Do the dead have rights?

I am writing this as a follow up to my article on Apple versus the Government.  The reason being is that I wanted to delve more into the issue on if the dead have rights with respect to property.  In most cases, as to what I know, they only have rights if and only if they leave a last will in testament.  That is the only time rights are actually given unless you my readers can enlighten me in which case I encourage you to message me via Twitter or Facebook or even here in the comments section.  As such, the government cannot touch the items that have been bequeathed by the dead individual to their new owners.  Additionally the body belongs to the family members and is thus their property along with any other items that were not specifically specified to go to individuals in the will.  However, if the family where to throw out any items that once belonged to the dead person, or the deceased had thrown away items, then there is no longer an owner and thus no right to privacy.  Basically, whatever you throw out (typically where you would place it for curbside pickup or in a dumpster) belongs to no one and the government, police, private investigator, or a random stranger has every right to look in your trash can and take whatever they please.  If the deceased has no next of kin, and there is no will, the personal property of the deceased then belongs to the government.  In short, trash, the unclaimed dead and unclaimed property all belong to the State government (or local or county government) depending on how the law is written.  Thus the limits of your right to privacy once you pass on.

Final Thought:  Surprised?  Well, I was a little too, but you basically have a certain level of privacy once you are gone as once you die your stuff is given to your family with their right to ownership taking effect and the government cannot touch the items.  Additionally, contents of cell phones like the dead terrorists IPhone, even if claimed as evidence, cannot be looked at as once the investigation period is over the phone will be given back to the dead man's family as it technically belongs to them now.  As such it is now owned by them and not the deceased. Thanks for reading.

Apple Versus the Government.

Ok, time to put in my two cents into this interesting debate.  The background as to why Apple is going head to head with the government is that one of the San Bernardino shooters had an apple IPhone.  That shooter is dead of course but the government apparently cannot access the information on the phone.  So the government wants Apple to create a back door for them to go into the phone and other Apple phones/products to monitor for terrorist activity.  Apple however grew a pair and said no to the government citing privacy (Apple apparently has previously cooperated with the Federal government on all previous occasions).  

So Apple is being given two options.  The first is to create the backdoor in their firewalls and operating system to allow for government to spy on us at will, or they refuse and maintain the privacy of the individual owner (did I mention the guy who owns the phone in question is dead?).  However, the government should actually do the right thing and get a warrant.  Yea, that thing that the constitution mandates that judges have to issue to search people's private information ("papers" or in this case electronic papers).  Some of you may be remembering that I said the guy was dead though.  So how does that factor in?  Well, this is me just talking, but the dead do not have privacy rights, but their next of kin/the people who get their stuff when they die do.  So if the family claimed the shooter's personal effects then you still need a warrant regardless and that warrant must state that reasons why the information on the phone needs to be accessed.

Final Thought:  So in this instance the government is in the wrong.  It does not matter that the shooter was a domestic terrorist, what does though is that the Constitution requires a warrant.  As such, Apple is in the wrong as well as they cannot outright refuse either.  If the Government produces a warrant, then Apple must comply with the order, but only for that specific phone.  If a warrant is issued that goes beyond the phone in question, or demands access through a back door, then that warrant will not hold up in court as warrants must be narrow in focus with respect to what can be searched, and or who can be arrested and what evidence seized during that arrest.  Our Constitution covers this people and Apple and the government are both being idiots in my humble opinion.  

Dr. Carson on Health Care

Here is part two of my small articles on Dr. Ben Carson.  In this case we will address health care. 

First off, Dr. Carson will replace Obama Care and much of the traditional system with what he calls Health Empowerment Accounts (HEA's).  An HEA is an actual account that is made for each individual citizen in the country that can be used to cover out of pocket costs for healthcare, health insurance premiums and any other incurred medical expenses.  The idea is to set up an apparatus by which people can place money, tax free, into an account to help pay for all their medical expenses.  In fact it will even be transferable from family member to family member as well to help accommodate other people's health care needs and even be inheritable.  Carson's plan revolves around the HEA's as the central pillar to make healthcare personal again between Doctors and Patients.  (Note: I personally think that these accounts should gain interest so as to reward people for saving their money to pay for their health care).

One of the basic ideas is to make out of pocket costs affordable so Carson would deregulate parts of the FDA to make drugs and healthcare cheaper.  Additionally, the owners of the account can link their HEA's to a health insurance company with a high deductible plan of the individual's choice.  The idea is to make it so that insurance only helps to pay for something when the cost of health care would bankrupt an individual.  Basically health insurances would go back to being a safety net, all the while creating health care plans that are cheaper so as to accommodate the more patient centered model of health care that Carson is trying to establish here.  

To further facilitate this goal, Carson wants to fix Medicare and Medicaid.  In this case, Medicare and Medicaid will change how they operate as HEA's will be the conduit by which these changes work.  For Medicare, Medicare beneficiaries will receive fixed dollar amounts to their HEA's to buy a health care insurance plan(s) of their choice.  No more government deciding what and how to cover a health issue, but instead seniors getting to choose their own plan in the private marketplace and their premiums being paid for or partially paid for by the government via the government's contribution to the HEA.  Basically, this is how the current Medicare part D works save the fact that patients get to choose which health insurance companies to get coverage from and not the government.  This Medicare version, which I assume eliminates parts A, B, C and D, will have the eligibility adjusted as well. In this case, the age to receive such benefits will be changed to age 70 by adjusting the age requirement by two months per year once implemented.  Medicaid will work similarly with the poor able to pick and choose their own health insurance coverage and be able to save to cover certain out of pocket costs  The only difference is that States will be block granted money by the Federal government by giving the States a fixed dollar amount to be given to the Medicaid recipients (States decide who qualify and how much is to be given to each individual) in their HEA account to use to buy cheap insurance plans and pay for any out of pocket health expenses.  

Final Thought:  Dr. Carson is using this system to eliminate most of the government waste by eliminating the States and the Federal Government's bureaucracy that revolves around Medicare and Medicaid as they turn into a re-insurer type system, or even a Social Security type system that gives money to people rather than decide how people are to spend their money.  HEA's as the backbone of the system aid in this by giving people options to save their money and potentially with Carson's tax plan not pay the higher 14.9% rate (see yesterday's article for details).   Carson is also assuming that with people buying insurance individually with this new system, rather than businesses as with the current system, that health insurance plans will become cheaper and thus affordable to accommodate a customer base that has a more limited budget.  All this gets government and even to a certain extent, businesses out of our personal health, and back into the hands of us, the individuals.

Dr. Carson's Tax plan

Even though Dr. Ben Carson is technically out of the race it does not mean his ideas were no good.  As such in this first of two issues we will talk about his tax plan proposal.  Let us start.  

Dr. Carson proposed a flat tax in the same manner as Ted Cruz and some of the other candidates, but his opted for a 14.9% tax on all income above 150% of poverty level.  As such under Carson's plan, you would pay taxes for each dollar after the first $36, 375 dollars you make.  Pretty nice right, not having to pay that rate save for each dollar made past the $36,375 mark.  This helps the people who are poor or are the working poor as they get to keep more of what they earn and thus reduces the need for things like welfare as their money can only grow.  However the people under the 150% of poverty level will still pay something in what Carson calls a de-minimum tax.  In this case those people making exactly $36,375 and under will still pay a tax so that they have skin in the game so to speak, but the amount will be a much smaller percentage than the 14.9% tax rate where you could potentially pay a single dollar to the IRS.  

To make this plan work though certain requirements must be met.  It will eliminate all double taxation by not taxing people on their capital gains, dividends and interest income at the personal level.  Basically if you invest money, you will not be taxed on the earnings made from those investments, but this may mean that the pretax qualities of a 401K man disappear (Carson did not make this clear).  This is designed to stimulate the economy as taxes on investments actually restrict job growth as seen by when JFK, Reagan and Clinton reduced taxes on investments which got the country out of a recession during each of their Presidencies.  As such this means more jobs and thus more money for the government.  Also the alternative minimum tax which sometimes forces people to pay higher taxes will be eliminated along with the death tax (estate tax which taxes people on inheritance). But under Carson's plan there will be no more deductions for mortgages, charitable giving or State and local taxes.  Carson's logic is that the people who benefit from these deductions are a select group of people. Therefor if I interpret what he is advocating, these are geared toward rich people these deductions and is an undue burden on the tax code.  His logic I assume is that with these deductions eliminated the government can get a larger amount of money without the need to raise the tax rate over time.  Basically more money means less taxation later on as our savings grow.  Additionally, this makes room for Carson's other idea of Health Empowerment Account's (HEA's) (more on those tomorrow) which will be untaxed when people put money in them.

Final Thought:  Carson makes no mention of the payroll tax on his site, which means the payroll tax which funds Medicare Part A and Social Security will still be in effect.  Also, his plan does not address the income taxes on businesses, so those are not touched.  My guess is either he had planned to address it later in the Campaign or when he got into the white house.  Needless to say it is a fairly good plan and I could live with it.  Sad to say Carson is (while not 100%) out of the race for President.

Post Super Tuesday

Now that the results of Super Tuesday (the day when the largest number of States have their Primaries and Caucuses at the same time) have sunk in, we see now a slimmer Republican field.   Dr. Ben Carson has stepped out of the race.  He had a good run and was an honorable man. I thank him for his efforts and hope to continue hearing from him in the future.   

Trump however is still in the lead and Cruz is in second.  However, Cruz and Kasich have called for Rubio who is in third to step down.  Apparently Rubio is behind Trump in Florida (Rubio's home State) while Kasich has the best shot of winning his home State of Ohio.  In short, Rubio appears to be losing ground while Kasich, if Rubio leaves, is set to gain most of Rubio's' former support from the Republican establishment.  Cruz of course wants Rubio out because Rubio is Cruz's only other competition save Donald Trump.  Otherwise the field has stayed the same.

With respect to Hillary Clinton versus Bernie Sanders, Hillary is in the lead due to the number of delegates, but Bernie is not giving up and still has a chance with upcoming Primaries and caucuses as the next set are winner take all with respect to the number of delegates needed to hold the nomination.

Final Thought:  We are still in the horse race of this Presidential election season.  It is really anyone's game as Trump has now just started showing  weaknesses with respect to his David Duke situation, his apparently off the record New York times interview questions (he is not giving us the whole truth) and overall his personality flaws as a whole which people are finally starting to notice (harnessing anger is a double edged sword).  Rubio can still win this and so can Kasich if Rubio leaves, but other than that, the field is the same on both the Democratic and Republican side save the presence of Dr. Carson.

What is Democratic Socialism?

I am going to use Bill O'reilly's explanation as to what Democratic socialism is as I think his explanation is the best one I have ever heard.  So here it goes.  Under a Democratic Socialist government, healthcare, banking, education, retirement/welfare and energy are all nationalized (there may be exceptions to this list or additions depending on structure of a Democratic Socialist government).  To get all this stuff free you pay taxes in excess of 25 to 75% of your income.  So it is not actually free, as you pre-pay for it essentially.  However there is another catch.  You do not have any freedom with respect to how you use these services. 

Let us take education for example.  Your child will have to pass a series of tests to pass into each grade level or even to go to a new school.  Based on these scores though, the government determines if your child must change schools, or determines if the child may go to college or not (if the nation offers free college).  There is no school choice here as the government says what school/college your child may attend, how long a child can be in school/college and even if the child is allowed to attend school or a college in the first place.  The only true exception to this scenario is if a family can afford to pay out of pocket themselves.  In short, they typically have to be very rich for their child to go to a good college as opposed to the government saying which college if any the child may attend.

Healthcare is another classic example.  Under Democratic Socialism, you do not choose your doctor and they determine when you are allowed to see your doctor.  So if you need an MRI or even X-ray you may only get one when the government has cleared it with their budget.  You basically have to wait in an invisible line to be seen by a doctor or a specialist so that the government can accommodate your visit in the budget. 

That is right, your entire life is budgeted with respect to education, healthcare, energy, etc. If the government cannot find room for your MRI in their budget then you cannot get your MRI till they do.  If they think you will not do well in college, then you will not be allowed to attend the free government college.  Basically you have no freedom here.

Final Thought:  I elaborated on Mr. O’reilly’s explanation a little, but I tried to keep it as simple as possible so that all can understand.  The Fact is, that Democratic Socialism has government controlling your freedom of choice with respect to your education, health and other matters.  For me, a libertarian and Constitutionalist, this is scary.  I do not want to be some number on the government's budget books, though technically I already am a number in the United States due to our tax system and the entitlements, but I rather not have my choices taken away.  I do not want anyone's choices taken away.  And thus it is for these reasons why I cannot vote for Bernie Sanders or for Hillary Clinton who support this government model as their vision of America.

Donald Trump and David Duke

By now you probably heard that the former head of the KKK David Duke told all his racist ilk to vote for Donald Trump.  Basically he endorsed Donald Trump in an off handed way.  However Donald Trump has not condemned Duke or even rejected the votes of his KKK brethren and similar.  What would easily have been an open and shut case for Trump to shut down and reject racism as a motivation for electing elected officials, Trump has refused to do.  Trump even claimed that he never heard of David Duke even when he was talking about Duke back in 2000 and his membership in the KKK.  Fox showed the clip of him in the year 2000 where Trump says he would not be part of the "reform party" because someone like David Duke, a member of the KKK was in it.  And yet when interviewed by Jay Tapper of CNN, Trump says he does not even know who David Duke is.  Trump according to reporters with respect to his record is not a racist, but what the heck is going on?  That is what I would like to know.

Final Thought:  What the hell is wrong with you Trump?  You do not condemn David Duke and you even make yourself out to be a liar by claiming you don't even know of him.  Trump should have condemned Duke and his ilk by saying he does not accept any of their votes or their support.  Yet he says nothing and just prattles on like usual.  Donald, are you even in your right mind.  I would feel violated if I were in Trumps position that any of my votes are from openly racist individuals like David Duke (hell I would feel that way already knowing closet racists were voting for me).  This shows poor judgment at minimum with respect to Trump.  As far as I am concerned, he should be done.  He should lose the election right now for this stupidity and outrage with respect to the American people who are trying to eradicate racism from American culture.