Issue 48 Free Trade April 4, 2013

What is free trade? Well it is not free stuff. It is the ability of nations to trade with each other without limit, or penalty. In short, you can buy and sell goods anywhere in the world without being taxed with a tariff.

Why is free trade good?: Free trade allows for commerce to occur anywhere in the world. It allows for new business opportunities in other countries raising potentially poor countries out of poverty. Basically, America would trade with everyone; Britain would trade with everyone, and so on and so forth. By being able to sell goods across the globe unhindered by burdensome regulations, exceptions and fees (all of which free trade does if done correctly) allows massive economic growth and investment.

Another side effect of free trade is that you would also trade with your enemies. You are most likely thinking, how is that good? Well, think about it, you are trading goods with the people of the enemy country, but it is the government who is bad. By restricting trade of the enemy country you actually hurt their economy, but at the same time you make the people suffer from poverty. Also, by interacting with populations from other countries, ideas and culture are shared that influence the people of the enemy country to possibly be sympathetic to you. Let’s face it, it is not people who start wars, it is government.

What it requires: For this system to work, countries must sign a treaty with uniform trade laws to govern basic safety, and protect from illegal goods from entering a country (aka slave labor, or a dangerous items that a government does not want). It will require cooperation in enforcement between the countries and the total elimination of discrimination in respect to where a good or service comes from.

Under a free trade system, people must be able to move freely around the globe. In other words, we all would have an open boarder’s society, while still maintaining some form of customs to log each person going in and out of the country in question. There can be no manipulation of currency, no governments giving financial aid to their businesses, no special tax breaks or privileges and all goods going in and out of a country paying exactly the same amount. Even the United States constitution dictates taxing every good or service entering or exiting the country at the same rate. All this provides fairness and prevents one-up-manship and trade wars.

What people fear about Free Trade: The biggest fear is that people will lose jobs to other people in other countries due to competition. Well the fact is that is going to happen regardless. When a country trades goods to another, it does not necessarily mean that that good will not be then traded to a different country. Sure it may become slightly more expensive, but if it comes from a place where workers and costs are real cheap, then they have a leg up on the competition no matter where the good or service comes from. Your job will always be at risk of competition both in country and out of country.

What people also fear is that losing the protections of government as well of the privileges of tax breaks, aid and currency manipulation. This relates back to losing ones job or business, but in truth, protecting any business in this manner is in fact crony capitalism. It is basically propping up one business at another businesses expense. There is a lot of money involved in our current crony capitalist structure (both here in America and abroad). By losing these benefits, it may slow down a big business, but it allows competition from small businesses to fill the gap left behind. Also, skilled workers who may be let go will more often than not find a job quickly. The only time they will not is if the market is bad, but the market usually recovers within a year so long as governments stop trying to manipulate the economy with more (you guessed it) crony capitalism.

Free trade: It is a system that embraces the true freedom of true, uncorrupted capitalism (also known as a free market). Countries are attempting to get on board by creating free trade agreements with their allies such as Japan with the United States, the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Canada, U.S. and Mexico, and soon a possible free trade agreement between the U.S. and the members of the European Union. Though there is still manipulation of the market, even limited free trade is raising countries out of poverty as people are able to invest in these countries and make their people as well as themselves profitable. Is it not time we had a system built on fairness and true uncorrupted trade?

Issue 47 Pay Scheme for Government Workers April 3, 2013

How much do you think a government worker is paid? The answer is somewhere around $80 to $200 thousand. Interns get around $80,000 alone. Well this is the case for the Federal Government of the United States. Though, some of the local governments at the county level sometimes have even larger salaries, or even retirement plans. One Council women is retiring with a pension of half a million dollars per year. Who needs to go into business when you can just trick your constituents into a pay raise to make you rich. Obviously something has got to change.

My Proposal: Government workers in a starting position would start at a salary equivalent to the national average (federal level). For State it would be the average salary of all people in the State, and Local/county government salaries starting at the average income of the area they represent.

The salaries will be adjusted for inflation to insure healthy living and keep goods affordable to the individual worker.

Each year, in addition to adjusting for inflation, the salaries of these workers will be adjusted to meet the new national average. If the national average lowers, then there salaries decrease, if it raises it increases. This component of the scheme provides incentives to the government workers to keep the economy, and thus every body’s income growing.

From there, each new raise in position will have a salary increase of around 3 to 5 thousand dollars (set by law to insure no funny business). Again, this is to incentivize government workers, but in this case to move up in position. A government worker receiving a low crappy wage unfortunately will want to leave, taking all their knowledge and experience with them. In this, all political parties, private concerns and ideologies agree losing an experienced person who does their job well is not something you want.

Elected officials: Elected official should follow a similar pay scheme as well. The only difference being that rather than starting at the national average, they would have a salary equivalent to the average plus half. So in other words, with a national average of $40,000 (approximately the same average of the United States) a Congressman would have a salary of $60,000. We would keep everything else the same save salary increase due to position as we should not have one elected official paid more than another elected official while serving in the same elected body. For instance, a Congressman's base pay is approximately $175,000 a year, but the Speaker of the House gets well over $200,000 a year. Being Speaker should not grant you greater pay as you like your fellow members of the Congress are all supposed to be equal when representing your districts (or State as in the case of a Senator). Heck, even the majority and minority whip of both parties get around the $200,000 mark even though they too are just another elected official.

Unfairness: Our soldiers are paid a very crappy wage when going into the service. They get around $20,000 a year. $20,000 is just about poverty level, and then we ask them to maintain their marriages and relationships while sending them off to the next hell hole or war. Comparing that to a member of the Congresses base pay is just down right unfair. This little pay scheme of mine, if also applied to them would help resolve this issue to a degree. Likewise, fire fighters, garbage men and police may get a boost, or at the very least adopt potions of this idea to provide fairness in position and also prevent corruption. Let’s face it everyone, a government worker (not all but a good portion of them) are gaming the system and it has to be stopped. The government workers on the lowest end of the spectrum with the lowest pay, or in a different department with the least say get screwed right along with the tax payer. It is time equal pay for equal work is brought to all levels of government.

Conclusion: My idea is just that an idea. I have yet to finish my idea for a proper retirement plan for these government workers and elected officials that would remove their golden parachutes. Yes we get screwed with those too. In fact, government workers in some instances are allowed to retire at 55, while the rest of America retires at around 65. I can understand fire fighters, police, and garbage men along with a few others being an exception, but a pencil pusher should retire with the rest of us. It is a privilege to serve the people, and my idea is simply there to make it a privilege once again. A member of government used to be paid very little, and sometimes where not paid as they sacrificed their time for the peoples greater good. But today, it is the place to be to retire with a massive retirement package equivalent to a CEO of a fortune 500 company in some instances. There is just got to be another way to bring government back in line with helping the people, not robbing them blind.

Issue 46 Should the U.S. get rid of the 17th Amendment April 2, 2013

For those who know the United States Constitution, the 17th Amendment allows the people to directly elect their Senators to the U.S. Senate. Originally, Senators were chosen by the State Legislatures with the Governor of the States making temporary appointments until the Legislature finalized its decision. However, the 17th Amendment is like its counterpart the 16th Amendment, a piece of progressive ideology when they sought a pure democracy as opposed to a democratic republic. They felt that by letting people choose for themselves, they would be able to impose the other democratic changes they sought to create their ideal democracy. Of course that would occur by mobilizing voters to elect their chosen candidates. For President Woodrow Wilson, a progressive Democrat, he wanted a democracy similar to that of Great Britain's and thus he supported the 17th.

Unintended Consequences: Under the 17th, the Senators were free of the traditional pressures of the State governments. But their constituencies provided the same form of pressure that the House of Representatives faces on a daily basis, the whims of the traditional voter. Senators would no longer counteract the House of Representatives with the peoples will (for good or bad) but instead, to maintain power, embrace the voting public's will and as a result sacrifice the States as power slowly shifted to Washington D.C. As a result, the individual States are often bullied by the Federal Government with the Feds only offering money if the States do something in return. But, that something in return often causes the States to want for more money. So what are the States to do as they don't want to raise taxes (though that will be the inevitable result), they beg for more money. This has become an endless cycle in America that has allowed for massive debt and very angry tax payers.

Under the old system: If the 17th did not exist, America would be very different. For one there would be no Federal welfare programs that overburdened the States, no Federal government forcing States to beg for more cash, and much less bureaucratic waste in the form of departments and agencies that infringe on States rights and privileges.

You are probably wondering, would it really be that different? Well yes as for one, it is one less (or should I say two less) political campaigns we have to vote on. No longer would we be forced to aid the political parties financially (yes our tax payer money is spent to support them too, unfortunately) to nominate Senators. So at least we would be lied to less. But, it also means that all the legislation that hurts States rights would slowly disappear. If a Senator did not obey the State Legislature, a Senator would be recalled to answer for it. It sometimes even meant the Senator would be fired and replaced, thus never seeing a second term in office, let alone finishing his first six year term. There of course was a safety net for when the State legislature could not decide on who should be Senator, and thus the Governors of each State had the power to appoint a temporary Senator. Historically speaking, a State always had its two Senators irrespective of how dead locked a Legislature was.

Conclusion: The Senate by proxy at the time represented the people by proxy as they were chosen by representatives of the people, but at the same time protected the State and Federal government from laws and programs that would bankrupt the American government. Today, we just have the President to act as a counter balance, but today even the President is subject to the whims of people thanks in part to the technology that allows the people to watch everything and anything he/she does. So unfortunately, I believe that America is slowly devolving into a democracy with the trappings of a Republic. What do I mean by this? What I mean is that without the counter balances America will develop into mob rule. How can I say this you ask? Simple, without a counter balance to counter the whims of the people and that of the government itself, it will sub come to pressures coming at it from all directions, including financially. Therefore, if we don't act America will cease to exist as we know it.  As such, to counteract our downward spiral, I think that as an option, we can be rid of the 17^th Amendment.

Issue 45 The Four Taxes April 1,2013

As many of you are already aware, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the right to tax America's citizens. But, did you know that it only lists four taxes in the entire document. That’s right, depending on how you read the wording, the Federal government is either limited to those 4 or can tax us in what ever form they wish. So as to give you knowledge on what these taxes are, I list them and tell you all how they work.

Impost Tax: This tax is simple; it taxes all products coming into the United States at a specified rate.

Expost Tax: This tax is the opposite of an impost tax; it taxes all products leaving the United States.

Together these taxes form the basis of a tariff system, but according to the U.S. Constitution all Impost taxes must be equal regardless of country. Likewise Expost taxes must be set equal as well. These limitations where designed to prevent taxation from being used as a weapon to hurt trade and show favor or disfavor to a particular country save cutting off trade relations entirely. Basically, it prevented conflict with other nations by treating everything imported and exported equal in terms of taxation.

Excise Tax: This tax is much broader in scope as it is a tax on all goods and services. Like its, Impost and Expost counterparts, all must be taxed at the same rate. If you want a modern term, then a sales tax would be an appropriate representation. So long as money was exchanged for a good or service like land sales, paying for a lawyer, or simply buying food, it was taxed.

The limitation of making sure each of these taxes are set equal were and still is a stroke of genius (even if it is ignored today). It prevented taxation being used as a weapon, and prevented conflicts in trade both between nations and even between the States (like New York and New Jersey). But our last tax has no such limitations and we all despise it.

Income Tax: We pay this tax every single year based on the amount of money we make. It is not designed to treat people fairly or even businesses for that matter. It is set up to be a weapon to suppress and confiscate people’s wealth. Many people believe this tax should go away as it harms and suppresses small businesses, and aids in keeping the poor poor and the super rich rich. There is no equal treatment law in this tax as it was added during the Wilson Administration as the 16th Amendment. During that time period, the progressive party was in full swing (it has its ideology based in socialism, but was the foundation for modern liberalism. It wants equal treatment of everyone, but uses government to enforce any and all forms of social equality) and they saw the rich as the enemy.

The Founding Fathers of the American Constitution had already faced the income tax under the oppression of Great Britten during the colonial period, and thus they set forth a warning. In the Federalist papers they said that (I paraphrase) an income tax is impossible to support as the more a government spends trying to enforce it, the more money they loose until they have no money at all. Basically, just trying to enforce it will break the bank of any country eventually and make a person who simply forgets to pay their taxes or portion of a criminal. And thus why libertarians and conservatives want it gone (and that is not even including the living hell it creates by picking winners and losers in the free market system distorting it and creating more incentives for corruption).

Well, there you have it, the four legal taxes as per the United States Constitution. If and when possible I will post more posts like this to aid those who seek to bring government in line once again and make it responsible to the people. Information is power and I hope this helps.

Issue 44 Get Out of the U.N. March 29,2013

How best to describe the United Nations, Hmmmm. Once an icon designed to foster peace between nations, a failed corrupt organization, or a festive hive of scum and villainy. I think I will select the last one.

Corruption: The U.N. takes the money of nations to support its work, but not all of that money makes it to the desired destination. In fact, much of the money in the U.N. is used to prop up dictatorships which out number the members that are democracies. U.N. soldiers gathered from other nations form rape gangs while deployed. Food the U.N. gives out never reaches their intended recipients for the local government confiscates them to solidify their power. Money changes hands regularly to get what you want out of fellow nations. The U.N. is not about peace anymore, it is about power and manipulation.

Toothless Tiger: If the U.N. was a real organization dedicated to peace it would be taken more seriously. Nations of the world would try to settle disputes that they could not otherwise settle on their own. But, the U.N. is now about manipulation. Take the treaty of the seas that the U.N. is purporting. Designed to prevent disputes on mining and harvesting other natural resources at sea, it is now being used by China to take territory in Japan and Vietnam (the latter being one of their own allies). How about the International Criminal Court? It can be used to prosecute former world leaders for war crimes the moment they step out of power. This goes for all world leaders, and of course the standards are arbitrary and thus any leader of the world can be threatened with prosecution, both good and bad. Allow me to correct the title of this section, Toothless at maintaining peace, an expert in manipulation.

We need something new: What we need is a body that unites people, not nations. The people of a country with an evil dictator are not at fault for the crimes of their leader. We need an organization that promotes cultural exchange in the form of art, literature, athletics, sciences and math, and of course our shared history of the world. It would be and organization that is run exclusively (if aided by government) by democracies and donations from people around the world. It would support archaeological expeditions, under sea and space exploration and act as a single body from which that information is shared. If a person makes a new discovery, it would work with nations around the globe so that a proper patient is filed and recognized in all countries. It would take groups similar to the Peace Corps and make them an international body dedicated to helping rebuild after disasters, acting as teachers where there are none, and train people in ideas and techniques to improve their very lives. It would have a body established to aid the sick and infirm that resembles if not surpassing doctors without boarders (one of the few non corrupt programs run by the U.N.). But, alas, this is currently idealism.

Conclusion: No nation should be subject to the whims of another nation(s), if said nation(s) are corrupt and run by dictators. A nation should not have to give money to an organization that is now dedicated to manipulation and having brutes getting rich off the backs of the poor. There are so many examples of U.N. corruption that it would take multiple posts just to list them all (especially if you want at least some detail). The U.N., along with other international bodies are now failing. Is it not time to stop feeding the defunct, and corrupt and try something new?

Issue 43 Teacher Priests March 28,2013

I had previously discussed changes I would like to see in the Catholic Church as an institution, but only gave a preview of some other ideas I had to get more people involved in the church and at the same time for the Church to evolve itself.

1) The Church should provide exercise classes: Some of you may think why, but think about it. By having a healthy body it can aid in having a healthy mind. By the Church offering such a service, it attracts the health conscious and gives people an opportunity to learn healthy exercise habits. This service can even be turned into a kind of moving meditation with tie chi, yoga or Qi gong. Essentially, it would turn it into a hybrid mass and health class. Further, it gives people more opportunities to be involved with the Church and have something to do. I know that some of my friends see going to mass once a week as a burden, let alone going every single day. By providing this class, people like my friends may feel they get something more out of the Church and thus may see it as less of a burden.

2) Meditation: Back when I was preparing for my conformation, there was a special seminar where we had meditation. We envisioned ourselves on the road of life with the challenges we were facing and might face. But, we also tried to envision our faith itself and how it would get us through those challenges and aid our friends and family in doing so as well. I personally felt it was fantastic, and that this should be provided to people who would like another alternative to a traditional mass. Think about it, in meditation you can imagine yourself by Jesus' side, or even being one with the Holy Spirit.

3) Teach Healthy habits: This encompasses both eating foods and actions in every day life. Basically, the clergy would help younger members of the Church to know a good habit from a bad one (aka a vice) and aid parents when help is needed to council their children. But, with respect to eating, everyone wants to eat healthy that is suited for them. The Clergy would provide methods of tracking what you eat, how much you eat, and how healthy each item is. Long story short, they will help you to eat healthy and live healthy, because lets face it unhealthy parishioners is a bad thing.

4) Use Music: One of the coolest things about a Baptist Church is how they get every single parishioner involved in the mass. They do so with music, and it prevents the mass from turning, well, dull. Some people need that uplifting music to hone their faith and the Church should provide that experience. I'm not saying do away with traditional mass, but also embrace an alternative.

5) Make worship unique and individual: This is probably the hardest component of change for the Church to achieve. I literally want each person to come out of the mass satisfied and uplifted. But, that does not happen to people who simply go to mass like a robot. This is part of the reason I call for the four changes listed above, to make mass a unique experience for each person. In truth, we don't need a Church to be faithful, but we need it to know that there are people like us who worship, have the same questions we do and that we are a part of a larger community. Allow questions of faith, allow new ideas and interpretations, and make it as if the priest is talking to the individual even if he is talking to the whole group. No more robotic motions with people showing up, standing on command and then leaving on command. Faith must become personal and travel with the person even as they exit the Church.

Conclusion: The Catholic Church is struggling. It is trying to redefine itself and correct its errors of both past and present. But, to overshadow, the negative, the Church must renew itself like a phoenix. My suggestions may not be the answer, but I hope they at least enhance the dialogue.

 

Issue 42 My ideal Income tax March 27,2013

Well, my true ideal income tax would be its utter elimination along with the 16th amendment, but alas, that is only a dream at the moment. So here is my ideal income tax that deals with reality.

A true Progressive tax: It is a flat tax. Everyone is taxed at the same rate without exception. You are probably wondering why that is a progressive tax, if everyone is charged the same rate. Well while our current system does tax the so called rich more, it is at a different rate than the rest of the people in different tax brackets. We currently have six different tax rates. The rich under a flat tax would still pay more no matter what.

By switching to a flat tax we gain a significant advantage in reducing the amount of poor people in this country. The current tax code actually helps to keep the people poor as if they go to a higher tax rate, they will actually have less money. An example, say you make $10,000 a year and are taxed at a 10% rate. So you pay $1,000 in taxes. But, if you make $10,001 your tax rate can jump to 16%. So you are now getting a clearer picture as to why the current rate helps to keep the poor.

Basically I want social mobility in the tax code, and a flat tax helps to solve that problem.

No deductions: There can be absolutely no exceptions to the tax. Every single person must have some skin in the game. So, yes, I would tax the poor, but for a good reason. For one, without deductions, or any other loop holes, tax rates will drop dramatically. This also makes it much easier to pay taxes and thus saves the average citizen important personal time raising their kids and taking care of life's problems. As to why the poor should pay. Yes there will be lower rates and thus if they pay taxes it will be easy, but that is not the only reason. If an impoverished person and on welfare, you have no incentive to keep taxes low as you get all the money you may pay in taxes back. As a result, a poor voter can vote for a candidate that will give them all the benefits they want at the cost of everyone else. It becomes a cycle where the country delves into a fiscal mess. Plus welfare will still be there, but it will have to be reformed to ensure that people receiving it have an incentive to get off it. This is the only way the system will work if we keep the welfare apparatus that is in place. Though it is interesting to note Mexico has no welfare system, but not a single person has died as far as I know due to starvation.

Do not tax investments: Investments are not income, they are money (that in bare bones terms) that you lend to a business or group of businesses on the stock market, from which you are rewarded with interest if that business succeeds. More investments equals a better economy is a basic and time held rule governing the economy since the idea of investing was invented. This money put in is already taxed and thus a form of double taxation. We should not have any form of double taxation, not to mention, these investments may be peoples retirement income. I for one do not want the government robbing anyone of their retirement no matter who they are.

Conclusion: Real simple right. One low flat rate that allows everyone to continue getting rich, no matter who they are without penalty, is that not a dream come true. I would make it so that any changes to raise taxes or amend the law will require a super majority vote of about 4/5ths of both houses of Congress (if this idea is done in the U.S.) to insure politics does not ruin the system and harm our nation by giving people a free ride. Though, if I had to choose between my business tax and this one, I would choose the business tax as taxing individuals makes criminals out of people who fail to pay or forget small pieces of documentation. Businesses on the other hand, under my system would find it easier to pay taxes and they pass those costs onto the consumer anyway. If we just had a business tax, then we would not need the IRS to harm our citizens and possibly be used as a weapon by politicians. Not to mention the unreasonable requirement of keeping tax records for 10 years at a time. To me, the logic is simple, get rid of the current tax code, make it simple and fix welfare, then we may not even have to borrow all that money to support our government and its silly spending on shrimp on a treadmill or poetry reading cowboys.