One Man for Himself: Grover Norquist's War on Freedom

For more than two decades Grover Norquist has propped himself up as a financial and tax reform guru, rubbing elbows with both Bush administrations and politicians from the right/left divide, yet more and more he displays a unique and discomforting sinister entourage of coalesced hate for America and the solvency of its treasury.

To understand the grain of this issue it must be realized that notwithstanding his "pro-middle class" talking points, Norquist has never truly cared to get involved in causes beyond those directly benefiting his own lobbying group in Washington D.C. Throughout the Clinton years he banged the gavel for better tax rates--a worthy cause, yet his actions beyond this have been of questionable wisdom. When prompted to take a stand on the Iraq War in 2003, Norquist came out and slammed the Democrats for opposing the efforts of the Bush Administration and stated that  they were on the wrong side of history. But only two years later he was back, writing a New York Times op-ed that criticied the actions as based on neoconservative desires. This may best be explained by recalling that the once floundering center-left was set to take hold of Congress in 2006, and Norquist needed friends to continue profiting off of.

But perhaps the anti-taxman's greatest offense is the marked inability he has demonstrated to condemn Islamic terrorism as a threat to America's borders. In 2005, Norquist tied the knot with attractive Kuwaiti researcher Samah, a devote Muslim who would get Norquist even closer to Middle Eastern business interests--including Saudi Arabia.

Interracial or bi-religious marriage is not a crime, but Norquist's insistence on blocking any sort of inquiry or pursuit of common sense anti-terrorist justice leave his true sympathies in the dark to even his closest followers. The Islamic Institute, which received considerable money from and was founded by Norquist was embroiled in controversy when its president, Abdurahman Alamoud, was arrested and sentenced to 23 years for terrorist actions in 1999.

Only a decade later, Norquist would again choose the path of least resistance to Islamic expansionism, calling on activists to end their concerns over the Ground Zero Mosque and focus instead on tax issues, his portfolio of employment.

As far as his personal faith, Norquist seems surprisingly unwilling to say, an oddity considering his Harvard education and seeming desire to foster common ground for all peoples. To him, the question is "too much of a personal issue," yet apparently his associations with active terrorists ought to be passed off as "business contacts" in his general opinion.

Denizens of America such as Norquist pose a problem to national security because they are fully willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of a few dollars more. If Americans are wise, they will ignore Norquist's self-concerned pursuits and instead follow figureheads who are not partial to the nation's collapse as long as its brings about the lining of their own pockets.



John Lai

National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General

Equalizing Prosperity

In the United States of America, citizens are all too familiar with the two sided economic stances of the major parties, with labor unions and the public sector the favored child of the left, and corporations the darling of the right. And still, after nearly five decades of these policies, there still has yet to be a government which champions the valid proposal of a universal and flat tax, which the National Alliance Foundation firmly believes in.

Feeding the corporations might create a meager sum of jobs in the nation, but it scarcely assembles enough to add a large period of economic plenty to the national markets, thus staying the country in a limbo of inaction and uncertainty. And while jobs within the public realm seem worthwhile in the short run, they have a tendency of damaging the economy further as taxes are drawn from the people to provide for their salaries.

Possibly the most positive element to a flattened tax system would be the removal of the lower income individuals almost completely from the tax brackets in America. Because a universal rate would remove the proportional differences from the amount of tax levied on different income levels, poor and lower middle class would no longer have major stake in tax levels, adding to their overall financial security.

For larger income drawers, the system would help by leaving them with more funds to lend and invest in the markets, benefiting the middle class college graduates and small business owners who are trying to hold unto their personal share of success in the capitalist pool. In a day and age when our largest obstacle to more prosperity is the unwillingness of financial institutions and wealthy citizens to make secure loans to the younger generations, the economy needs a stimulant to help its markets rejuvenate its statistical potency.

Already in several other countries, including the power-brokering state of Russia, flat tax rates have worked tremendously, dragging the nation from a near dead zone at the start of Boris Yeltsin's presidency to yearly growth of 9.5% in 2009. With similar growth in the United States of America, businesses would begin lending and purchasing inventory much faster, pushing the markets out of the recessions abyss and into a more stable, job friendly economy.

Showing this sort of leadership might be difficult for the dusty halls of Congress, yet it is the precise remedy to our slowing national economy. No longer should the capitol act on ideology; it must move to save the futures of Americans in this generation and the next.

Andrew Rimmer

National Alliance Vice President for Communications

Keep the Cuts

It appears almost entirely obvious that the Obama Administration is going to urge Democrats in the House of Representatives to extend only the middle class portions of the Bush Tax Cuts, allowing those for higher earning Americans to die away in January 2011. While the National Alliance Foundation respects the desire for each president to impose their ideological beliefs on the nation, this does not justify the insensitive and reckless decision to change the tax code in th heart of a national recession.

Whether one agrees that the current system is fair or grossly not so, it is irresponsible to radically shift the structure on which our market economy is presently based. On the first tier, the move is hypocritical seeing how the president has campaigned against the tax cuts "only for the richest 2% of America." In fact, the Bush system did cut taxes on the poor and middle class, albeit not as voluminously owing to the lesser incomes of these individuals. Since then, the economy has grown considerably, only halted by poor regulations for financial institutions and of the course the two Middle eastern wars.

Perhaps more crucial however is the support which those cuts give to our economic state as a nation. Hold anti-corporate views or not, but our present globalist structure of trade is fused with powerful companies, not simply government institutions or the middle class. Cutting  that line of support to the companies which supply most American  jobs will not move the economy away from its recession, but simply bring it to a damage laden standstill. If one considers the tax cuts which will expire, for individuals who have income of more than $250,000 per year, they clearly do not account for most small business owners. Even a small cafe, independently owned, will bring in close to $300,000 each year, losing out on the tax benefits.

At its core, our economy is remaining structured because of the very tax cuts made in the early 2000s. Severing them as a means of growth will not help stem a movement towards exiting our receding markets; instead exacerbating the issue.

Ideology may drive politicians as they campaign for power, but responsibility must come before all else once they have ascended to it. Modifying the tax cuts is a decision which will invariably affect the lives of countless American college graduates and business owners tremendously, so it must be done in a calculated and wise manner. Maintaining the present cuts is the only way to accomplish this, and the most effective manner in which to protect our nation's economy.

John Lai

National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General