with four bedrooms, two baths, and comparable features – and one would cost $50,000 or $100,000 more than the other, simply because it was being marketed by its builder, rather than a resident.
No one would want new homes. Construction would dry up

Rich:The FT is endorsed by the Associated General Contractors -
If your claim was correct why would they endorse this bill? The answer is your claim is non-factual!
As I discussed above, folks will have more pre-tax dollars to buy a new or pre-owned house. The costs to build a new house always makes it higher than pre-existing homes, even today. Fct is if you want a new house under the FT you will still buy one. The price difference you claim in your example do not take economic factors into consideration. If your claims were true we would not have a free economy where supply and demand caused price shifts.

I would like to continue but I would urge all JPFO supporters to read the FT bill and info at now, before taking the authors opinion as fact, which it is not. Then form your opinion. Look at all the economists and supporters of the FT I mentioned above. Are all these nationally recognized economists wrong and the author right? HR 25 and S25 has over 25 million in research and is the first bill ever not authored by a politician!

This week June 29th, 2006 there is a FT rally in Orlando where 10,000 will show up in support. Join us! Here is a link for the rally: