Issue 667 Selling Federal Property August 31, 2015

As you may be aware, selling unused federal land comes with red tape.  Here I will give you my readers a brief outline of what must be done step by step to sell federal land.

The Steps:

1) First, the agency willing to sell the property must make sure no other federal agency wants the property.

2) If no federal agency wants it, then the State government and the local governments must say if they want it or not.

3) Next if no government wants it, then non-profit organizations have the opportunity to say if they want it or not.

4) The final step is to see if the land can be used as a homeless shelter (note: every building can be used as a homeless shelter).

With the 77,000 underutilized and 1/3 of all these properties not in use, it is a wonder why we are not paying even more taxes for the use and upkeep of these properties.

Conclusion:  This red tape in government has prevented the government from selling the land at premium prices which can be used to support government spending initiatives, or be used to help pay the national debt.  Legislation is being proposed (though not getting anywhere) to cut this process down.  Personally, if the legislation says that the federal agency can't simply sell it outright with the money being given to the treasury afterwards, or having the treasury being able to seize the land to sell it to the highest bidder without restrictions, then the politicians are wasting theirs and our time.  Sell the land, and sell it now.  We are tired of wasting our money on useless crap.

Issue 666 My Ideal tax structure August 28, 2015

Taking all I have wrote this week and from the past on taxes, I present to you an ideal tax structure in my opinion that is fair, and the least obtrusive to people.  Let's begin.

The ideal structure:  First of all, all forms of taxation save sales and property taxes will be banned by law.  This is to prevent the chances of the government bureaucrats getting too greedy. 

 Sales taxes will be on the final sale of goods exclusively.  So only the consumer pays at the retail level, not businesses who buy the couch to sell it later or the car company buying parts to build their cars.  As such, with taxation and cost associated with those taxes out of the way, goods will become cheaper to buy or remain the same price once the sales tax is applied.  It will need a constitutional amendment to apply so that all goods that are sold in the United States are taxed and that they are taxed all at the same rate without exception.  Sales taxes shall be exclusive to the Federal budget and can act as an economic indicator for economic strength, and the federal government will now have a vested interest in increasing commerce in the U.S. as it will actually increase their revenue. Needless to say, no one can escape paying such a tax and thus even criminals will pay along with tourists.

Property taxes will be on the square footage of the land owned by a property owner. It will not be based on the value of the home or the actual living space in the home, but will be solely based on the land owned.  This insures that the tax is fair as if you own a big house but little land, you are paying more over potentially someone with a slightly smaller home with lots of land.  This ensures that there are no fluctuations in tax values and thus protects governments from lost revenue and the property owners  from being unable to afford to pay their taxes from year to year (basically they know exactly what to give each year).  This tax shall be exclusive to the local governments and be based on paying for the upkeep of roads, police, firehouses, public schools, public hospitals and the maintenance of the sewers, water and power distribution systems.  Basically, the essentials will be paid for where applicable via this tax.  The State government will also be funded through property taxes, except that they will get a portion of the money collected per year from each local government from the property tax system.  In this case, the local governments give the State governments a portion equal to the percentage of the population of the State within their borders.  So if Nassau County has 15% of the New York State population in it, they will give 15% of their revenue to the State capitol.  Also, the State government upon receiving all this money must carry on a budget that exists within the confines of the money given.  As such, they cannot spend more money than was given to them.  However, their budgets would be low as they need only provide for funds for State parks, and their portion of the interstate highway system.

If you notice I do not include welfare and the funds to pay for the salaries of the politicians (Representatives, Mayors, Governors Etc.) in this tax system.  I separate them for their importance.  See below for how they will work.

In this case, politicians in a given government (State officials with State, local with local) will not get any retirement ever, and their salaries will be based on the average salaries of the people living under their governance.  So if the average salary is $8.00 an hour, they will only receive $8.00 an hour in salary, but will only get that money at the end of the year.  Additionally, if the average salary fluctuates over the course of the year say from $8 to $10 to $7 and hour, then they will only get the equivalent of $7 an hours’ worth in money.  This is to ensure that if they want to get more money, their areas must be economically prosperous while removing the potential corruption of them increasing their salaries by taxing people more so that they may make a few extra dollars more. 

 With welfare, the poor will be able to be traded amongst the communities with job training and searching included to find them a living area where they would not end up homeless. In the meantime, people on welfare will maintain government facilities, and act as volunteer police, firemen and as other government personnel while receiving a small wage to help them afford to live (basically doubling as job training, and for providing welfare). In this case they will act almost as free labor to file documents, clean government buildings including police stations and hospitals and as laborers to maintain infrastructure while under the supervision of people who know what they are doing.  This insures they get a wide range of experiences to aid them in becoming skilled laborers.  If necessary, their property taxes will temporarily suspended to help them as well.  Additional support can come from the State government as well if requested by the local government, but will be done on a case by case basis.

 (Note: if a modern debtor’s prison comes to pass, that will be State run, along with all penitentiaries [unless otherwise approved by the State to be opened by a private business] in the borders of a State.  Note 2: Mental hospitals are to be run by the State [unless otherwise approved by the State to opened by a private business], and will also handle addiction cases if the State does not provide for special clinics where addicts can buy their drugs safely and use them safely there [these clinics are run by the State government as well, unless exceptions are made])

Conclusion:  This is my ideal system.  Just two forms of taxes for us to worry about.  Sales taxes we pay based on how much we spend, and property just goes to local government, thus eliminating the State taxes themselves.  Each ends up respecting their boundaries and this limits corruption and provides incentives for governments to allow for and even sponsor economic growth.  The State government mind you maintains its law making body status, and so does local to a degree, though the extent will have to be addressed as I write from the standpoint that we remove as much government as possible and even the laws capable of being passed by governmental bodies are severely limited to the obviously wrongful act like murder, rape, etc., but does not make other things illegal like limiting the height of a building, or licensing people to own a business.  The State should in my opinion should have the sole power to license very specific professionals like doctors, and lawyers.  Can such an ideal system be achieved that just boarders on anarchy but does not step into the chaos of anarchy?  Yes, but it will take a lot of effort and both public and political will.  In this case, we all need to basically become libertarian which will be hard as people have different values and tolerances.  All we can do is provide information, and hope people come to the same conclusions me and my fellow libertarians do.

Issue 665 Rent Should not be taxed August 27, 2015

Yes I said it.  Rent you pay to a landlord should not be taxed.  Here are my reasons.

Rent should be non-taxable:  Landlords dole out property, or apartments to people who otherwise cannot afford to buy regular homes.  In short, for low income earners they do a service by keeping these people housed and off the streets.  Additionally, the landlord may be earning a stipend from his/her tenants on his/her land, but it is not earned income.  In this case it is the tenants paying for the upkeep of the house or apartment, and to help the landlord pay the local taxes (usually property taxes) as per the contract to live there. The landlord need not lift a single finger to provide any service however, as he/she can simply hire an outside repairman or group to maintain the property for them.  Likewise, the tenants who live on the property, with the landlord's permission, can hire their own repairmen, or others to maintain the property for them.  As such, while the landlord owns the land, he/she is not necessarily providing a service to the tenants in the first place.  Thus, it can be said that the money gained from the tenants is not earned income and is instead unearned income.  By eliminating taxes on such people (the landlords and owners of apartment buildings) it enables them to potentially lower the rent, provide better services, begin to provide services or even buy additional homes/buildings to rent out.

Conclusion:  People may have misgivings about this due to people like Donald Trump being counted in this category.  In short, landlords and apartment managers have a bad stigma attached and successful ones a worse stigma.  However, these people provide a service to a community whether it be for the poor, or for the rich who otherwise would build gaudy mansions.  There is really no need to tax people with respect to rent as it is not earned, and thus taxes on it should cease to exist.

Issue 664 Interest should not be taxed August 26, 2015

Unearned income is another category that is currently taxed by the federal government.  But is this fair?  I say no, and here is why.

No interest tax:  Interest is a value we place on money that acts as a penalty or as an incentive.  For bank accounts and investments it is an incentive to build up your account to earn more money which allows the bank and the invested company(s) to use that money to support loans and business expansion.  With loans it is a penalty for not paying back the bank quickly enough, which allows the bank to gain back money they would lose from people who would renege on their debt.  In all cases, nothing is exchanged and no effort placed via work to garner such funds.  It is given, and it is a punishment, and thus is not actual income.   As such, the money gathered through interest on loans, the money given by banks in the form of interests for keeping your money in longer, and the interest on your investments which act as a thank you for putting your trust into the company you have essentially given a loan to, is not income.  This is the difference between earned and unearned income, and as such, unearned should not be taxed.

Conclusion:  This is all my opinion, but if you're not earning it via a job for selling your labor, then it is not income.  The way I see it is that interest that acts as a reward is a gift in the same way one receives a gift or inheritance.  Interest as a penalty is not income as it is just that, a penalty on someone for not paying money back the lender on time. Sure, this means big time investors will no longer be taxed and that banks will not be taxed on the money they get from people paying interest on their loans, but neither will you.  You will be free to keep all your money if you invest, or get interest from your bank account.  If you loan money and charge interest, you will not have to file it with the IRS or other tax bodies either if and when interest charges go into effect.  People will be freed from this form of taxation that in my opinion was designed to punish people who gather money through unorthodox means like interest.  People in my opinion were envious of these lucky investors and businessmen who did not have to work at small time jobs all their lives and build themselves up the traditional way.  These taxes on interest are taxes of envy, and I say remove them in all their unfairness and jealousy.

Issue 663 Property Taxes August 25, 2015

Property taxes are one of the fairest taxes in existence if they are done properly.  Here is how.

A good property tax:  Property taxes are based on the idea that the amount of property you own equals how wealthy you are (or if you go the historical route, you are renting the land from God [according to Thomas Paine]). Property taxes today are generally done based on value of a home, or based on the livable square footage in a home.  These forms though cause problems as they are not stable or fair.  They are not stable for if the values of the homes in an area shoots up, then people will have to pay massive amounts of taxes which they may not be able to afford.  Likewise, if values plummet, then the government loses needed revenue which are used to maintain services.  If you increase the living area in your home with an addition, then you also may be paying more whether you are taxed on your home's value or the square footage of living space.  Also, lest we forget, assessors must be sent out by the government to value the homes and check living space to accurately gauge how much to tax us all, which is expensive (an expense we have to pay for with our taxes). As such, this form of property tax is punitive in this sense. So what is the third option here?

The third option is not based on value or living space.  It is based on the square footage of land upon which the home sits on.  In short, it is not your home being taxed, but the land it sits on.  In this instance, you are on 1,000 square feet of land, and each square foot is taxed at a $1 a square foot.  Therefor you will only pay $1,000 a year in property taxes.   The only way that would change from year to year is if the government raises taxes per square foot.  As such, say they raise it to $2 a square foot on your 1,000 square foot piece of land. You will then pay $2000.  Mean time you can build up as much as you want with respect to your home without fear of raising your taxes or the government losing money either due to economic downturns and values falling.   In short, you may do whatever you want to your home and have a plannable expense in the form of your taxes.

Conclusion:  The property tax I described here is stable, and does not require additional costs to reinforce.  Additionally, it is a plannable expense.  So you know per year how much money to set aside to pay your property taxes.  It is a simplified system that accommodates everyone.  I do not believe that the Federal Government should have access to this revenue though.  In this instance it will be reserved to the Local governments who would then give a small percentage of their revenue based on the population size of their area to the State government.   So what do you think?  Want a fairer property tax?

Issue 662 Sales Taxes are better August 24, 2015

If we were to eliminate the income tax, then we would need a replacement to fund things like the military, and parts of the government.  The only truly viable solution is a sales tax at the federal level.  What would that entail?  Let us discuss.

Sales Tax:    The legal reasoning that sales taxes can exist is that it takes place during the brief transition period when one person's property is sold for something of equal value (in this case money).  So that exchange of property (money is also your property) is the loophole that allows it to occur.  Keep in mind that if nothing is expected in return, say with inheritance, this loophole does not exist for there is nothing of value being exchanged.  

There is a few forms that this tax comes in with respect to how it is implemented and used.  In this case the sales tax will be on the final sale of goods.  Basically when you shop for a book, a computer or other product.  New homes also count as well.  But we cannot have exceptions for this to work.  As such, food and medicine will also need to be taxed as well.  Why? You ask.  Simple, by placing any exceptions, then the taxes on the other items will go up to compensate which may make other goods too expensive for the poor.  Your counter argument at this point is, that despite my argument, sales taxes make food and medicine more expensive and thus hurts the poor regardless.  I am correct right?  Well, here is my counter to that.  It will only affect a very small group of the impoverished in our nation.  Reason being is that as the poor are taxed via the income tax, they must expend time and effort to keep records and other time wasting exercises that are expensive all just to comply with the current tax code.  But by eliminating income taxes and most all other taxes, they will have the money to afford those goods like food and medicine (though medicine becoming cheaper is also an additional issue that must be addressed). So, all other taxes (save property which will be tomorrow's issue) are gone save sales taxes on all goods.  This means that all the taxes on businesses and investments that hinder profit, economic, job and income growth are now eliminated.  Therefore the poorest person would be the people who are homeless, which again is another issue that needs to be addressed in a different way, though eliminating taxes that would potentially harm their ability to get out of homelessness is a big step in the right direction.  

A sales tax is also fairer.  There is also no longer any special deductions, or special interests to try and manipulate the tax code.  No more tax cheats either as people are paying taxes when they buy goods.  As such, the businesses are collecting the taxes for us, from our buying items.  So we pay more taxes if we spend more, and pay less taxes if we spend less.  In such a system, we the consumer decide how much too actually pay in taxes per year.  And now you may be asking, but the government will be lobbied anyway to make exceptions and keep the other taxes?  Yes that is true, but if we remove the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution which allows the government to tax us directly, then it is possible if the amendment creating the sales tax is worded properly.  In this case, the amendment would read something like this: The United States federal government is hereby authorized to establish a sales tax on all goods bought and sold in the United States.  However, there shalt be no exceptions on to what items are taxed and that the rate upon which those items value is taxed for all goods must be equal without question or exception.  Basically, no exceptions and no taxing one good more than another.  A truly fair and equal tax without any chance of corruption save ignoring the constitution.

Conclusion:  So what do you think of only paying a sales tax?  No need to worry about tax day or accidentally owing money to the IRS.  No more the government looting your bank account. Also, no more people not paying taxes as drug dealers, prostitutes and others who engage in illegal activities which are not taxed must still buy food, and buy other goods as well.  So they are taxed as well, which means they finally contribute to taxes.  Tourists will pay the tax too, which means tourism equals higher revenue for the government too which reduces the needs of the government to gather funds from solely its citizens.  It can work, but we just need to give it a chance.

Issue 661 Don't tax businesses August 21, 2015

At current, our business taxes in the United States are about 35%.  That is one of the highest in the world and it has a negative impact on the economy and thus salaries and jobs.  Maybe we ought to think about removing business taxes altogether.

Don't Tax Businesses:  Businesses are the driver of the economy.  There buying and selling of goods and services grows the gross domestic product and thus advances the nation with respect to economic growth and redistribution.  But we tax them.  But if we did not, what could possibly happen?  For one, it could potentially lead to more jobs and higher salaries as businesses will not have to worry about multiple accountants and records keeping which is expensive.  Not to mention that they keep all their money, including the profit.  As such, business growth can expand without the artificial hindrances of taxation and them passing off the expanse of their taxes onto consumers like you and me.  The no tax policy would make the United States more appealing to new businesses starting up and for foreign businesses to come in, which means more jobs, and less poverty.  Invariably, this also means more job experience and training for unskilled and low skilled labor which allows them to go from poverty to middle class and possibly to becoming rich.   As such, our country will overnight become the most competitive country for both businesses and jobs.   

Conclusion:  You see, without businesses we would have no economy, and our economy needs to grow.  Also, so would our wallets for businesses pass all their taxes back onto us!  We end up footing the bill.  If we can eliminate business income taxes, we eliminate fraud cases, legal proceedings and court cases about audits, and many other hindrances with respect to just paying business taxes and all the ancillary costs.  All this means is that we can spend less money on making up the losses the business will incur from taxes and have cheaper goods as well.  The business keeps their money and the government does not have to spend so much trying to collect it.

Issue 660 Don't Tax Non-citizens: Revisited August 20, 2015

So a while back I said do not tax non-citizens on their income.  My reasoning was that because they are not citizens and thus could not vote (which they should not until they become citizens), that they are being taxed without representation in our government.  Today I am revisiting this because we do want their money, but not in the same way you might think.

We want their money:  So one of the main reasons we do not want them taxed on their income if they live here legally is because they will have more disposable income.  As such, they can spend more which enriches the businesses around them and thus can potentially aid in reducing prices of goods over time.  You get it, by them spending money, the business gets richer and thus they can expand their services, or lower the costs of goods.  Also, if there is a sales tax (the best form of taxation with respect to getting at everyone's money legally) then they pay into the system without the need for extra paperwork or need to have them register.  Basically, sales taxes gets everyone without discrimination (though it works best when other taxes are reduced or do not exist.

Another thing we want from legal resident’s money wise is their businesses.  Business owners moving their companies to the United States means jobs.  This also means a growing economy and that our tax and economic system is business friendly enough to attract more businesses.  What do I mean by this?  The person (legal resident) will not be taxed, but if we maintain business taxes, the successful business will. And even if business taxes do not exist (my ideal system) the business will still have to collect sales taxes for the government when they sell their goods. This allows for the governments to gather tax money while the legal resident enjoys the United States acting as a tax haven for them.

Conclusion:  There must be a balance here though.  If a legal resident is not taxed, then it means that many more people will want to move here to reap the benefits and thus flood the country with non-citizens.   To counter this, we could go back to the old style system of saying you are a citizen after living in the United States legally for a specified number of years.  Ten is a nice number, and many of these legal residents already are of quality based on our immigration system.  So what do you think?  We can counter free loaders while bringing in business and tax revenue into the country. It is a win win situation with respect to economic benefits.

Issue 659 Direct Aid August 19, 2015

Direct aid is when either money or food/medicine is given directly to disaster/violent conflict victims, and the poor.  So what are the benefits and when should it be applied?

Direct Aid:  For one according to Foreign Affairs journal which discussed the topic, there have been no drunks, or addicts using the aid to feed their self-abuse.  In fact, any money directly given has been used to start businesses or procure what the individual needs to survive.  As such, the primary form of direct aid, being cash is best used in impoverished countries where a majority of people are self-employed like in Africa.  This direct money replaces or substitutes for the lack of capital, credit, insurance or products necessary to grow their businesses.  This means however, that countries like the United States where such services exist cannot have this form of aid for their poorer populations save for specific communities.  These communities being where the situation mimics the self-employed circumstances like in the African Continent.

The other time you want to give direct money aid to individuals is right after a conflict or a disaster. Both these situations limit localized knowledge so adequate aid cannot be given in the form of traditional aid like food stuffs.  So the direct aid via money is better due to the sheer flexibility of it so that the people affected can buy and get only what they need.  Thus this aid is cheaper as countries giving support need not spend massive amounts on food, clothing and the like per person when victims can simply buy it themselves based on need.

The final form of direct aid does not come in monetary form like the others.  This aid comes in the form of vaccines which are either subsidized or given free if they are too expensive for a population to afford.  Likewise it works the same with food when food prices rise exponentially pricing out the poor and risking a famine.  As per the examples, the conditions must exceed regular needs for this to work for this public good category of aid.

Conclusion:  Direct aid is being looked upon as the future of aid to people in trouble.  No more corrupt officials taking the money for themselves, the people who need it actually see the money and have the flexibility to use it when and where they need it.  Other forms of aid like direct aid in the public goods category make up for the rest.  What’s good about direct aid also is that it minimizes costs while maximizing the effectiveness of the aid itself.  As such, it is cheaper and easier to distribute to those in need.  It is my belief, based on the articles in Foreign Affairs Journal and others like in the Economist, that direct aid is the best way to go with respect to the future of aids programs.

Issue 658 CUBA U.S. relations August 18, 2015

So, the United States and Cuba have finally opened up relations.  Obviously this is a step in the right direction with respect to achieving a state of normalcy between the two neighboring countries.  But what is bad about this and what is good about this?  Let us discuss.

The Bad and the Good:  Well for one, by opening up relations with Cuba which has trained terrorists including the PLO, we essentially endorse their past behavior.  Also, political prisoners are still going to be imprisoned due to their speaking out against the regime.  However, exposure to the United States businesses, and citizens who may now go into Cuba can result in a change in the way of thinking for the Cuban government due to the United States becoming a trading partner.  This also puts the U.S. in a better position to get those political prisoners freed via economic and even political pressure due to the new state of affairs.  Additionally, while Cuba was essentially isolated from most countries that sided with the United States during the cold war, that did not stop them from doing medical, and environmental research.  As such, Cuba has unveiled a cure for lung cancer which may be used as the basis for a vaccine against a multitude of cancers.  Environmentally, Cuba's laws are much stricter and this has resulted in pristine environments for scientists to do research into earth's ocean life.  

Cuba benefits also because American businesses can now potentially set up shop there which boosts their economy.  Also, Cuba will now benefit from American tourists who wish to see the classic cars and old style buildings that have not changed due to communist rule and its restrictions on economic progress (not to mention the beaches and other touristy spots that Caribbean islands have to offer).   This also means that the United States benefits from Cubans coming to the United States as well.  Many families that have not seen each other in years finally met.  People who could not leave Cuba in general can now leave and say whatever they want politically on its government without fear of arrest.  Businesses in America benefit from the cheap labor in Cuba to make goods and the new customers.  Overall, very good situation all around.

Conclusion:  Cuba and the United States is probably the most significant positive thing to happen in the Obama administration.  This positive turn benefits both parties’ people and economies which was needed on both sides for economic growth and prosperity.  As such, despite the human rights issues and Cuba's past with respect to being a terrorist training ground, this turn can allow Cuba to eliminate that from its current resume and use the new relations with the U.S. as a rebirth if Raul Castro, Cuba's current dictator/president, allows for it.

Issue 657 Don't Tax Schools! August 17, 2015

So Public schools, charter schools and certain religious schools are not taxed at all for obvious reasons.  But what about private schools?  Why are they taxed which creates an uneven playing field?  Let us answer this question.

Why some schools are taxed and others are not:  Well, let us start with the non-taxed group.  Religious nonprofit schools are obvious due to them being associated with a Church or other religious institution.  Public is also obvious because they are a government institution.  Charters are not taxed because they are a version of public schools that are run differently and as such are funded by the government.  That leaves private schools.  There are private schools that are not taxed, but that is only when they become a non-profit.  As such, both for profit private and religious schools are taxed like any regular business.  But this is education we are talking about.  This practice means that nonprofits and government funded schools have an advantage over the for profit schools.  So, this unfair competition leads to private schools being forced to charge more for their services just so they can stay in business.  Unfair advantages issued by government are bad in a capitalist society for it inherently creates winners and losers artificially.  This also means good schools shut down, or less students being able to afford to go due to the schools having to charge more so they can pay their taxes.  This unequal treatment needs to end.

Conclusion:  Education is just that, education. It does not matter where it comes from, or who teaches it so long as the quality is good.  Can you imagine how many more schools could open or how affordable they would be if more for profits were not taxed like most other schools?  The idea of making money off of educating kids is not a bad thing as we do that when people in localities pay taxes directly to the schools (which is fishy unto itself).  So it should not matter if something is for profit or not, for what really matters is that the kids get the best education possible.

Issue 656 It they can't, You can't August 14, 2015

So, Bakers cannot deny a gay couple a wedding cake.  Even though this violates the bakers’ rights, it is forced upon them irrespective of what they believe.  But, what people do not realize is that this opens a very interesting door with respect to discrimination irrespective if it is good or bad.  Allow me to explain.

What this means:  By forcing the baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding legally, it set a legal precedent.  That president works both ways.  So if a gay baker wants to refuse to make a cake for a straight couple, they can't.  The system works both ways and in this case it bans all discrimination.  Thus it can be applied to other groups now as well.  As such, a Jewish shop owner cannot deny a Neo-Nazi as a customer.  Nor can a black business owner deny a KKK member.  Also gay clubs, men’s only clubs, and similar cannot exist for it leaves out everyone else.  So the men's only clubs have to let women in as customers and the gay club has to let straight individuals in or else they are in violation of this court precedent that bans discrimination.  Basically, if the baker with a religious objection (the one with the strongest argument based on religious beliefs via the 1st Amendment) cannot deny a gay couple a wedding cake, then no group can deny anyone with respect to association.

Conclusion:  Isn't law fun?  Of course it is, for now everyone who limits membership to specific religious groups, sexes, ethnicities, genders and the like are subject to a lawsuit that they will very well likely lose by using the case of the baker versus the gay couple amongst its other associated cases.  Sure, it takes away our rights, but if they cannot choose whom they can associate with (and the method thereof), then no one can.  Of course, we need someone to bring legal action first to begin applying this everywhere else first, but it is only a matter of time before some vindictive character shows up to do just that.

Issue 655 Debtors Prisons August 13, 2015

A debtor’s prison was a prison for those who could not or would not pay back their debts.  This concept could be revived if done correctly so that people could pay off their debts if they were negligent, or have no normal ways to pay.  Let us discuss.

Debtor prison revived:  The original debtors prisons was where people who could not pay their debts were sent. In that prison they would work various jobs so that they could pay off their debt and a portion of that to go toward paying for their incarceration.  They kept zero money in this instance.  The concept was later abandoned because of harsh conditions, and abuses.  However, with prisoners today getting better treatment in the United States than anywhere else in the world (arguably), we could remove the non-violent members of the prison community so that they can pay back their debt to society.

So reviving it in the modern era would mean the people that go to this "prison" are people who are negligent in paying back taxes, not paying their fines or tickets, and even people not paying their child support.  Likewise, it can be applied to thieves as well, where laws could be changed where they are made to work to pay back what they stole if the items or the money are not recoverable.  Of course this would also include outstanding debts as well as a means for people to work off their debt more quickly.  The only time these people would not be sent to the prison is if the debt was below $100 (makes sense as that is payable) or other set amount that can be readily paid back.   

The work that could be done by these prisoners would be cooking for their fellow prisoners, doing their fellow prisoners laundry, cleaning the jail, tending a greenhouse where they grow as much of their own food as possible and grounds keeping.  Additionally, they can be used to make uniforms and clothing for government personnel, make license plates, and even help file government documents or do research for the government using the prisons library.  Other prisoners can be driven to factories nearby or local stores to provide free labor or clean parks and schools for the government.  They can also be used for focus groups as debtors come from all aspects of society as well.  In all these cases money is collected from those who wish to use this labor or the State identifying a competitive wage based on the value of their work which again is used to pay for all expenses in the prison and to pay off their debts.  Once they reach a payable amount they are released.  Also, nothing says that funds cannot be established to take private donations to help people with the largest debts get out faster, even donating toward particular individuals if they want.  Additionally, classes on financial management (free online courses so that their debt does not increase), and other courses relating to managing money will be available to them as well, so that they do not end up back in debtors prison.

Conclusion:  The idea of a modern debtor’s prison is fanciful.  Though this concept should allow people to voluntarily enter the "prison" to aid in paying their debts too.  As such, it should not look like a prison. They would also learn skills that would aid them in other jobs via free online courses and the work that they do in the prison.  Also, the idea that prisoners who are thieves, and people negligent on their taxes, tickets, fines and child support, is not exactly new, being sent to prison together is not new, but they do not pay their debts or for their incarceration while there.  This has them do that though.  The prisoners could apply for jobs for free via the prison computers and because they do not have the stigma of a typical prison, they are likely to get hired or maybe even out of pity.  Though for that to work, inmates would be segregated.  As such, thieves would be in one section and people who are paying back money in another.  The people who are paying back money however would be separated still into those who want to pay their debts but did not have the means, and the other group who just outright refuses to pay back what they owe.  Of course all this would be revealed to any potential employer.  As I said, it is a concept and the old stigma is still strong.  But the question is; is this a good idea?  You decide.

Issue 654 Image and the Media August 12, 2015

Have you noticed that the fashion industry is not the only ones who favor "good looking" people?  Think about it.  How often do you see ugly people on TV in general?  Let us discuss.

Where are the Ugly people?:  Next time you watch the news or a television show, look at the people in that show.  Now count the number of people who look bad.  For instance, Fox News hires a lot of former Miss America's and its runner ups.  All the women there are, well, really good looking.  Same with CNN and most of MSNBC.  There are very few non-skinny women, or ugly looking men for that matter.  The only time they have people who can be deemed unattractive on the payroll is if they are people with pull like Al Sharpton on MSNBC (yea, he is not "attractive" and maybe he never really was) or they fit some sort of stereotype.  Same with television.  All the actors are good looking or attractive in some way.  The only time we get a person who goes against this is for a stereotype yet again, like a nerd, or a hobo, and the like.  Do you see what I am getting at?  The fashion industry is the mere tip of the iceberg with respect to not being representative of the population and can potentially have a negative psychological impact on people to look and perhaps act a certain way so that they can feel attractive.  So the fashion industry is not alone at being at fault.  Thankfully we have the Dove brand that looks to get real people (or as close to reality as possible) into their commercials which serves to allow people viewing their commercials to relate to the people in them and thus perhaps become more likely to buy their products.  However, the fact that there are hardly any people who look bad in news and television also means that ordinary people and ugly people with talent are being shafted as well.  

Conclusion:  I write this issue because it was pointed out to me.  And once it was I was like "wow, you're right". This beautiful person favoritism can be contributing to our culture favoring the physically beautiful who make up a small percentage of society, and thus skewing our view of what a real human being looks like.  Additionally, people who are talented, but do not fit this supermodel archetype are ignored unless they are so compelling that they are snapped up due to personality (Glenn Beck? or Chris Farley?).  You get the idea.  So is this a problem? Perhaps.  Should it be corrected?  We will have to see how it plays out and see if anyone is willing to look into it a little deeper.

Issue 653 Private Hostage Rescue August 11, 2015

So, can hostage rescue be privatized?  That is the question.  Let us discuss.

Private Hero’s:  There are many former special ops, and even police who want to do good in the world.  As such, many typically either retire quietly or find new jobs or attempt to get back into the action via the intelligence services, support roles for returning military, or joining a mercenary outfit.  But their skills are wasted and sometimes police move too slowly.  So can these men and women who are no longer in uniform be allowed to use their training to rescue people in hostage situations?  Should we be able to pay them to rescue a family member, or a child from a sex slave trafficker?  Well, so long as they are licensed it is feasible.  I mean, they allow for mercenaries, and these people are professionals who are still able to serve and protect.  As far as I know, they would need to be tested to see their capabilities, get a background check, and test for psychological issues to determine if they are fit to serve as a hostage rescue member.  As such, once tested a team can be put together to save hostages.  I don't just mean in the United States either, but globally.  In Africa, Pirates have a number hostages, but countries cannot move in on short notice, or there are issues just crossing a boarder.  These former soldiers can move in silently, or move with plausible deniability to get those hostages back.  I think it is a concept that could work if governments would allow for it to happen.

Conclusion:  As I said, they would need to be tested first to see if they are even capable of performing hostage rescue in the first place.  The standards will have to be very strict, and they would need to demonstrate that they are capable of extracting the hostage safely with said training and equipment.  So they would need access to military and police training facilities or one of their own that the military or police would wish to train in themselves for them to prove themselves and show their skills.  This would mean mercenary outfits who perform body guard and escort duty would be allowed an additional role (though only personnel who qualify).  Obviously this is not for the faint of heart, and the inherent risks are high, but I would rather more people capable of rescuing people in dire straits than less.

Issue 652 Not the Government's Business August 10, 2015

Is it the government's business to know who we love? Is it their business to know what we eat?  I say no.  Here is my list of things the government should stay out of.

Get out of my Business "G"-man:  My list:

1) Education:  What a child learns is up to the parents.  Sure they can send their kids to school, but that is their decision, in the same way it is their decision to homeschool their child or give them a religious education.  As such, any form of education is allowable including religious.  So long as the kids grow up healthy, and are able to fend for themselves, there is no reason for the government to be involved.

2) The Bedroom: For years the government has poked its nose into people's business in the confines of the home to strike at gays, and other people for their "sexual practices" or fetishes.  But that has got nothing to do with the government if the adults involved are consenting.  

3) Marriage:  Love is not something a government bureaucrats can license.  As such, you do not need a marriage license to be married in the first place.  So cut the crap and stay out of people’s love life government.

4) Medicine:  With Obama Care, all of our medical data is capable of being looked at.  They decide what is covered and what is not when government is involved.  And the insurance companies use that to their advantage.  We are blocked from buying health care across State lines, and even across country borders.  Where is our freedom to buy into the health services we want, and get the medicine covered that we need?  That’s right, the government is blocking the way, so they again need to butt out.

5) Food: So it is now some dummies job in government to protect us from too much salt in our diet.  It’s their "job" to tell us not to drink sugary drinks?  I can understand if you are on welfare for that is not your money but the governments, but telling everyone else they can't have a soda of a certain size, or add a little extra salt.  Give me a break.  We should be able to eat whatever we want, so butt out government.

6) Drugs:  Umm, the drug war?  Yea, we lost.  It eats up money and makes people into criminals. On top of that, some of those drugs if researched can lead to cures and drugs with less side effects.  Also, let us not forget prescription drugs.  If you do not have a prescription, you cannot get (potentially) the medicine that you need.  So we should be able to buy any Rx that we want as well, but government does not want that for some reason.  They do not want you asking the pharmacist if they can use other medicines without permission.  They do not want doctors to prescribe what they don't want you taking thanks to the FDA and their rules and regs on how long drugs can be on the market, and which ones can be sold.  But last I checked, it is our health in jeopardy.  Our wallets that pay.  It is our decision on what to do with our bodies, so government, get out of my darn way.

Conclusion:  As you can tell, the government interferes a lot.  Sure some of these you may disagree with, but unless you are hurting someone else, is it our business to worry about others?  The answer is no, whether we like it or not.  But it is something we must live with.  So at the very least, on the ones we agree on, let's kick the government to the curb.

Issue 651 Gender specific August 7, 2015

Today we are going to talk about some of the impacts of the gay marriage ruling.  In particular, the fact is our laws are not gender neutral and thus not in line with the ruling.  Let us begin.

We are going to be gender neutral:  Sex is now going to be defined by genders.  Why you ask?  Well, the reasoning is because when the Supreme Court passed the ruling changing the definition of marriage, it eliminated the two sole sexes that government uses in laws (man and woman).  Now the government has to operate under the definitions of gay, lesbian and more.  This is in part because there are no gender neutral laws in the federal or even many State governments.  You see it is easy to list man and woman and the roles associated with them like father and mother, but once you include two fathers, or any other unique combination, you face the problem of listing them all so that they can be included in the new definition of marriage and all the laws that benefit people in that arrangement.  From there it has a ripple effect on all the other laws in government and thus laws protecting just men, or just women are no longer adequate as they are not capable of legally protecting gays, lesbians etc.  So all laws must be re-written and even laws that define parents to children come into question.  

Likewise, this impacts the definition of a child for originally a child belonged solely to a father and a mother.  Now the child can have two fathers or two mothers, or even a different gender entirely.  It also opens up issues on sex discrimination.  With gender becoming synonymous with sex, schools and sports teams can't discriminate by having separate teams for men and women as there is now other genders to consider.  Codes of conduct at schools and businesses also are gender specific and are not neutral.  So they will need to be re-written or else they open themselves up to a lawsuit.  Also, this expands hate crimes as well to include people who support traditional marriage.  Already some have lost their job merely because they support traditional marriage and thus are considered hateful because of it.  For instance, a Firefighter lost his job because he was a minister of his church that believed in traditional marriage, and a Navy Chaplain of Seal Team Six lost his when he was asked about sex outside of marriage.  You can see now why the laws need to be changed as it makes people look like haters for expressing their religious beliefs on marriage.  Thankfully in the Supreme Court ruling, Justice Kennedy wrote to protect religious liberty, but this must be acted on for it to actually protect people with religious views or else my mere association with my Catholic Church can cause me to potentially lose my job.  Needless to say that this is a mess.

Conclusion:  There are literally 82 recognized genders by the federal government, and that also includes pedophiles.  Also, there are already some vindictive members of the gay community that are targeting churches to either forcefully make them marry gays or shut them down, and celebrities and radio hosts over their views of marriage to remove them from the spot light.  Thankfully most members of the gay community are not like this, but we have to move fast.  Issues will continue to crop up from this ruling that shakes the foundations of our very legal system and our religious protection rights.  But this is also an opportunity.  While the Supreme Court should have made it no one’s business on who can marry whom and eliminated all marriage benefits as they do not need to exist, it opened the door to other things.  The ruling can be used to justify people carrying guns, and medical marijuana across State borders.  It gives us the opportunity to replace bad laws with good ones, and even just out right remove bad laws altogether.  It will allow us to have a conversation on religious liberty and rights, in addition to free speech.  As such, I can say without a doubt, that while our troubles are far from over due to this ruling, the opportunities and the benefits from it are numerous.

Issue 650 Rand Paul's Tax plan August 6, 2015

So about a week or two ago, Rand Paul, Senator of Kentucky announced his tax plan as he is running for President.  Here are some of the details on it to help you decide if he is worth your vote.

His Tax plan: Rand Paul's tax plan is a flat tax.  As such, he will implement a 14.5% flat tax on everyone (and for families it will still be the same rate but they must be making a combined income of $50,000 a year to qualify for the unified rate).  Business will also have the same rate as individuals, but will be all encompassing (so investments and other forms of income are included) but will maintain the usual deductions. 

This means however, that the payroll tax which funds Social Security and Medicare will vanish as we as individuals will only pay one tax instead of several as the system is set up now.  However, these will instead be contributed to by a portion of the amount you pay in taxes.  In this instance, before the money reaches the treasury, a percentage of the taxes you just paid will go toward your Social Security account and your Medicare.  So the programs themselves are safe.

According to reports, this will lead to a loss of $1 trillion dollars in revenue for the federal government over ten years, but will be offset by cuts to government and it being streamlined.  This plan also will result in an increase in GDP (gross domestic product) by 10% in the same ten year time frame.  This means that business will expand and more jobs with 1.4 million new jobs estimated to be created as a result of this tax plan.

Conclusion:  And there you have it.  The bare bones tax plan of Rand Paul.  Flat taxes are easier to pay as all you do is calculate the total income you made that year and take 14.5% out to pay the government.  You do not need a single accountant for this math can be done by yourself in at minimum ten minutes.  Business wise, it makes the country very competitive with respect to taxes and thus makes the country an attractive place for foreign businesses to move to.  So overall, simpler taxes, and better business climate make this plan a winner.

Issue 649 Smoking age 21! August 5, 2015

Hawaii has raised the smoking age to 21.  It is the first State to do so in the United States.  But is that new restriction going to do anything?

Age restrictions:  This is a lesser form of prohibition.  An age limit will not solve anything at all in fact.  Just like with alcohol being limited to age 21, it will create a market for young people who want to try it simply because it is being denied to them.  Also, this will not stop young people from smoking as they will ask their parents, their older friends or even strangers to buy it for them.  In essence, this does nothing to stop people from smoking in the same way it does nothing to stop people under a certain age from drinking.  Also, you are limiting the activities of an adult.  18 is the recognized age by which you can vote in the United States and thus the age by law you are considered an adult.  So, what is the point of limiting the age to 21 if the goal is to reduce the number of kids getting their hands on cigarettes?  None is the answer.  You cannot ban cigarettes for you create a black market, and you can't raise taxes on it indefinitely, so you lengthen the amount of time before an individual can buy it on their own.  If anything, they can limit the places where it can be sold such as the same places where they are allowed to sell medical marijuana.  That is right, Hawaii is a "Pot" State, yet they limit cigarettes.  Seems silly doesn't.  

Conclusion:  Sorry Hawaii, this writer, who works in a pharmacy, is the son of a corrections officer, and has a family filled with doctors, nurses and even more police and military personnel and has access to all their knowledge thinks that this will do nothing beneficial for your State.  You are being self-serving if you think that this will save anyone from smoking a cigarette in any way shape or form.  If you really want to protect people from addiction or abuse, then copy Europe and their drug policies that legalize everything and switch the war on drugs to a policy of treating addiction.  Cigarettes are a mere casualty in this silly escapade to protect the health of people, when the only people capable of protecting one's health are the individual people themselves.  I get it, you want to protect people from firsthand and secondhand smoke.  However, I am the son of a smoker, and I have asthma.  And guess what?  The asthma I have does not react to cigarette smoke.  It is a sensitivity to particles that make asthma act up (so if you're not sensitive to that airborne particle, then you are fine).  Also, while I understand the health risks of the possibilities of cancer, it does not mean that that person will get cancer, and we even have a new vaccine in testing that can prevent lung cancer too.  So all the arguments are mute.  Cut the crap and let people smoke whatever they want to smoke.

Issue 648 Forgiveness August 4, 2015

What does it mean to forgive?  The Children who lost their mom to the Charleston Church shooter forgave the murderer the very next day.  How were they able to do that?  Let us discuss.

Its faith:  The children of the slain mom had faith.  Their mother taught them the word of God and the teachings of Jesus Christ.  As such, they have been taught how to forgive and to forgive.  Essentially turning the other cheek.  But the sheer level of faith, and the mental fortitude to even say that they forgive the murderer is something that is perhaps beyond many of us.  For faith alone is not the sole driver of why they could say it, irrespective if they meant it personally or not.  Perhaps it was because that is what their mother expected them to do because of how she raised them.  Or maybe they sought to set an example to others.  I really do not know.  But needless to say, the fact that they can forgive a murderer who killed one of their own family is amazing.

Conclusion:  Faith seems to be the primary driver that allowed these children to forgive the murderer.  But can we who do not have as much faith do the same?  Possibly.  I think it also comes from courage fueled by faith.  However, I am not that forgiving despite my faith.  But this is because my faith was taught to me through my parents who have a strong sense of justice and righteousness.  As such, compassion for a murderer or other criminals is small to say the least.  I know my Dad would be the first one to lynch the murderer too (after the trial of course).  So while I can say I am more forgiving than my dad, I cannot do what these Kids did.  So can you forgive someone who murdered your family?  That is a question to ponder.

Issue 647 Criminals and Infamy August 3, 2015

Are we giving criminals like mass murderers too much credit?  By this I mean, should we show their faces on the television screen so that they become famous for such heinous acts?  Let us discuss.

Let us think:  Criminals are unique.  They prey upon others for some sort of personal gain.  But some do it for something more than personal gain. They want to become a legend.  For instance, the South Carolina Charleston Church shooter left a person alive so that they could tell others what happened before he attempted suicide.  It does not matter that his gun was illegal, that his motivations were race based as he was anti-black, and that he was a druggie.  He wanted to be famous.  This monster wanted to live on in the news media.  But he was arrested, and he lives to stand trial.  But that still makes him famous as people want to know why.  The news covered his background, his history and his ideology.  He was everywhere.  And you know what, he is not the only famous murderer/criminal.  The Barefoot bandit never killed anyone, but his escapes were to say the least very impressive.  Former mob members had movies made of their lives, and even con artists did too.  Silly isn't it.  A criminal can be more successful by doing something outrageous like murder, than they would at regular everyday life.

Conclusion:  So what should we do?  Simple, all trials and those involved should be secrete as much as possible.  Or at the very least, the perpetrator should only become known if they are looking for them in a man hunt, or once captured as soon as the trial is over.  In between, there is no reason to see the face of the suspect, know their name, or anything.  Let the story of the event calm down and then perhaps let the information out.  We do not want these fiends famous for dastardly deeds, but save secrecy, I do not have a solution.