- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Political Hay
Not Fair Weather Friends
Covering the nationwide Tea Parties held in various cities on Tax Day, Southern Political Report’s Tom Baxter wrote of the Atlanta event: “What it looked like most of all was a Fair Tax rally. Advocates of the national sales tax idea looked like the largest and most enthusiastic contingent in the crowd." Conservative commentator Sean Hannity agreed, pronouncing Atlanta "Fair Tax land."
And indeed it was. Watching Fox News coverage of the local tax revolts, one could not help but notice the many protesters showing support for a House bill popularly known as the “Fair Tax,” which calls for the abolishment of the IRS and the replacement of the income tax with a national sales tax.
Fair Tax supporters are particularly thick on the ground in Atlanta because that's where popular talk radio host Neal Boortz -- co-author of two books on the proposal -- broadcasts his nationally syndicated program. On the same day, a Fair Tax rally drew about 2,000 enthusiastic supporters in neighboring South Carolina, where Boortz and fellow advocate, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, spoke. Tea parties in Columbia and Charleston also had a noticeably strong Fair Tax presence.
The Fair Tax would replace existing federal taxes -- the personal income tax, the capital gains tax, the estate tax, even payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare -- with a 30 percent national retail sales tax on the final sale of all goods and services. As Laurence Vance of the Ludwig von Mises Institute put it in a recent lecture, "The appeal is obvious: no more complex tax code, no more taxes withheld from paychecks, no more 1040 forms, no more record keeping, no more compliance costs, no more IRS audits.”
Nevertheless, even many conservatives and libertarians have serious concerns about the workability of the Fair Tax. It would require state and local governments to pay sales taxes to Washington and the federal government to pay sales taxes to itself. Claimed prices would probably not fall by as much as Fair Tax supporters project. Worst of all, as Vance points out, "There is nothing to prevent an income tax from being reinstituted, giving us a two-headed hydra of an income tax and a consumption tax."
Despite the Fair Tax's shortcomings as policy, politically it has brought together a coalition of conservative, largely middle-class activists looking for radical solutions to big government and its most detested public symbol, the Internal Revenue Service. I've never met a Fair Tax supporter who wouldn't prefer not to be taxed at all, whether on income or consumption. Said Charleston Fair Tax activist John Steinberger of his cause, "It's a good first step." Admits Vance, an ardent Fair Tax opponent, “It is the most radical tax reform plan, bar none.”
The Fair Tax’s radicalism is key. The tea party protesters seemed to genuinely desire a radical change in the way our government conducts its business, not simply minor reforms or more business-as-usual. If sustained, this sharp right turn at the grassroots level could have a serious political impact. Republicans have been promising conservatives smaller government for decades, but delivering the exact opposite. The tea parties may have been primarily born of President Obama’s recent stimulus, but praise for the GOP at the various events was almost nonexistent.
Leading Republicans have been slow to grasp the increasing anger of conservative activists over taxes, spending, and monetary policy. In 2008, only Mike Huckabee and libertarian firebrand Ron Paul expressed qualified support for the Fair Tax, while the other Republican presidential candidates kept their distance. Mitt Romney, a favorite of many conservatives, went so far as to laugh at the idea during a radio interview in Florida.
Yet if the tea party trend showed anything, it's that the most passionate conservative activists in the country are tired of such weak tea. The Fair Tax may not be the best policy idea for reversing the federal government's explosive growth. But far from being a danger or even a distraction to the anti-government message, the Fair Tax movement is valuable precisely because it helps cultivate citizens’ willingness to consider radical changes, pushing back against resurgent big-government liberalism.
The conservative cause of reducing government and slashing spending has always been an ambitious effort. Libertarian and conservative critics of the Fair Tax must express their valid policy concerns, but without dismissing the thousands of committed activists who have been mobilized by the proposal.
Any serious challenges to the status quo will require serious challengers. And whatever the shortcomings of a national sales tax, the patriotic Americans who make up the Fair Tax movement are at least dead serious about a kind of change that small-government supporters of all stripes can believe in.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
Are you in a mob?
The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
ADVERTISEMENT
fairmark| 4.30.09 @ 7:25AM
A reporter asked Obama what his plans are to fix the 50% black unemployment rate in NY. This problem could be fixed quickly if people could work small, starter "McJobs" tax-free, then move up to better jobs or school, with the savings. These McJobs are not worth pursuing now due to taxes and withholding. Right now, a man just could not provide for a wife and a few kids at McDonalds. I wouldn't blame an unemployed person for passing these jobs up with the current tax code. These jobs are workable with a tax-free plan, though. The fairtax will allow these McJobs to be an avenue for enough income to have a good quality of life and provide other options later. Not now, though.
Pingback| 4.30.09 @ 7:51AM
Not Fair Weather Friends links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ryan| 4.30.09 @ 8:36AM
I'm a decent fan of the FairTax idea, and any fan that simplifies the tax code and gives accountants (who add no value to a company's products when they do tax work) something else to do. We need some sort of tax overhaul a la 1986, but I fear that anything that comes through this administration is going to raise the overall rates even if the code is simplified.
aware| 4.30.09 @ 9:14AM
No disrespect to the supporters, but the end result of the "Fair Tax"( in the English language are there two words more unhappily wedded ?) will be easier collection of the SAME amount of taxes. Which means the same spending on the same boondoogles and all the while the State gets fatter and more obtrusive.
Why the half measures and nibbling at the edges? Repeal the 16 Amendment and force the Federal Gov. to finance with tariffs and duties as the Constitution requires. This means less money which means less central government.
The real failure of conservatism is that, in spite of the promises, it has not given us smaller government. And that's because of misguided ideas like this.
Big J| 4.30.09 @ 9:32AM
Ridiculous article. I recommend going to
www.fairtax.org and actually becoming EDUCATED on the subject. The rate of tax would be 23%, not 30%. You also failed to mention that more than 23% is included in the cost of ALL goods and services. Ultimately, the entire system would be revenue-neutral. It would also generate revenue from cash-business that fly under the radar at the moment, like drug dealers and others. Taxation based on consumption (instead of production) only makes sense.
Furthermore, while there were many Fair Tax supporters at the Tea Parties, you have apparently missed the point. The protesters WERE NOT "anti-government" types. We were protesting the largest expansion of government in our nation's history.
"I've never met a Fair Tax supporter who wouldn't prefer not to be taxed at all, whether on income or consumption." Ridiculous! I am a firm believer in paying my fair share to a government that operates within the bounds of The Constitution. I refuse, however, to support failing companies at the discretion of a few elites inside the beltway. I refuse have have my production pilfered to support a portion of the population that has become so dependant on government handouts that they have no intention of working - ever.
I am self-employed. I do not have the time or space to explain to you burden of our tax code: payroll taxes, corporate taxes, sales tax, accounting fees and on and on. I recommend you try walking a mile in the shoes of a small business owner. I think you might change your tune.
Finally, it is absolutely none of the government's business what my income is. They should not punish production, as the current progressive tax system does. I work harder, make more money, voila! They take more.
If you do not see the absolute travesty that our current system of taxation has become, I dare say you, sir are a fool.
No offense, it's just something I'm really passionate about.
Roy| 4.30.09 @ 10:13AM
Re: Fairmark: Right now, somebody at a low paying job doesn't pay taxes. At least, he doesn't pay income taxes. He might pay payroll taxes, but the EITC takes a good chunk out of that, too.
How would he be better off under a national sales tax? They wouldn't check his income before charging the tax - would they? So he'd be paying a lot MORE in taxes, as BigJ seems to be approving of if I get the complaints about the progressive tax system right.
As far as BigJ himself, as long as the current political consensus for endless dinking with people's behavior through the tax code exists, the government will implement it regardless of the taxing mechanism. Eg, you'll pay less sales tax on "green" products, or less on products where 50% of the clientele, or the ownership, are "underrepresented minorities", or.. etc etc. And the revenue from it would still be used to support failed companies at the discretion of beltway elites. To end that is going to require fighting on that point, not dinking with the tax system.
I don't have a problem with income tax, I would love to see a much simpler tax code, but I don't have a clue how to get there from here.
Fizban| 4.30.09 @ 10:23AM
Roy, you don't know how those things would work because you haven't read up on how they would work. Get the books. (I'll give a hint though: Prebate checks). The Fair Tax IS the best idea out there and it would revitalize this country overnight. Which is why it won't happen. Oh, Aware, yes, in the end the same amount of tax would be collected. It would just happen, you know, fairly. No one would hide from it, not Bill Gates, me, a drug dealer or an illegal alien. Spend your money, pay your tax, done.
Jason Frith| 4.30.09 @ 11:10AM
@Big J: If you are truly "a firm believer in paying my fair share to a government that operates within the bounds of The Constitution," then you would not want to pay personal taxes at all- since all personal income taxes go towards paying the interest on the debt created by the various and sundry grossly and decidedly extra-constitutional institutions.
Big Leo| 4.30.09 @ 11:50AM
I'm on a pension now, which puts me in a very low income tax bracket. About half the people in this country don't pay taxes at all. Unless I have missed something, this means that since most of what I get from my pension is spent on luxuries like food, utilities, and suchlike that I will have an effective tax rate of nearly 23% or 30% of my entire income, which is pretty humble.. I would go from paying about a thousand dollars a year in income tax to over five thousand dollars a year, which would be an enormous bite out of my pension. Now, am I misunderstanding this, or are proponents of the 'fair' tax out of their everloving minds?
GaryS| 4.30.09 @ 12:12PM
I don't think one could argue that the ideal would be repeal the 16th Amendment, but I think the Fair Tax is a compromise. Not ideal, but I believe practical. One of the faults of the income tax to me is that not everyone pays it. The people who benefit the least from government programs have to pay the most. Redistribution of wealth. The Fair Tax is "fair" because it levels the playing field. Everyone pays the same percentage. Buy a little, pay a little. Buy a lot, pay a lot. Sounds fair to me.
Robert Pinkerton| 4.30.09 @ 1:08PM
If this should seem a digression, then I would ask indulgence from Moderator and fellow posters, that it none the less remain in place. However, since every level of government is screeching, b****hing, p**sing and moaning about revenue shortfalls, I suggest something else to tax, hitherto officially not taxed: Cannabis ought to be made flat lawful to cultivate, prepare for sale, sell, buy, hold, and consume under concurrent Federal and state tax control. Aside from tax revenues therefrom garnered, legalising cannabis in the same manner as alcoholic beverages, would cut off subsequent fruitless expenditures such as, including but not limited to, most narcs (Do real police-work or seek employment in another trade!), an immense share of prosecutorial budgets, and an equally immense share of costs of incarceration. One could go further from there, but the "ripple" effect would be beneficial in many dimensions beyond those already stated.
Pingback| 4.30.09 @ 1:34PM
Homes Bill Sales Rate | World News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ed| 4.30.09 @ 2:08PM
Big Leo,
The cost of goods wouldn't change much, since corporate income taxes (along with the enormous cost of compliance - accountants & tax attorneys don't work cheap) would be eliminated as well. Corporate taxes are built into the price you pay on everything.
Also, the Fair Tax plan refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities. If anything, you would come out ahead.
Joe| 4.30.09 @ 2:44PM
I don't usually like to respond to comments from the peanut gallery. But, Ryan you are an idiot and need an education. Accountant provide alot to a company, not just on taxes.
Big Leo| 4.30.09 @ 2:54PM
I doubt that eliminating corporate income tax will provide 23% of relief since I am unaware of any major corporation that pays a 23% tax on gross income, even including the costs of accountants and tax lawyers. Also, how you refund in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities isn't very clear. When a tax proposal sounds dubious and unfair, it had better be better clarified than I have seen it to be acceptable.
Roy| 4.30.09 @ 3:06PM
If "prebate checks" are based on income level, then the government would still need to determine everybody's income, which would lead to the same endless dinking we have now.
I just don't believe in magic wand fixes. The reason the tax code is the way it is is because when push comes to shove, people want it that way, so they would do the same thing with a sales tax. If there were a consensus for a flat, no loopholes sales tax, then there could be one for a flat, no loopholes income tax.
Pre-refund the tax on "basic necessities" - great, you just created a mammoth lobby for altering the definition of a "basic necessity". Etc. etc.
Pingback| 4.30.09 @ 3:34PM
Income Quarter Financial Fair | World News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ed| 4.30.09 @ 3:58PM
Big Leo,
Read
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
Workin' Tommy C| 4.30.09 @ 4:20PM
Let's make the first step simply getting rid of the 16th Amendment and nothing else. Then, before they can they can do anything, swamp D.C. with protest marchers intimidating them into not replacing it with anything.
The fascists and socialist in DC have been pulling bait and switch tricks on us for decades. We could use the Fair Tax idea to pull the same on D.C.
aware| 4.30.09 @ 4:21PM
The Left will still harp on the gross "unfairness" of some incomes so after the "Fair Tax" and you'll end up with both.
The drug dealer is not effected by this cause his product is still contraband and therefore not taxed( okay, maybe he'll pay a bit on baggies).
Sales taxes are already collected by government at the local level for local (mostly) use. So the non-income tax contributors are paying these. Some might say this is "fair" already. Wanting to see those no goods finally "pay their fair share" is the exact same attitude we see prominently displayed by the Left in support of "sharing the wealth". By the way, only the owner can voluntarily share his property anything else is theft, pure and simple.
Whether it's income or sales tax I contend that the problem is what it is being USED for that is the real threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Putting treasure (always someone else's) in the hands of the State and then expecting to benefit by doing it is an example of Majority Voter Mentality(MVM) which gives us the very "leaders" currently inflicted. And worse!
As long as they get what they get they'll do as they like. Besides aren't "conservatives" supposed to be for LOWER taxes? What makes it okay if they are high SALES taxes? It is the same amount of money taken from the private economy either way. This is why the amount and how it is used is the more important issue than how it is coerced.
The central front in this battle for survival is the size and scope of the Federal government. Everything else is side show.
aware| 4.30.09 @ 4:21PM
The Left will still harp on the gross "unfairness" of some incomes so after the "Fair Tax" and you'll end up with both.
The drug dealer is not effected by this cause his product is still contraband and therefore not taxed( okay, maybe he'll pay a bit on baggies).
Sales taxes are already collected by government at the local level for local (mostly) use. So the non-income tax contributors are paying these. Some might say this is "fair" already. Wanting to see those no goods finally "pay their fair share" is the exact same attitude we see prominently displayed by the Left in support of "sharing the wealth". By the way, only the owner can voluntarily share his property anything else is theft, pure and simple.
Whether it's income or sales tax I contend that the problem is what it is being USED for that is the real threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Putting treasure (always someone else's) in the hands of the State and then expecting to benefit by doing it is an example of Majority Voter Mentality(MVM) which gives us the very "leaders" currently inflicted. And worse!
As long as they get what they get they'll do as they like. Besides aren't "conservatives" supposed to be for LOWER taxes? What makes it okay if they are high SALES taxes? It is the same amount of money taken from the private economy either way. This is why the amount and how it is used is the more important issue than how it is coerced.
The central front in this battle for survival is the size and scope of the Federal government. Everything else is side show.
fairmark| 4.30.09 @ 5:24PM
Roy, a person making between $8000-$33000 pays 15% fed income tax. If one wants to work harder and more (say, 60 hours) and goes over the $33000 avg. for just one paycheck, he gets the dubious honor of paying 25% tax for just trying to get ahead.
A little info goes a long way...try again.
Pete the mediocre| 4.30.09 @ 6:44PM
Mr. Hunter, I wanted you to see this poll:
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Obama100days/story?id=7459488&page=1
The majority of Americans are okay with gay marriage. It's probably just an outlier, but the trend seems pretty evident. My point is you can come out of the closet now. Just based on the picture, it's obvious you have feelings for the stronger sex. I'm not judging. Just go do it. Find a rest stop or something and get it over with. Sneak out of the house when the kids are asleep or something, tell them daddy has a late night business meeting. I've never seen a gayer man than you. You have that gay twinkle in your eye that Liberachi had. We support you.
R. George Dunn| 4.30.09 @ 8:03PM
The tax to be implemented is 23%, not 30. That is a bogus number being used by the communist types and the lobbyist and big government types to stop the fair tax.
The Fair Tax Plan has in it a provision that if the 16th Amendment is not repealed in five years, the fair tax plan is dissolved, to prevent duel taxation.
The reason Romney laughed out loud at the Fair Tax plan is he is very much against it. It would dip into his fortune setting his company back on it's heels. Why? Romney is all about imports. When the fair Tax Plan is implemented, it will remove the production tax built into the price of domestic manufacturing and will tax imports equally with our domestic production, creating a true level free trade competition. I am waiting for Pat Buchanan to wake up one day and say YES! Fair Tax! To put it simple, Romney is Big Government and don't let him lie to you otherwise, as he is good at saying what he wants you to hear. We called him Slick Willie two during the primaries.
Fair Tax is not a radicalism tool, that is nuts. It is a tool to bring about jobs, jobs and more jobs, so many jobs that the never again Federal Reserve would be raising interest rates to prevent too much of a shortage of employees to cause inflation to be at the need of workers. (every time I think of that I get steamed)
The tea parties I have read about and the one in Michigan I attended were central to Fair Tax support. We had Joe the Plumber in Lansing and he is going to Petoskey in Northern Michigan on May 6th. His main theme is always the Fair Tax Plan.
Tea Parties in Indiana, Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma California, South Carolina, I imagine in all the States had Fair Tax a part of it. Just as important to everyone is not simply smaller government, Constitutional Government. The people are fed up with our Federal Government failing to adhere to the Law of the land. Those laws are put in place to protect our liberty and freedoms and by God as our Witness we will have our Constitution back and freedom from the direct taxation we are now experiencing that is drowning us. Who in there right mind would tax and so doing punish someone who works, saves invests. That is so STUPID!!!
By the way, this is a great article, just a little weak on the whole truth, but very close. We will have Fair Tax!!! We will once again be a Federalist Union!
R. George Dunn| 4.30.09 @ 8:39PM
Aware, The progressive in the Fair Tax plan is more then fair. As to the rich not paying there share, they are not now. The reason there is so many lobbyists in Washington is to create loopholes and wealthy people also hide there money well and some even go off shore. But they spend it here as well as illegals and those drug dealers. All will be buying and all will pay their fair share based on the wealth they have to spend.
It is true, the Federal Government has created spending that is far beyond their constitutional power to do so. They already have us on the path of bankruptcy and they just went fanatic increasing it beyond thought. Inflation will be like never before soon. Fair Tax is what we need, regardless of the taxing level. If we are upset , we stop buying and that puts them on notice. Today, we can do what? We don't even see our money. They just take it.
Chemman| 4.30.09 @ 9:24PM
One question, absent a constitutional amendment establishing a maximum for the fair tax, what hinders the Feds from raising it well above the 23% or 30% (depending on how it is calculated) to keep spending what they want?
John Batemen| 4.30.09 @ 10:31PM
I'm curious as to why you guys support the "fair tax." Is it ideological or practical? Maybe both? Do you think it's unjust that we have a graduated income tax? Do you think the economy is hurting as a result? Do you think that the poor don't pay their fair share? With the GINI coefficient on the rise, reaching Guilded age levels, it seems to me like a fair tax might not be so fair after all. I mean the average real income for the middle class American has gone down consistently for the past couple years, while the very wealthy have since pretty substantial growth. I can't imagine in the current economic environment that's going to get any better.
Ted| 4.30.09 @ 11:23PM
The real damage of the 16 Amendment comes from the clause: "without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." This is what forces our representatives to bring home the bacon to get re-elected. Remove the clause, and much of the inducement for increasing the size of federal spending goes away. It's a start.
John Batemen| 4.30.09 @ 11:30PM
Oh, this is just "starve the beast" nonesense. Got it. I think the last 40 years of tax policy have probably shown that the "beast" keeps eating regardless of whether or not you put food on the table. Better to increase taxes and be fiscally responsible.
Pingback| 5.1.09 @ 1:35AM
The Southern Avenger asks “Is the GOP Too Conservative?” « Political Byline links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Just Curious| 5.1.09 @ 3:04AM
Just curious ... Do any Fair Tax supporters really think that a Fair Tax that adds 30% to the costs of rent and mortgage payments would ever be enacted? And why do you think the tax code would not become increasingly complex over time, with widely varying tax rates and complex rules for different products? For example, how long would it take for legislators to claim that it is "unfair" for baby formula to be taxed at the same rate as caviar?
Roy| 5.1.09 @ 3:20AM
Re:Fairmark: Well, the widely quoted statement is that "40%" of the taxbase pays no taxes. Certainly large numbers of people get the EITC and no, I don't believe their yearly income is all less than $8000. May be dependents or property tax or state income deduction or whatever goofy tax credit.
And yes, I realize that if you work hard enough you end up in a higher tax bracket. What does that have to do with anything? That would happen under a sales tax too, if lower income people had their taxes "prebated". And if they didn't, then they would be worse off than they are now.
Re:Bateman: Infinitely better to haul the beast out, shoot it, hang it, bury it, dig it up and shoot it again to make sure it's dead. OK fine, you'll say that won't happen which is reasonable enough..but I still dont' think it's that clear cut. Maybe spending still goes up when there is a deficit but then you can screech and howl about the deficit and it does cause people to stop and think. When there's a surplus they don't think at all.
Pingback| 5.1.09 @ 6:08AM
Greatest Hits: May 1, 2009 | Whatever Is Right links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
aware| 5.1.09 @ 6:30AM
R. George Dunn...I agree about lobbyists, a pile of crap will always attract flies. The same thing will happen with any form of taxation because the State exists for the purpose of systematically exploiting one group by another. It is the organization of the political means of acquiring wealth, i.e. taking instead of earning.
It is the clearing house for grievances, real or alleged. The political class of both parties cynically use this attribute to entrench themselves in the seats of power. They convince you that the State will prevent the natural consequences of your own or others stupidity, which is impossible. Or at least "compensate" you, either by spreading the wealth or the misery.
Bankruptcy, yes and worse. The State creates or uses crisis to then impose its "order". This then leads to more crisis which leads to more"order" and so on. And no matter the sorry record of its interventions a large segment of the "common man" will continue to have faith (as if it were God) in the power and the glory of the State.
The statists control education, information, entertainment, and an ever growing part of "free enterprise", as their control grows the chaos does too, until the stage is set for the dictator. If we avoid this fate we will be the first in history to do so. We may move down the road slower than others be the destination is the same...totalitarianism.
Christopher| 5.2.09 @ 3:28AM
Here are some Fair Tax facts:
1) The pre-bate clause would make everyone in the country a recipient of federal welfare.
2) It is revenue-neutral which means it aims to do nothing at all about the size of government in American life or even the amount of money Americans are taxed.
Despite these horrific deficiencies, I am willing to compromise.
Lower the 23 percent figure in Linder's bill to 1 percent, get rid of the prebate provision and peg the rate to spending.
That MIGHT be "Fair"
Tallil 6| 5.2.09 @ 6:40AM
I'm a little concerned about unintended consequences. Some of you may remember the notorious 'Luxury Tax' from some years back. It was thought that this would be the one tax that would only effect those wealthy enough to purchase limos, yachts, private jets and the like.
The unintended consequence of that tax was the near demise of the limo, yacht and private aircraft industries, costing many, many jobs. Even our ultra-liberal Iowa Senator Harkin admitted that one was a huge mistake.
I know that the Fair Tax is not the same thing, but still wonder what possible consequences may be lurking in the background.....
There are certain industries which profit from tax deductions, ie: the restaurant industry, that may be quite adversely effected. When a business lunch is no longer a deductible expense for a company, will it still be as popular?
I'll admit that I've been on the sidelines on this issue. I've read some of the Fair Tax message but don't claim to be an expert by any means.
What do you think, Fair Taxers?
Michele San Pietro| 5.3.09 @ 5:06PM
Americans are fed up with fairweather friends. Sworn enemies are much better.
Pingback| 5.10.09 @ 5:24AM
Bill Homes Sales Budget | World News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.10.09 @ 7:35AM
Bill Homes Budget Sales | World News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.10.09 @ 7:37AM
Income Digirad Fair Corporation | World News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.10.09 @ 9:55AM
Bill Homes Budget News | World News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.10.09 @ 9:57AM
Income Spending Claims Digirad | World News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.10.09 @ 11:55AM
Bill Homes Sales Cuts | World News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.10.09 @ 5:39PM
Credit International Paper Fraud | World News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.11.09 @ 9:03PM
The Cloakroom » Newscall links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
zbmw| 6.2.09 @ 11:09PM
Hi Ed (4.30.09 @ 3:58PM)
Your link is broken, please recoment it...
Wholesale Lingerie| 9.5.09 @ 10:28PM
sexy lingerie lingerie
Wedding Dresses| 9.9.09 @ 11:29PM
are located in all major cities such Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
as Shanghai, New York, etc, you may travel to these cities and get one for yourself.