President Obama, like his predecessors, has no real oil or energy policy. Today's efforts to open up some restricted offshore drilling is purely political candy, lacking substance and effectiveness. Here's my complete plan that would work for everybody:
Current leases would be honored and grandfathered as they currently stand. This would please the oil companies.
No drilling allowed within 10 miles of shore, including the shores of populated outlying islands. This should please the tourist industry and environmentalists.
Between 10 and 50 miles off shore the choice would be left entirely to the appropriate state. Royalties and leases would be negotiated by that state, though no leases would be permitted to be sold to foreign owned companies. Any operations would be subject to regulation and inspection by both state and federal environmental authorities. The state and federal government would be allowed to declare certain vital areas (such as shipping lanes, fisheries, reefs, etc...) off limits. This should please the states.
From 50 to 200 miles off shore, royalties and leases would be negotiated by the U.S. Govt. Leases would be made available only to U.S. owned and taxpaying companies. The federal government would regulate and inspect all facilities/operations and would have the authority to declare certain vital areas off limits. This should please taxpayers, consumers, and oil companies.
Oil on federal lands (Think ANWAR) would not be made available for commercial drilling. Drilling for oil and gas reserves here would be exclusively done by the Army Corps of Engineers. Extracted oil and gas would be entirely sent to our national reserves. This should please the military and taxpayers.
As part of the national reserves, the Corps of Engineers would also operate refineries to turn that crude oil into the fuel needed for our military vehicles, planes, and ships. This would free up more commercial production capacity for consumer use and guarantee a fuel source for the military. Fuel for the military would be blended with biofuels. This should please the military, taxpayers, consumers, environmentalists, and farmers.
Reserve policy would be to cease drilling for oil and buy foreign oil only when the price dropped below $50 a barrel as a means of propping up the price in a down market and protecting domestic supply. This would please oil companies. Furthermore, excess reserves would be sold when the price exceeded $100 per barrel as a means of lowering the price in an inflated market. This would please consumers and taxpayers.
A similar policy to curb volatile natural gas markets would be followed.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Health Care
The bill has passed, not a good thing. I admit the current system had to go. Our government (and therefore our current and future taxpayers) pays a LOT of money on the current health care system, and gets less for our money than most do. This, however, was not the answer. Like most of the congress voting on it, I haven't actually found the time to read it though. It makes valid criticism of the particulars difficult and even disingenuous. That doesn't mean it is exempt from valid criticism.
First of all, it is too big. A bill so large that a mainframe is required to download and store it is too big. That much memory wasn't required for the Manhattan Project or Apollo Program. If carrying a hard copy necessitates the use of mechanical devices it is too big. If the bill is too big to read, it is to big to vote on, much less pass into law. No bill on any issue should ever be close to this big and complicated. It needs to be MUCH simpler, so the consequences (costs and benefits) are somewhat predictable.
Second, it is unpopular. REALLY unpopular. We live in a republic, not a democracy. This important distinction allows us to have a government that is not governed by mob rule and that can, when necessary, protect the minority from an oppressive majority. This was not one of those times where such protection was necessary. In this case the will of the overwhelming majority should have been listened to. We have once again crossed into the realm of a government becoming powerful enough to give us what ever we want and also therefore being powerful enough to take away everything we have. The country was founded and fought for by those that thought the people should be free from such a tyrannical government. It does not matter how benevolent or good intentioned that government is or thinks it is. It is just entirely un-American to pass a bill giving the government so much control over our should be private lives.
Third. It is really expensive. REALLY expensive. The GAO office says it might reduce the growth of our debt a decade from now provided there is a massive increase in taxes and tax revenues. It is an unrealistic assumption, and the debt is quickly becoming a burden that can never be paid. The Bush and Obama stimulus packages and record debts were probably already more debt than the country could bear. This is yet another nail in the corpse, and makes a real recovery next to impossible.
As for the particulars, I have no comment. No one really knows how this is going to shake out. Maybe overall health care will improve. Probably it won't. Time may or may not tell, but in the end those particulars don't really matter. The basic concept of the bill was flawed from the get-go, and we really can't afford it.
First of all, it is too big. A bill so large that a mainframe is required to download and store it is too big. That much memory wasn't required for the Manhattan Project or Apollo Program. If carrying a hard copy necessitates the use of mechanical devices it is too big. If the bill is too big to read, it is to big to vote on, much less pass into law. No bill on any issue should ever be close to this big and complicated. It needs to be MUCH simpler, so the consequences (costs and benefits) are somewhat predictable.
Second, it is unpopular. REALLY unpopular. We live in a republic, not a democracy. This important distinction allows us to have a government that is not governed by mob rule and that can, when necessary, protect the minority from an oppressive majority. This was not one of those times where such protection was necessary. In this case the will of the overwhelming majority should have been listened to. We have once again crossed into the realm of a government becoming powerful enough to give us what ever we want and also therefore being powerful enough to take away everything we have. The country was founded and fought for by those that thought the people should be free from such a tyrannical government. It does not matter how benevolent or good intentioned that government is or thinks it is. It is just entirely un-American to pass a bill giving the government so much control over our should be private lives.
Third. It is really expensive. REALLY expensive. The GAO office says it might reduce the growth of our debt a decade from now provided there is a massive increase in taxes and tax revenues. It is an unrealistic assumption, and the debt is quickly becoming a burden that can never be paid. The Bush and Obama stimulus packages and record debts were probably already more debt than the country could bear. This is yet another nail in the corpse, and makes a real recovery next to impossible.
As for the particulars, I have no comment. No one really knows how this is going to shake out. Maybe overall health care will improve. Probably it won't. Time may or may not tell, but in the end those particulars don't really matter. The basic concept of the bill was flawed from the get-go, and we really can't afford it.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Gay Marriage
This is another popular hot button issue. Marriage is a sacred institution between husband, wife, and God. In Judeo-Christian and Muslim faiths this precludes gay marriage as each of these religions has historical scriptural condemnations of homosexuality. I personally am not a supporter of gay marriage.
That said, Marriage is a sacred institution between husband, wife, and God. Nowhere in that statement is the government mentioned. The government has absolutely no business regulating marriage one way or another. It should not be taxing, licensing, performing, condoning, prohibiting, regulating, limiting, or even recognizing marriage. I will not support any measure to ban gay marriage. I will not support any measure to legalize gay marriage. I will not support any government regulation of marriage whatsoever; it is not the government's business.
That said, Marriage is a sacred institution between husband, wife, and God. Nowhere in that statement is the government mentioned. The government has absolutely no business regulating marriage one way or another. It should not be taxing, licensing, performing, condoning, prohibiting, regulating, limiting, or even recognizing marriage. I will not support any measure to ban gay marriage. I will not support any measure to legalize gay marriage. I will not support any government regulation of marriage whatsoever; it is not the government's business.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Terror on Trial?
From the U.S. Supreme Court:
"…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
From the Geneva Convention:
"Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State."
Candidate Obama vowed to close the prisons at Guantanamo Bay within a year of taking office. A year into his presidency he has not been able to do so, and is taking heat from both democrats and republicans for his handling of terror suspects. In part this stems from inheriting the ridiculous policies of the Bush administration to have its cake and eat it too in an effort to be politically correct and sensitive whilst protecting the country from those wishing or succeeding in doing us harm. Even more at fault is the unwillingness and inability of congress to actually declare war, instead using ambiguous terms like "authorization of force." Having no popular way to fix this debacle, Obama has settled to continue business as usual.
It doesn't have to be that difficult. The failure to formally declare war muddles things a bit, but not as much as we think. Settled law and the Geneva convention, while not exactly crystal, are much clearer than our current policy.
The "Christmas underwear bomber" clearly is an unlawful "enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property." The US Supreme court affords him no special protections nor do the Geneva Conventions beyond undue humiliation or cruelty. A quick and final military tribunal and execution is appropriate and has precedent. (See the 8 German saboteurs in WW2 that were caught and sentenced to death. Two that turned themselves in and facilitated the capture of the others were spared, the other 6 electrocuted) To treat as a common criminal, as the Obama administration is doing, is beyond hypersensitivity and rises to heinous.
There is no need to close "Gitmo" as such. The law allows for our military tribunals to decide (with fairly clear definitions in the Geneva Convention) who is or is not a lawful combatant. Those deemed lawful, as many sent to Gitmo would be, would then be entitled to confinement and protection as POW's until such time as the conflict ended and repatriation could occur. Those deemed unlawful sould be interrogated until no longer useful and then executed.
This should have been done long ago.
As president I would immediately ask congress for a formal declaration of war against any and all terrorist organizations as well as the countries that support them. This would clear any "murkiness" that our previous presidents were unable to deal with. Every detainee would be judged in Guantanamo by a military tribunal and sorted into lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants would remain imprisoned as POWs at the Gitmo facilities. Unlawful combatants would be interrogated and executed. The creamated remains of those executed would be returned to the governments of their respective countries of citizenship to be disposed of as they see fit.
"…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
From the Geneva Convention:
"Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State."
Candidate Obama vowed to close the prisons at Guantanamo Bay within a year of taking office. A year into his presidency he has not been able to do so, and is taking heat from both democrats and republicans for his handling of terror suspects. In part this stems from inheriting the ridiculous policies of the Bush administration to have its cake and eat it too in an effort to be politically correct and sensitive whilst protecting the country from those wishing or succeeding in doing us harm. Even more at fault is the unwillingness and inability of congress to actually declare war, instead using ambiguous terms like "authorization of force." Having no popular way to fix this debacle, Obama has settled to continue business as usual.
It doesn't have to be that difficult. The failure to formally declare war muddles things a bit, but not as much as we think. Settled law and the Geneva convention, while not exactly crystal, are much clearer than our current policy.
The "Christmas underwear bomber" clearly is an unlawful "enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property." The US Supreme court affords him no special protections nor do the Geneva Conventions beyond undue humiliation or cruelty. A quick and final military tribunal and execution is appropriate and has precedent. (See the 8 German saboteurs in WW2 that were caught and sentenced to death. Two that turned themselves in and facilitated the capture of the others were spared, the other 6 electrocuted) To treat as a common criminal, as the Obama administration is doing, is beyond hypersensitivity and rises to heinous.
There is no need to close "Gitmo" as such. The law allows for our military tribunals to decide (with fairly clear definitions in the Geneva Convention) who is or is not a lawful combatant. Those deemed lawful, as many sent to Gitmo would be, would then be entitled to confinement and protection as POW's until such time as the conflict ended and repatriation could occur. Those deemed unlawful sould be interrogated until no longer useful and then executed.
This should have been done long ago.
As president I would immediately ask congress for a formal declaration of war against any and all terrorist organizations as well as the countries that support them. This would clear any "murkiness" that our previous presidents were unable to deal with. Every detainee would be judged in Guantanamo by a military tribunal and sorted into lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants would remain imprisoned as POWs at the Gitmo facilities. Unlawful combatants would be interrogated and executed. The creamated remains of those executed would be returned to the governments of their respective countries of citizenship to be disposed of as they see fit.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
State of the Union
Last night the candidate for change we can believe in that voters overwhelmingly elected to office let us know in no uncertain terms he has little intention of changing anything. He has rightly acknowledged that the electorate is plenty mad at the way Washington does business. And then he unashamedly went on for over an hour restating his campaign points and laying blame on everyone except himself. His only admission of failure was that he couldn't sway the public to support vastly increased socialism, on the premise apparently that the voting public is just too ignorant to get it. That means our defiant president still doesn't get it.
Mr. Obama wants to know how long we should just hold on before moving forward. The answer sir, is as long as we can to prevent you from doing irreparable harm. What ticks the voters off isn't that unemployment is at 10%, or that health care costs are rising, or that property values have dropped a little. What makes us all angry is that these problems are worsening despite massive amounts of government spending to "fix" it. The government, for all its supposed good intentions, has fixed nothing and is bankrupting the future of our nation. We get that. We get that in order to keep funding an ineffective government we have to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from China to pay for it. Soon, if Obama has his way with his agenda, we will owe them trillions. We get that our great grandchildren will eventually be paying half of their income in taxes just to pay the interest on debts incurred now.
When the economic bubble burst a few years ago people realized that they had erred. You couldn't just keep borrowing money indefinitely, eventually the piper had to be paid. We are now suffering the hangover from those mistakes. It was a valuable learning experience. One completely missed by those in Washington, who continue to borrow at record levels.
Mr. Obama, the American people agree in principal with a lot of what you have to say. It is not that we just don't get it. We know the government is wasteful and inefficient. We learned it with FEMA after Katrina. We learned it with bank bailouts and bonuses. We are learning it with steadily declining quality of education despite increased funding.
You should not be surprised that you couldn't convince the people to support your 1,000 page health manifesto. Even without all the secret deals we knew it wouldn't work, and that the government couldn't be trusted to run such things. We get it Mr. President. It's time you did. You are an intelligent man, learn from your mistakes.
This is what you should have said in your state of the union:
"My fellow Americans, I screwed up. I promised change that you believed in but delivered only more of the same. There is plenty of blame to go around, but I am the president. You elected me to change things and I did not so I will accept the responsibility and learn from our mistakes. It is obvious that Americans do not want an expensive complicated health care bill passed in secrecy that we can't trust. So I promise to veto it if it gets to my desk. Still, we need to fix the health care system, so I have a 100 page proposal available for everyone to read that will fix most of the problems and cost the taxpayers half of what we have currently been spending.
It is tax time across our nation, and I am pleased to announce that for most of you your taxes are lower now than they were last year. Even the republicans should be clapping for that one. Unfortunately, our tax code is so complicated it is hard to tell how much you are benifitting. That is going to change. Tomorrow I will send a proposal to congress that greatly simplifies the tax code and not only will your taxes not be increased, but for most of you they will be even lower next year than they are now.
Before I was elected president I was a senator from Illinois. I supported then President Bush's plan to bail out the banks. We all thought it was necessary at the time to save the economy. We now know better. I have learned from this. It will not happen again on my watch. Some of the loans we made are being repaid. I have instructed the treasury department to immediately take every cent we get back and pay back the loans we had to take from foreign countries to pay for it. I will not pass the bill for our problems onto my children or future grandchildren.
Our heirs will not have much of a future if we don't do something about jobs. That is why I am sending a jobs bill to congress tomorrow that will encourage manufacturing to come back to this country. Our economy will not become healthy again until we return to being an exporting nation. China knows this. India knows this, Germany knows this. We are a great nation, I will not accept being second or third or fourth behind any other nation. Furthermore, my proposal will encourage green energy growth, putting us at the forefront of a growing world economy, and protecting the environment for future generations. To ensure we have the energy to fuel our resurgent economy I have included proposals that will allow safe tapping of new domestic reserves of oil and gas, build new nuclear and cleaner coal powerplants, and new refineries and infrastructure to get us back on top. This will all be done without raising a single tax, and will not add a cent to our national debt.
In an increasingly technologically advanced global world, we cannot achieve or maintain greatness without a good education system. Unfortunately, despite massive increases in government spending, the quality of education here continues to decline. I could not in good conscious enroll my children in public schools here. Third world countries are beginning to have better results than we are getting. That is why I plan to scrap the system as we know it, and replace it with one that works and rewards those that get good results.
Folks, I am a product of Chicago politics. I know how the game is played, and it was foolish of me to think I had a mandate that would transcend partisanship. I also know the American people are sick of all the partisan bickering and the 'me first, party second, state third, and country last' that pervades Washington. That is why today I am leaving the Democratic party and following in the footsteps of our greatest president, George Washington, who had no party affiliation. In November we will have the chance to really change things. Every representative will be up for election. One third of our senators will be up for election. If you want to get rid of all the waste, corruption, and earmarks in Washington, throw them all out. Don't vote for a republican or a democrat. Vote for someone that cares for their country first. Or at least third behind God and family. For now let your senators and representatives know that you do get it, and demand they they start getting it too.
My fellow Americans, the state of this union isn't as great as it should be, but this is still the greatest of nations and a beacon to the world. We have seen darker times, terrible depressions, bloodier wars; and have come back from all of them to rise up to new levels of greatness. We will do so again. I have heard your message loud and clear and want you to know I do get it. I promise I will start to deliver the change you can believe in. Thank you, and God Bless America."
Mr. Obama wants to know how long we should just hold on before moving forward. The answer sir, is as long as we can to prevent you from doing irreparable harm. What ticks the voters off isn't that unemployment is at 10%, or that health care costs are rising, or that property values have dropped a little. What makes us all angry is that these problems are worsening despite massive amounts of government spending to "fix" it. The government, for all its supposed good intentions, has fixed nothing and is bankrupting the future of our nation. We get that. We get that in order to keep funding an ineffective government we have to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from China to pay for it. Soon, if Obama has his way with his agenda, we will owe them trillions. We get that our great grandchildren will eventually be paying half of their income in taxes just to pay the interest on debts incurred now.
When the economic bubble burst a few years ago people realized that they had erred. You couldn't just keep borrowing money indefinitely, eventually the piper had to be paid. We are now suffering the hangover from those mistakes. It was a valuable learning experience. One completely missed by those in Washington, who continue to borrow at record levels.
Mr. Obama, the American people agree in principal with a lot of what you have to say. It is not that we just don't get it. We know the government is wasteful and inefficient. We learned it with FEMA after Katrina. We learned it with bank bailouts and bonuses. We are learning it with steadily declining quality of education despite increased funding.
You should not be surprised that you couldn't convince the people to support your 1,000 page health manifesto. Even without all the secret deals we knew it wouldn't work, and that the government couldn't be trusted to run such things. We get it Mr. President. It's time you did. You are an intelligent man, learn from your mistakes.
This is what you should have said in your state of the union:
"My fellow Americans, I screwed up. I promised change that you believed in but delivered only more of the same. There is plenty of blame to go around, but I am the president. You elected me to change things and I did not so I will accept the responsibility and learn from our mistakes. It is obvious that Americans do not want an expensive complicated health care bill passed in secrecy that we can't trust. So I promise to veto it if it gets to my desk. Still, we need to fix the health care system, so I have a 100 page proposal available for everyone to read that will fix most of the problems and cost the taxpayers half of what we have currently been spending.
It is tax time across our nation, and I am pleased to announce that for most of you your taxes are lower now than they were last year. Even the republicans should be clapping for that one. Unfortunately, our tax code is so complicated it is hard to tell how much you are benifitting. That is going to change. Tomorrow I will send a proposal to congress that greatly simplifies the tax code and not only will your taxes not be increased, but for most of you they will be even lower next year than they are now.
Before I was elected president I was a senator from Illinois. I supported then President Bush's plan to bail out the banks. We all thought it was necessary at the time to save the economy. We now know better. I have learned from this. It will not happen again on my watch. Some of the loans we made are being repaid. I have instructed the treasury department to immediately take every cent we get back and pay back the loans we had to take from foreign countries to pay for it. I will not pass the bill for our problems onto my children or future grandchildren.
Our heirs will not have much of a future if we don't do something about jobs. That is why I am sending a jobs bill to congress tomorrow that will encourage manufacturing to come back to this country. Our economy will not become healthy again until we return to being an exporting nation. China knows this. India knows this, Germany knows this. We are a great nation, I will not accept being second or third or fourth behind any other nation. Furthermore, my proposal will encourage green energy growth, putting us at the forefront of a growing world economy, and protecting the environment for future generations. To ensure we have the energy to fuel our resurgent economy I have included proposals that will allow safe tapping of new domestic reserves of oil and gas, build new nuclear and cleaner coal powerplants, and new refineries and infrastructure to get us back on top. This will all be done without raising a single tax, and will not add a cent to our national debt.
In an increasingly technologically advanced global world, we cannot achieve or maintain greatness without a good education system. Unfortunately, despite massive increases in government spending, the quality of education here continues to decline. I could not in good conscious enroll my children in public schools here. Third world countries are beginning to have better results than we are getting. That is why I plan to scrap the system as we know it, and replace it with one that works and rewards those that get good results.
Folks, I am a product of Chicago politics. I know how the game is played, and it was foolish of me to think I had a mandate that would transcend partisanship. I also know the American people are sick of all the partisan bickering and the 'me first, party second, state third, and country last' that pervades Washington. That is why today I am leaving the Democratic party and following in the footsteps of our greatest president, George Washington, who had no party affiliation. In November we will have the chance to really change things. Every representative will be up for election. One third of our senators will be up for election. If you want to get rid of all the waste, corruption, and earmarks in Washington, throw them all out. Don't vote for a republican or a democrat. Vote for someone that cares for their country first. Or at least third behind God and family. For now let your senators and representatives know that you do get it, and demand they they start getting it too.
My fellow Americans, the state of this union isn't as great as it should be, but this is still the greatest of nations and a beacon to the world. We have seen darker times, terrible depressions, bloodier wars; and have come back from all of them to rise up to new levels of greatness. We will do so again. I have heard your message loud and clear and want you to know I do get it. I promise I will start to deliver the change you can believe in. Thank you, and God Bless America."
Monday, January 25, 2010
Social Security
This is a hot button topic no one seems to be able to handle. I think we might have been better off if socialist security had never existed. The fact of the matter is that it does exist, though it won't last much longer as things sit. I have a plan to save it, and make it work without bankrupting country. As an added benefit, my reforms would stimulate small business job growth and consumer spending.
First, and let me make this perfectly clear, any one currently vested with 40 "credits" would be allowed to remain in the current system with no changes to benefits. My reforms would target primarily those that have not yet earned those 40 credits (generally 10 years of employment). Those that already have their 40 credits but would like to enroll in the new program would be allowed but not required to do so.
Payroll taxes would change. The rate would be reduced from 6.2% to 5% from both the employee and employer. This would put more money in the pockets of the American worker and lower the tax burden on small business owners. The 5% collected from the employer would be used to fund a significantly reduced benefit program similar to the current benefit program. The minimum age to receive these benefits would be fixed at 65. The 5% collected from the employee would be placed into a separate regulated account, similar in style to current 403b annuity plans. These plans would allow the employee to choose between various investment options. No withdrawls from this account would be permitted until age 60. (With very limited possible exceptions for certain medical expenses.)
To make up for the shortfall in funds caused by these tax cuts, social security disability coverage would be eliminated. So would the tax cap, meaning all earnings would be subject to the payroll tax. All workers earning income and employers paying wages would be required to participate in Social Security. Congress' retirement plan would be replaced by Social Security, as would certain other government pension plans that currently exempt workers and employers from paying into Social Security.
First, and let me make this perfectly clear, any one currently vested with 40 "credits" would be allowed to remain in the current system with no changes to benefits. My reforms would target primarily those that have not yet earned those 40 credits (generally 10 years of employment). Those that already have their 40 credits but would like to enroll in the new program would be allowed but not required to do so.
Payroll taxes would change. The rate would be reduced from 6.2% to 5% from both the employee and employer. This would put more money in the pockets of the American worker and lower the tax burden on small business owners. The 5% collected from the employer would be used to fund a significantly reduced benefit program similar to the current benefit program. The minimum age to receive these benefits would be fixed at 65. The 5% collected from the employee would be placed into a separate regulated account, similar in style to current 403b annuity plans. These plans would allow the employee to choose between various investment options. No withdrawls from this account would be permitted until age 60. (With very limited possible exceptions for certain medical expenses.)
To make up for the shortfall in funds caused by these tax cuts, social security disability coverage would be eliminated. So would the tax cap, meaning all earnings would be subject to the payroll tax. All workers earning income and employers paying wages would be required to participate in Social Security. Congress' retirement plan would be replaced by Social Security, as would certain other government pension plans that currently exempt workers and employers from paying into Social Security.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Simplified progressive income tax
No tax system will ever be fair. The struggle then is to find something suitable that can be tolerated by most. The current system is the result of years of loopholes being built in to satisfy one interest group or another, and it is overly complex as a result. I have a better plan.
While not a flat tax system, my simple progressive tax plan eliminates the loopholes and is about as fair as can be done. The current books of instructions and multiple forms will be replaced with a single page form with instructions printed on the back.
My tax system would have a 10% rate for those with gross income under $100,000; 15% from there to under $250,000; 20% from there to under $500,000; 25% from there to under $1,000,000; and 33% for a million and up.
Interest, dividends, etc... would count as gross income.
Individuals would each receive a $12,000 personal deduction. Dependents would receive a $5,000 deduction.
Up to 10% of gross income could be deducted for gifts to registered charities.
Up to $10,000 could be deducted for health care costs.
Up to $2,000 could be deducted for purchase of renewable energy devices to power homes such as solar panels, windmills, etc...
No other deductions. No credits. No AMT. No complicated loopholes, schedules, or additional forms.
Under this plan, a typical family of four with annual earnings below $34,000 would pay no tax at all, the burden of taxes falling progressively more on those with more means to carry it.
While not a flat tax system, my simple progressive tax plan eliminates the loopholes and is about as fair as can be done. The current books of instructions and multiple forms will be replaced with a single page form with instructions printed on the back.
My tax system would have a 10% rate for those with gross income under $100,000; 15% from there to under $250,000; 20% from there to under $500,000; 25% from there to under $1,000,000; and 33% for a million and up.
Interest, dividends, etc... would count as gross income.
Individuals would each receive a $12,000 personal deduction. Dependents would receive a $5,000 deduction.
Up to 10% of gross income could be deducted for gifts to registered charities.
Up to $10,000 could be deducted for health care costs.
Up to $2,000 could be deducted for purchase of renewable energy devices to power homes such as solar panels, windmills, etc...
No other deductions. No credits. No AMT. No complicated loopholes, schedules, or additional forms.
Under this plan, a typical family of four with annual earnings below $34,000 would pay no tax at all, the burden of taxes falling progressively more on those with more means to carry it.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Why Me?
Why should anyone vote for MK in 2012?
Are you really happy with the candidates you've had to choose from lately? Probably not. The vast majority of people in this country vote for "none of the above" by staying home in droves on election day. The two major parties are more interested in winning than they are in doing what's best for the country. They know most people will choose the least of three evils and abstain from voting. They then select easily handled candidates that are the most marketable in mass media to reach those few who actually will vote.
This is hardly the best method for choosing a president, and why there tends to be little to no significant difference in any of the candidates. I can change that. I have never been a member of any political party. I have no handlers or staff. I can make my own decisions based on what's best for the country.
I will not sign any bill that can't be paid for without borrowing money. No one in Washington apparently knows how to live on a budget. I do. I have a pretty good credit rating and have never lived above middle class. I understand how to pay my bills with the money I have. Washington needs to learn this, as our massive debt is crippling our economy and bankrupting the country in a way future generations will never be able to recover from.
I will work to greatly simplify the tax system. The country was founded by those upset with an unfair and punitive tax system forced on us by a tyrannical government. Those founders would spin in their graves to see how much worse those taxes have become. I would not eliminate the income tax system, but would replace it with a simple progressive tax system.
I will not slow the rate of government expansion. I will shrink it drastically. The government has become so large and inefficient that it is almost completely ineffective. One of the reasons 9-11 was not stopped was because of the large number of agencies that couldn't work with each other. The government's answer of creating additional agencies is hardly the answer. I would reduce the number of cabinet positions/departments to 5: Department of Defense, State Department, Department of the Interior, Department of Justice, and Department of Welfare. All other government agencies would be eliminated or simplified and run by the appropriate department.
Sound interesting? Keep checking back as I post more detailed information.
Are you really happy with the candidates you've had to choose from lately? Probably not. The vast majority of people in this country vote for "none of the above" by staying home in droves on election day. The two major parties are more interested in winning than they are in doing what's best for the country. They know most people will choose the least of three evils and abstain from voting. They then select easily handled candidates that are the most marketable in mass media to reach those few who actually will vote.
This is hardly the best method for choosing a president, and why there tends to be little to no significant difference in any of the candidates. I can change that. I have never been a member of any political party. I have no handlers or staff. I can make my own decisions based on what's best for the country.
I will not sign any bill that can't be paid for without borrowing money. No one in Washington apparently knows how to live on a budget. I do. I have a pretty good credit rating and have never lived above middle class. I understand how to pay my bills with the money I have. Washington needs to learn this, as our massive debt is crippling our economy and bankrupting the country in a way future generations will never be able to recover from.
I will work to greatly simplify the tax system. The country was founded by those upset with an unfair and punitive tax system forced on us by a tyrannical government. Those founders would spin in their graves to see how much worse those taxes have become. I would not eliminate the income tax system, but would replace it with a simple progressive tax system.
I will not slow the rate of government expansion. I will shrink it drastically. The government has become so large and inefficient that it is almost completely ineffective. One of the reasons 9-11 was not stopped was because of the large number of agencies that couldn't work with each other. The government's answer of creating additional agencies is hardly the answer. I would reduce the number of cabinet positions/departments to 5: Department of Defense, State Department, Department of the Interior, Department of Justice, and Department of Welfare. All other government agencies would be eliminated or simplified and run by the appropriate department.
Sound interesting? Keep checking back as I post more detailed information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
