These updates have been great. In fact, it just reminded me to send more money to Libertarian candiates.

Campaign progress is what really excites the members of any movement. Miracles do happen. This is an historic opportunity for the Texas LP. Yall should contact freetalklive and get an interview for Smithers. I'm sure there's plenty of money to be had by the audience. Keep up the reports.

It's too bad Smither won't denounce the "fair" tax scam so we could all get behind him.

The FAIRTAX: A TROJAN HORSE FOR AMERICA?
By Claire Wolfe & Aaron Zelman
http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm

The Fraudulent Tax
By Laurence M. Vance
http://mises.org/story/2327

The Fair Tax issue simply does not matter. Smither would still have to convince a majority of the House and Senate (over 500 people) to go along with him.

We should all get behind him, anyway. We have much more in common with him than those other 500 people.

"It's too bad Smither won't denounce the "fair" tax scam so we could all get behind him.
Joseph Knight
former State Chair, LP of New Mexico"

It is unfortunate that the LP often elects State Chairs that do not understand the purpose of a political party. Mr. Knight seems to feel that since Bob Smither is in favor of REPLACING all current federal taxes with a National Sales Tax, that makes Smither a horrible Libertarian Congressional candidate, unworthy of any support from the LP.

This is exactly the kind of circular firing squad mentality that has made the Libertarian Party totally worthless as an effective organization from 1971 until the present.

Our Mission Statement says that we should be "moving public policy in a libertarian direction by electing Libertarians to public office". I think it is accurate to say that Bob Smither has at least a 5% chance of winning at least one of his two elections. That percentage is much, much, much better than any previous LP Congressional candidate.

Taking into account ALL of Mr. Smither's potential votes in Congress over a two year period, I am sure he would advance the LP's Mission Statement. Just because a candidate disagrees with you on ONE issue does not mean that the candidate is a socialist or a
non-libertarian. It just means that you disagree with the candidate on one issue.

I support Bob Smither for Congress, and I will be sending him a contribution before the end of the month.

Sandra, the un-fair tax DOES matter - it has legs, it has ALREADY been introduced in Congress and does have some support.

Scott. the un-fair tax does NOT move us in a libertarian direction but away from it! It does NOTHING to reduce government or lower taxes.

This "just one issue" is more than ideological, it's something that will hurt real people in the real world. http://www.lpnm.org/essays/MemberEssays-jknight2.html

nm_libertarian: So, are you saying that the "un-fair tax" will not eliminate form 1040 and related filings and compliance costs? That it won't actually eliminate the payroll tax and various use taxes? That we will still need everyone now on the IRS payroll to collect taxes? That individuals will still be subject to IRS audits going back five years?

Smither has said that he would work hard to repeal the 16th amendment. Is that not part of the traditional LP policy agenda?

I agree that it seems strange to hear a "libertarian" arguing to replace one tax with another. But if there is a net increase in liberty (or a net decrease in the cost of obeying the law), isn't that a win?

I also believe that he faces a very uphill battle in the fight to pass the national sales tax, or repeal the 16th amendment. Would his efforts in other areas not advance libertarian interests? He might actually be more effective and successful in those other efforts, and so why would we not want him to get the chance, given that the Demos and GOP will act in ways that we abhor?

I'm just trying to understand the source of your opposition to this candidate.

Ron Paul speaks plainly about tax reform: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst101606.htm

He says the "Fair Tax" makes sense only if we also repeal the 16th Amendment -- otherwise, he thinks we'll get stuck with income tax AND consumption tax. In any case, the real issue is how much Congress SPENDS.

Mr. Merritt, please use the links above. The "net" change is in the wrong direction.

My source of opposition: In 40 years of activism, 20 of them as a LP activist, I have NEVER advocated imposing a tax on ANYBODY and now a fellow Libertarian wants to impose one on me: one that will double-tax the savings of baby boomers and the elderly (on which they have already paid fed taxes), and cause me a hardship personally.

If we MUST dabble in tax "reform" - consider:
Personal income tax violates our natural right to the fruits of our labor. Property tax violates our natural right to private property. Sales tax violates our natural right to the free exchange of goods and services.

The corporate income tax violates NO natural rights since a corporation is not a natural person. Since the corporation is a creation of the state, let it bear the cost of the state. The machinery is already in place. Of course, the taxes could be passed on to consumers as higher prices so this is no substitute for reducing the scope and expense of government. But it could level the competitive playing field for mom-and-pop proprietorships.