The Trump tax proposal is short but far from sweet. I found the one page release too ludicrous to laugh at. Breakdowns of what is included are available from multiple sources such as NBC News and CNN Money. To me the biggest take away is how this budget it obviously a rich man's attempt at living on a budget, and failing miserably.
Let's imagine for a moment that the Federal government is an individual trying to make their way in the world. An individual needs money to live off of in the same way the government needs money to perform its essential functions. An individual must pay their bills, buy food, and generally have some money to put into savings and for entertainment in the same way the government has bills to pay, programs to fund, etc. If an individual uses more money than they bring in they go into debt, the same as our federal government. The average, middle class American should about break even with their income vs. spending. If that individual made the voluntary decision to reduce their income substantially but still insisted on maintaining their same spending habits they would be insane, but that is exactly what Trump has set forth to do. He obviously has no understanding of living within your means.
In March I wrote about Trump's Fiscal Year 2018 plan. In this plan he states that he will not raise the national debt but his final numbers do not show any reduction in national spending either. His tax plan, on the other hand, reduces taxes across the board, especially for businesses and the wealthy, without providing any substantial and continuing replacement for the lost funding. This is just as insane as the hypothetical individual above who spends the same even though their income is drastically cut. Supposedly a hard line was taken on the budget but should not an equally hard line be taken on taxes?
Supposedly the cut in taxes will be made up for by economic growth. Even if it was possible to fill the financial gap in this way it would be years before the economy could adjust to fully make up for the cuts. During those intervening years without substantial budget cuts and/or some sort of transitional tax revenue our national debt will balloon even more than it already has.
Trying to get inside Trump's head (a horrifying thought) can only lead me to believe that this plan was designed to provide the greatest possible benefit to Trump personally. Who else could possibly stand to benefit more than people like Trump when you slash the business tax from 35% to 15% and reduce personal income tax from 39.6% to 35% for the highest wage earners? He may also be attempting to salvage his abysmal approval ratings by doing a whitewashed tax cut regardless of the consequences. His obvious love of the lime light would support this second theory.
I would also like to point out his use of the term "death tax" instead of the official term "estate tax" in the release. This is an obvious propaganda ploy to draw a negative connotation to the tax. A tax, it should be known, that only effects estates with a value greater than $5.5 million. In other words estates belonging to people like the Trumps, not middle class Americans and certainly not those of low income.
With just a very basic outline to go off of it may be too soon to tell, but it definitely does not start the tax debate off on the right foot.
Saturday, April 29, 2017
Thursday, April 27, 2017
Balance of Powers
The founding fathers knew first hand of the evils of ultimate power. The nation from which they sought to break was at the whim of its monarch. Dictates from the monarch had the strength of law, whether for good or ill. To prevent this collection of ultimate power in a single individual the founding fathers had the brilliant idea of a separation of powers. This manifested itself in our three branches of government. The Legislative, with the power to make laws; the Executive, with the power to enforce laws; and the Judicial, with the power to interpret laws. Over the course of the last 200 plus years these roles have been tested and refined but always they have stood in balance to ensure that no dictator could overthrow our system against the will of the people.
Enter his royal highness Donald Trump. Never have I been more grateful for our system of checks and balances. Despite his derogatory remarks about the use of executive orders by past Presidents, Trump has used the writs in an attempt to turn his word into law. The Legislature could block these actions, but party politics mean that a Republican controlled Congress are unlikely to go against the actions of a Republican President. This proves how a division of three instead of two was the founding father's genius. The Judiciary has stepped up to balance the powers and make a clear statement that Trump's actions, and the intent that is apparent from his constant media chatter, are outside of the scope of his position.
A President who believes they have no limit on their power is a danger to all of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. A true President should be a servant to the people. A good President should protect, uplift, and unite the populace. Trump is not that President and we should all thank the Judiciary for stepping up to block his most egregious actions before his power becomes all consuming.
Enter his royal highness Donald Trump. Never have I been more grateful for our system of checks and balances. Despite his derogatory remarks about the use of executive orders by past Presidents, Trump has used the writs in an attempt to turn his word into law. The Legislature could block these actions, but party politics mean that a Republican controlled Congress are unlikely to go against the actions of a Republican President. This proves how a division of three instead of two was the founding father's genius. The Judiciary has stepped up to balance the powers and make a clear statement that Trump's actions, and the intent that is apparent from his constant media chatter, are outside of the scope of his position.
A President who believes they have no limit on their power is a danger to all of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. A true President should be a servant to the people. A good President should protect, uplift, and unite the populace. Trump is not that President and we should all thank the Judiciary for stepping up to block his most egregious actions before his power becomes all consuming.
Sunday, April 16, 2017
Valuing Families
I've been fighting political burn out badly these last couple weeks as things continue to trudge on with too many political gaffes and policy blunders to fully account for. I've turned to my safe haven of books for solace. First with "The Next America" which I reviewed just a few days ago and now with Hillary Clinton's infamous "It Takes a Village." I plan to post a full review once I've finished it with the intent of either verifying or debunking much of the propaganda surrounding the book but so far I've only made it through chapter one. There is a particular quote in this early chapter that has inspired today's post:
To start I want to make sure we're all talking about the same thing when we say families. By families I am referring to people who are bound together by love, blood, and obligation. This includes those with and without children, all ages, races, religions, and genders. A family should be counted regardless of marital status, incorporating single parents, step family, married couples, and cohabiting partners. A family can be as little as two people but has no upper limit as it may come to include extended family and branch through three and even four generations. Even roommates with no romantic entanglement may be considered a family when they rely on each other for support in their daily lives. I would define family in the broadest of terms as two or more people who directly rely on one another for mental, emotional, and physical (including financial) support.
Now, on a governmental level, how should we value families? This can be accomplished by removing barriers and ensuring that every family has equal access to being healthy, safe, and financially secure. Seems simple doesn't it? Most things do when considered in their most general form. The difficulty comes in the details but hopefully this has given us a good starting position to examine what real actions our government should be taking to make this a reality for all Americans.
Health- I've treated the issue of health care in America in a previous post so here I will just attempt to sum things up. The greatest barrier to quality health care in America is financial. To remove this barrier necessitates a complete overhaul of our current system to make sure that any time a citizen needs to go to the doctor, get medication, or have a procedure done they are able to do so without undue financial burden. The government should also be pursuing scientific research to expand our knowledge of the human body, develop new treatments/medications for illnesses, better understand nutrition, and investigate environmental factors that influence human health. Policies and regulations should be written to improve and protect human health to the greatest extent possible.
Safety- This topic has two key elements, prevention and protection. It also has two scopes, domestic and international. International prevention is obtained through building allies, intelligence gathering, and supporting at risk nations to harbor good relationships abroad. International protection comes through direct military action. Domestic prevention takes the form of community building, education, and economic development. Domestic protection takes the form of police/fire services as well as the jail/prison system. Smart domestic policies start by recognizing that prevention is a form of supporting families which leads to a decreased need for protection services. Policies must be formed and action taken to remove the substantial bias, particularly in regards to race, that permeates our criminal justice system. Sentencing must be appropriate to the crime and applied equally to all perpetrators. Action must also be taken to reduce recidivism through education and community support to ensure offenders are given the opportunity to create/reunite their families and become productive members of society.
Financial Security- This topic is related to the two above but also stands on its own. I am not advocating a "welfare for all" system but rather a system that makes sure the basic needs, such as food and shelter, of every American are being met while providing every citizen the ability to achieve financial success and the American dream. A large part of this can be taken as a "teach a man to fish" style philosophy. When we provide citizens of this country with the highest quality of education, from kindergarten all the way through higher education, we are giving the greatest number of individuals the opportunity to succeed. I would also advocate funding not just Universities and Community Colleges but also quality trade schools and apprenticeship programs to make sure the workers of the future are diversified across all sectors of the economy. Actions to stabilize and grow the economy should be a perennial item on Congress' to do list. We must also learn to be adaptable in the face of a changing economic landscape. As some industries grow and others decay the government must be prepared to transition the nation's workforce instead of clinging to outdated industries until communities collapse under their own weight.
Talking about family values can sometimes be a picture of The Simpson's Helen Lovejoy shouting "Think of the children" but it doesn't have to be. Smart governmental policies protect individuals and families of all types without getting into unnecessary moral quandaries. If politicians were to set their minds solely on valuing families we would come a long way towards improving the everyday lives of Americans across the board.
"A nation that doesn't just espouse family values but values families and children."This quote has struck home with me as, more than 20 years after the first printing, it seems our government does more and more of the former and far too little of the latter. This is clearly evidenced in the sorry state of our education system and Congress seeking health care reforms that would cause millions to lose their health insurance. We hear plenty about family values, often with "traditional" leading the statement, but let's take the time to flip the coin and ask the question just how do we value families?
To start I want to make sure we're all talking about the same thing when we say families. By families I am referring to people who are bound together by love, blood, and obligation. This includes those with and without children, all ages, races, religions, and genders. A family should be counted regardless of marital status, incorporating single parents, step family, married couples, and cohabiting partners. A family can be as little as two people but has no upper limit as it may come to include extended family and branch through three and even four generations. Even roommates with no romantic entanglement may be considered a family when they rely on each other for support in their daily lives. I would define family in the broadest of terms as two or more people who directly rely on one another for mental, emotional, and physical (including financial) support.
Now, on a governmental level, how should we value families? This can be accomplished by removing barriers and ensuring that every family has equal access to being healthy, safe, and financially secure. Seems simple doesn't it? Most things do when considered in their most general form. The difficulty comes in the details but hopefully this has given us a good starting position to examine what real actions our government should be taking to make this a reality for all Americans.
Health- I've treated the issue of health care in America in a previous post so here I will just attempt to sum things up. The greatest barrier to quality health care in America is financial. To remove this barrier necessitates a complete overhaul of our current system to make sure that any time a citizen needs to go to the doctor, get medication, or have a procedure done they are able to do so without undue financial burden. The government should also be pursuing scientific research to expand our knowledge of the human body, develop new treatments/medications for illnesses, better understand nutrition, and investigate environmental factors that influence human health. Policies and regulations should be written to improve and protect human health to the greatest extent possible.
Safety- This topic has two key elements, prevention and protection. It also has two scopes, domestic and international. International prevention is obtained through building allies, intelligence gathering, and supporting at risk nations to harbor good relationships abroad. International protection comes through direct military action. Domestic prevention takes the form of community building, education, and economic development. Domestic protection takes the form of police/fire services as well as the jail/prison system. Smart domestic policies start by recognizing that prevention is a form of supporting families which leads to a decreased need for protection services. Policies must be formed and action taken to remove the substantial bias, particularly in regards to race, that permeates our criminal justice system. Sentencing must be appropriate to the crime and applied equally to all perpetrators. Action must also be taken to reduce recidivism through education and community support to ensure offenders are given the opportunity to create/reunite their families and become productive members of society.
Financial Security- This topic is related to the two above but also stands on its own. I am not advocating a "welfare for all" system but rather a system that makes sure the basic needs, such as food and shelter, of every American are being met while providing every citizen the ability to achieve financial success and the American dream. A large part of this can be taken as a "teach a man to fish" style philosophy. When we provide citizens of this country with the highest quality of education, from kindergarten all the way through higher education, we are giving the greatest number of individuals the opportunity to succeed. I would also advocate funding not just Universities and Community Colleges but also quality trade schools and apprenticeship programs to make sure the workers of the future are diversified across all sectors of the economy. Actions to stabilize and grow the economy should be a perennial item on Congress' to do list. We must also learn to be adaptable in the face of a changing economic landscape. As some industries grow and others decay the government must be prepared to transition the nation's workforce instead of clinging to outdated industries until communities collapse under their own weight.
Talking about family values can sometimes be a picture of The Simpson's Helen Lovejoy shouting "Think of the children" but it doesn't have to be. Smart governmental policies protect individuals and families of all types without getting into unnecessary moral quandaries. If politicians were to set their minds solely on valuing families we would come a long way towards improving the everyday lives of Americans across the board.
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Review: The Next America
Title: The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown
By: Paul Taylor and the Pew Research Center
Dense in statistics and broad in scope I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in a closer look at what makes America, culturally speaking, and a glimpse at what the future may hold for entitlement programs. This book is, at its heart, concerned with the the imminent problems of Social Security and Medicare in a nation with an aging population where the financial math is quickly reaching a crisis point.
To understand the problems and potential solutions this text looks at America's changing demographics broken down into the primary 4 generations currently living. The first is the Silents (born 1928-1945) who are currently the most senior generation at age 72+ and are currently benefiting from our entitlement programs. Next, and largest, is the Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) who have just started leaving the work force en mass and drawing off of Social Security making the financial woes of the system all the more apparent. The smallest generation is the Gen Xers (born 1965-1980) who bridge the gap to the next generational powerhouse. The Millennials (born 1981-?) rival the Baby Boomers in size and are significantly different politically and socially from the generations who have come before. The author spends the most time contrasting the Boomers and Millennials as these two generations hold the greatest sway from sheer size alone.
Within this generational framework the text examines multiple aspects of America. In addition to general political leanings the author spends a chapter each on the financial circumstances, race/ethnic composition, views on marriage, religion, and technological adaptability of the various generations. The author also takes the time to compare America as a whole to several of our international neighbors, showing how some countries are fairing better than others but how all seem to be making their way towards much more senior populations and the consequences of this demographic shift.
All of this is brought around to conclusion with the question "how best to honor our commitments to the old without bankrupting the young and starving the future?" (pg. 194) The author provides only a general outline of how this should be done as the details of policy reform would no doubt take twice as many pages as it took to outline the problem to begin with.
Written in 2014 this book is a bit dated but the heart of the research and conclusions it draws still ring true. President Obama, despite effort, was unable to make significant headway towards resolving the problems. Now, with Donald Trump sitting in the White House, it seems even less likely for the nation to make progress towards resolving our looming Social Security and Medicare budget issues in the next few years. Hopefully the next president will be up for taking on the task. And hopefully by then it won't be too late to save these essential programs.
By: Paul Taylor and the Pew Research Center
Dense in statistics and broad in scope I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in a closer look at what makes America, culturally speaking, and a glimpse at what the future may hold for entitlement programs. This book is, at its heart, concerned with the the imminent problems of Social Security and Medicare in a nation with an aging population where the financial math is quickly reaching a crisis point.
To understand the problems and potential solutions this text looks at America's changing demographics broken down into the primary 4 generations currently living. The first is the Silents (born 1928-1945) who are currently the most senior generation at age 72+ and are currently benefiting from our entitlement programs. Next, and largest, is the Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) who have just started leaving the work force en mass and drawing off of Social Security making the financial woes of the system all the more apparent. The smallest generation is the Gen Xers (born 1965-1980) who bridge the gap to the next generational powerhouse. The Millennials (born 1981-?) rival the Baby Boomers in size and are significantly different politically and socially from the generations who have come before. The author spends the most time contrasting the Boomers and Millennials as these two generations hold the greatest sway from sheer size alone.
Within this generational framework the text examines multiple aspects of America. In addition to general political leanings the author spends a chapter each on the financial circumstances, race/ethnic composition, views on marriage, religion, and technological adaptability of the various generations. The author also takes the time to compare America as a whole to several of our international neighbors, showing how some countries are fairing better than others but how all seem to be making their way towards much more senior populations and the consequences of this demographic shift.
All of this is brought around to conclusion with the question "how best to honor our commitments to the old without bankrupting the young and starving the future?" (pg. 194) The author provides only a general outline of how this should be done as the details of policy reform would no doubt take twice as many pages as it took to outline the problem to begin with.
Written in 2014 this book is a bit dated but the heart of the research and conclusions it draws still ring true. President Obama, despite effort, was unable to make significant headway towards resolving the problems. Now, with Donald Trump sitting in the White House, it seems even less likely for the nation to make progress towards resolving our looming Social Security and Medicare budget issues in the next few years. Hopefully the next president will be up for taking on the task. And hopefully by then it won't be too late to save these essential programs.
Saturday, April 8, 2017
Free Speech Free for All
An interesting read from the New York Times has been published revealing the government's ongoing battle to silence dissenting voices. The Department of Homeland Security has sent a summons to Twitter to gain the account information for user @ALT_USCIS. This account, like many others, was created in the aftermath of Trump's inauguration to voice dissent from the current administration and claiming to come from one or more people currently within the Citizenship and Immigration Services office within the Department of Homeland Security. Whether this action is localized to the Department of Homeland Security trying to unmask a "rogue" agent or if the President is pulling the strings is unclear. The one thing that is clear is that this summons MUST be stopped. Twitter has filed suit and the ACLU has stepped up to defend the anonymous account holder. We stand on a razor's edge and can only hope the courts will deny the summons, defending the 1st amendment and protecting free speech for all.
If you're asking yourself "why is this such a big deal?" I'll tell you.
This may just be one account representing one or possibly a small group of individuals but if their voice is silenced it will reverberate across all of us who have ever dissented, from my blog in an obscure corner of the internet straight up to the New York Times itself. Free speech is one of the most fundamental rights of our nation and the legal precedent of this one summons being allowed to stand will open the door for more such actions.
As a citizen it is my right to voice my opinion of the government. It is also my right to complain about my employer if I choose to do so. This right to speak my mind do not end with my physical voice but extends to my online voice through social media. For @ALT_USCIS these two realms are combined but that does not necessarily limit their voice either physically or online. They have chosen to speak anonymously to protect themselves from repercussions and clearly this was the right move as the summons shows that the DHS wishes to act against them.
Now let's take a moment to compare this anonymous Twitter account to a journalist publishing information from a confidential source. Journalists are, except in extremely rare cases, protected from revealing their sources to ensure journalistic integrity. In this case Twitter is the journalist and the account holder is their source. Unless the source is making statements that suggest they are an imminent threat to themselves or others or if they reveal confidential information that compromises national security their right to free speech should be preserved. If it is not, then this opens the door for the government to meddle in our free media and manipulate the free exchange of ideas.
If you're asking yourself "why is this such a big deal?" I'll tell you.
This may just be one account representing one or possibly a small group of individuals but if their voice is silenced it will reverberate across all of us who have ever dissented, from my blog in an obscure corner of the internet straight up to the New York Times itself. Free speech is one of the most fundamental rights of our nation and the legal precedent of this one summons being allowed to stand will open the door for more such actions.
As a citizen it is my right to voice my opinion of the government. It is also my right to complain about my employer if I choose to do so. This right to speak my mind do not end with my physical voice but extends to my online voice through social media. For @ALT_USCIS these two realms are combined but that does not necessarily limit their voice either physically or online. They have chosen to speak anonymously to protect themselves from repercussions and clearly this was the right move as the summons shows that the DHS wishes to act against them.
Now let's take a moment to compare this anonymous Twitter account to a journalist publishing information from a confidential source. Journalists are, except in extremely rare cases, protected from revealing their sources to ensure journalistic integrity. In this case Twitter is the journalist and the account holder is their source. Unless the source is making statements that suggest they are an imminent threat to themselves or others or if they reveal confidential information that compromises national security their right to free speech should be preserved. If it is not, then this opens the door for the government to meddle in our free media and manipulate the free exchange of ideas.
Thursday, April 6, 2017
Frack Away
Fracking is a term that seem to be used more and more frequently but what is it and why is it controversial?
Hydraulic fracturing (or fracking as it is commonly called) is a method for extracting oil and natural gas from the ground. It involves pumping high pressure water, sand, and other chemicals into shale rock in order to cause fractures in the rock and release the oil and natural gas trapped inside. Energy companies support fracking as it helps them to access hard to reach reserves of gas and oil. By accessing these pockets it can drive down prices and offer greater energy security. However, fracking is known to cause mild earthquakes and there are also concerns about the chemicals used. The water pumped into the rock is mixed with a wide variety of chemicals, many of which are carcinogenic, and it is possible for these chemicals to leak into the ground water and contaminate the local environment.
Fracking has been around since the 90s and is already present in many states across the US. Some states have banned the practice while others have seen legal battles between energy companies and local communities attempting to limit the use of fracking in their area. Federal land has been another sticky point. President Obama and the Bureau of Land Management instituted new guidelines for fracking on Federal Land with mixed success. Now the Senate has introduced two bills (S.334 and S.335) in an effort to return complete control of fracking operations to the states, even on Federal land.
Though it has been around for over 2 decades fracking is still unproven as far as its long term impact on the environment. Concerns over the effects on air quality and ground water contamination continue to plague the practice. Protecting our environment should be a priority and that means focusing our attentions on growing renewable resources and protecting our land, water, and air. Practices such as fracking should be fading into the past, not being given new life. Let's stand together for the sake of our environment and say no to fracking.
Hydraulic fracturing (or fracking as it is commonly called) is a method for extracting oil and natural gas from the ground. It involves pumping high pressure water, sand, and other chemicals into shale rock in order to cause fractures in the rock and release the oil and natural gas trapped inside. Energy companies support fracking as it helps them to access hard to reach reserves of gas and oil. By accessing these pockets it can drive down prices and offer greater energy security. However, fracking is known to cause mild earthquakes and there are also concerns about the chemicals used. The water pumped into the rock is mixed with a wide variety of chemicals, many of which are carcinogenic, and it is possible for these chemicals to leak into the ground water and contaminate the local environment.
Fracking has been around since the 90s and is already present in many states across the US. Some states have banned the practice while others have seen legal battles between energy companies and local communities attempting to limit the use of fracking in their area. Federal land has been another sticky point. President Obama and the Bureau of Land Management instituted new guidelines for fracking on Federal Land with mixed success. Now the Senate has introduced two bills (S.334 and S.335) in an effort to return complete control of fracking operations to the states, even on Federal land.
Though it has been around for over 2 decades fracking is still unproven as far as its long term impact on the environment. Concerns over the effects on air quality and ground water contamination continue to plague the practice. Protecting our environment should be a priority and that means focusing our attentions on growing renewable resources and protecting our land, water, and air. Practices such as fracking should be fading into the past, not being given new life. Let's stand together for the sake of our environment and say no to fracking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)