The EZ way, or the humane way?

I am seeing a lot of people ending relationships this year with family and long-time friends over disagreements in politics. Generally, but not always, such statements I have seen are authored by relatively young people who proclaim alliance with left-leaning politics and the ‘party of tolerance and inclusion.’ But not exclusively, as I have seen the phenomena on both sides of the current situation. I’ve seen people blocking or unfriending people they have known since 1970 or before; blocking close family; blocking next-door-neighbors. They call their former associates ‘toxic’ and state that they must eliminate them from their lives for the sake of their own mental health. To these, I say I am sorry to hear your mental health is in such a weak state. Ending a relationship over a disagreement in beliefs is purely selfish—an immature response.

Having said that, I will admit that I have temporarily distanced myself from a few of my contacts at times, admitting that I’m simply tired of hearing their opinions or rants. I have not permanently blocked any friend or family member—to my knowledge I have not ‘ended’ any relationships over politics.

Before you color me a troll, allow me to state that I am a life-long political conservative who believes strongly in truth (even if uncomfortable), justice, equality of opportunity, freedom of thought and speech and association, and has, to my memory, never voted a straight ticket. I have no respect for Mr. Trump and consider him unfit for his office. I did NOT vote for him in 2016  and will not vote for him in 2020.

The echo chamber of communications only with like-minded people handicaps your understanding. Association with people who disagree with you helps you to understand, clarify, and deepen your own beliefs. Without challenge or opposite insight beliefs become superficial and without depth of conviction.

 

How to deal with those who are avid supporters of the opposition and their positions and behaviors we strongly dislike and disagree with? I start with a quote attributed by Evelyn Beatrice Hall to Voltaire: "I wholly disagree with what you say and will contend to the death for your right to say it."

Did you ask them why they support who and what they do? When they told you did you listen? Truly listen to see if you could understand deep-seated motivations? Or was that simply too much work for you? Or did you listen to find weak points where you could destroy their argument? What happened when you voiced your beliefs and your disagreements with theirs? When you told them you supported and would vote for the opposition? Did they allow you to tell them why? Or did they banish you? Did they demonstrate their disagreement by becoming violent? Did they call you a moron or an idiot? If so, perhaps you are justified and correct in ending the relationship. If not, I then would ask you, the party ending the relationship, why does it upset you so that others disagree? Do you feel responsible for their thoughts and actions? Or do you wish to exert control and see your political aspirations succeed? Do you understand that by ending the relationship you forfeit any opportunity to influence them for good through long-suffering and example? Or do you fear that your opinion is the wrong one?

I, personally, feel strongly that our country and our freedoms that I hold dear are in jeopardy. As such, I will speak out for my beliefs and I will demand my right to do so. I will speak out against both anarchy and fascism. Remember that denying another the rights you ask for yourself is anathema to freedom and that the suppression of opposition and criticism is the very definition of fascism.

Perhaps If we could find it in our hearts to admit that our connections should not depend on controlling the other person or their beliefs, we could salvage or heal those relationships. If we could heal those relationships, perhaps we could exert, through long-suffering, patience, and love, some righteous influence. If we could exert some influence and heal personal relationships, perhaps we could heal our nation.

If I may quote a FB Project Lincoln member, Dave D’Auria from his post of August 19, 2020: “Being human is a given. But keeping our humanity is a choice… Humanity (Websters): compassionate, sympathetic, or generous behavior or disposition: the quality or state of being humane...”

In my opinion, ending relationships over a disagreement in politics is the counter to being humane. You are welcome to your opinion.

Politics ain't EZ

In a Facebook discussion of a particular political candidate, it was mentioned that he had served in the military. One commenter said, "What has military service got to do with running for office, anyway?" Well...

Let me preface this by saying that each individual is just that: an individual. Some benefit from training and experience more than others, and some are simply untrainable. With that caveat, you ask: What has serving in the military got to do with running for office?

The military teaches leadership. 

To be a good leader you first have to be a good follower. The military teaches that a good follower: Keeps their ego in check; forms strong credibility; is committed to a purpose; focuses their efforts for the maximum purpose; supports others

The values taught to support leadership include: Service before self;  loyalty; duty; respect; honor; integrity; ethics; courage; excellence. 

Where else, outside a solid, loving home are these values taught?

Those who have not served in the military would be dumbfounded to learn that much more time and resources are spent on values training than on the military skills of shooting, fighting, and killing.

Tell me: Which of these values and behaviors do you NOT want in a political candidate?

Stay-at-Home makes it EZ to rant!

In the United States, our current politics stink. There is much rotten in Washington. The politicians there have forgotten who sent them there and what we sent them there for.

Photo credit - Rats! by ricardo on Flickr. Used per Creative Commons License.

They are supposed to be our representatives. They work for us and are to serve our ‘common welfare’ yet they call themselves our ‘leaders’ and expect us to kowtow to them while they ensure their nests are feathered with pay, benefits, travel, a fat retirement, and health care while we the people slave for them. Many of them have never worked in the private sector or even served in the military. The United States has become a feudal society supporting a few oligarchs. Some of the oligarchs are powerful businessmen or women. More are in our Congress. Many of them have become wealthy while serving in Congress while complaining that they can't live on their Federal pay and benefits.

We badly need to fix our system.

1. Term limits for Congress. I recommend six years for Representatives and eight for Senators. No exceptions. Members of Congress need to know they will have to live with the laws they create.

2. Establish fair, transparent, enforceable standards for obtaining ballot access. You want to start a party and back a candidate? Sure. Here are the rules for getting your candidate certified and listed on the ballot. The same rules apply to all. This may be the weakest link in my reform proposal – It will be especially essential that money must be prevented from ruling supreme here – I’m not sure how to accomplish that. Party primaries will have to be considered and solutions found.

3. Limit public campaigning for any federal position to 120 days prior to the election date (180 days within states where a primary is required). Incumbents are NOT allowed to hold rallies or partisan events of any kind prior. No campaign funds may be expended prior to 240 days before the election date (this allows for travel, communications for planning, and to meet requirements to get a candidate on the ballot). Money spent in the party selection process during the period between 240 and 180 days before election day must be accounted for and meet federal rules for campaign funds and donations. All other political donations are made to the Federal fund to be spent equally by the candidates. There will be NO private-source money spent to support any candidate or any party after the campaign process begins in any way for any purpose, including in-kind contributions with the exception of labor donated by campaign volunteers. Money remaining after a candidate is certified and the campaign process begins must be returned pro-rata to the donors or donated to the Federal fund for elections.

4. Repeal Citizens United – it will be mostly moot anyway, if items 2 and 3, above, are enacted.

5. Eliminate lifetime stipends and benefits for representatives. Provide a 2 – 4-year post-service period where pay and benefits continue at a reduced rate to aid in transition back to civilian life, but end payments and benefits completely after that period. All elected officials participate fully in the Social Security (and any socialized medicine program) exactly the same as civilians.

6. Once campaigning starts, fund all campaigns for all certified candidates for all federal offices with public funds. All certified candidates get the same amount (which amount may vary based on position—House vs Senate vs Executive). No other money may be spent from any source at any time for any reason. Political donations are made to the federal fund to be spent equally by the candidates.

7. Re-enact some form of the “Fairness Doctrine.” This is an area that needs thoughtful action. Media can be too unbalanced with no checks in place.

8. Enact legislation limiting each action of either house of Congress to ONE ITEM per bill and per vote. Disaster Relief Bill? Take out those non-related items tacked on or added as riders. One bill, one topic. No funding of the arts in a transportation bill, etc. Limit the page count for bills. No 800-page bill will ever by thoughtfully considered by our representatives anyway.

9. Enact legislation to make it a felony for any representative to vote on any legislation that they have not personally read. In its entirety. No more of this, “We have to pass it to learn what’s in it.”

10. Voting fairness. One person, one vote. Make registration and voting easy, safe, and secure for every person 18 and over. Require some form of personal identification but ensure that all who are eligible to vote can quickly and easily obtain such. If they can do it in Afghanistan and in Ghana, we can do it in the U.S.

11. Reform the electoral college – eliminate the possibility of “faithless” electors (Note: done by the Supreme Court in July, 2020). Also eliminate 'first past the gate' elections.

12. Mandatory retirement from the Supreme Court bench after 20 years of service.

13. Enact sunset legislation for all federal rules and regulations (note: Not laws – just the rules and regulations that are implemented and enforced by non-elective agencies – laws remain in effect until revoked or replaced). Perhaps 12 years would be a reasonable sunset limitation? Rules and regulations die at their sunset date unless renewed – there must be a reasonable public comment period prior to the renewal effective date.

14. Make the Post Office profitable. Home delivery reduced to three days a week – geographic routes get Monday, Wednesday, Friday OR Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday pickup and delivery. Allow PO personnel strength to diminish to right-sized counts as people retire or die. Raise rates as necessary – make the service competitive and worth any increased cost.

15. Improve medical care in the U.S. by fixing Obamacare, one step at a time. Consider allowing states to implement their own rules so long as they provide at least the minimum benefit as the federal plan. Remove federal restrictions, but not standards, so health insurance can work across state lines.

16. Remove the ‘cap’ on Social Security contributions. Keep long-term capital gains taxes low, but include all income, to include ‘non-earned’ income in the Social Security program taxation (dividends, rents, stock profits, etc.) Every dollar of net income or salary is subject to the SS tax. Remove gender-based discrimination from SS. If a man dies, his widow can choose the greater of his (before death) or her benefits. If a woman dies, her widower has no such option.

17. Make the heads of all Federal agencies subject to Civil Service rules.

18. Public Service unions, by definition, are a huge conflict of interest. Find some transparent way to ensure fairness and representation for Federal employees without the COI of a union. Ensure that employment rules do not unwisely protect marginal or worse employees but do provide fairness for all.

19. Repel or fix the Patriot Act and FISA. Ensure the Bill of Rights is respected and enabled.

20.  Outlaw (or severely restrict) paid lobbying.

"If a law is unjust, a man [or a woman] is not only right to disobey it, he [or she] is obligated to do so." Thomas Jefferson: Papers of Thomas Jefferson as presented by the Jefferson Monticello project at monitcello.org.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” The Declaration of Independence, 1776. From the works of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 2, as presented by the Online Library of Liberty at oll.liberty.org

Social interactions with morality are not EZ

This post is in regards to the recent enactment in the U.S. of FOSTA/SESTA and the legal actions resulting in the Website Backpage pleading guilty to human trafficking in Houston, Texas.


This is an extremely complex social and legal issue with intended AND unintended consequences. While I consider human trafficking to be an abomination (and I donate to O.U.R. to fight it); AND I generally appreciate Rep. Mia Love (cosponsor of FOSTA/SESTA) I'm convinced that pimps, mobsters, and madams all over the U.S. are celebrating the shutdown of the adult sections of Craigslist and Backpage. While the referenced guilty plea by Backpage certainly casts shade on their operations and intent, the libertarian and self-agency parts of me would rather see adult men and women able to safely and consensually manage themselves rather than having to rely on often-abusive "others" to ply their trades, even if those trades are less than innocent. Since we know that prostitution has existed since at least prior to the time of Judah and Tamar, prior to Joshua and Rahab, I doubt that our laws are going to eliminate that evil, as defined by our Judeo-Christian morality, but, rather, will force practitioners back into the shadows where they are prey rather than consensual practitioners.

My politics are EZ - do no harm and mind your own business.

How I became a Libertarian:

As a child in the 1950s, Senators Josiah Bailey, Robert Byrd, J. William Fulbright, Al Gore Sr., and Representative Howard W. Smith (among many others) taught me to not be a Democrat because the racial segregation they so strongly supported just seemed wrong to me even as a child.

Later, President John Kennedy and his brother Robert taught me to dream big dreams and that there may be powerful good in either party (and how we mourned, and still do, their deaths, recalled on this 22nd of November).

Presidents Johnson and Nixon taught me that leaders of both parties will lie, cheat, and steal for power and may not be worthy of trust.

President Carter taught me that a good heart may not be enough to qualify a person for the highest office of our land; and that it is not wise to beat a swimming rabbit while there are photographers present.

In the 1990s and early years of this century, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld taught me that patriotism can be twisted for evil purposes and that we should be cautious with government power overseas while John Ashcroft taught me to fear government power at home.

Both Presidents Bush taught me that you can't trust the Republicans to control spending and government bloat.

Recently President Obama has taught me that any opposition to the policies and actions of those in power can be dismissed and marginalized simply by ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees.

Then I took this very short quiz:
      http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php

Bingo. I'm a Libertarian.

My original intention with this rant was a short Facebook post, but in writing it I decided I'm simply not up to the fights that such a post would generate.

Are we all racists?

The House has rebuked South Carolina's Republican U.S. Representative Joe Wilson for a breach of decorum. Not, apparently, simply because he broke decorum, but because he refused to publicly apologize to the House. Never mind that Mr. Wilson had apologized personally to the man he called a liar, and that man had graciously accepted his apology. Never mind that liberal House members have never apologized for booing our last president.

The Congressional Black Caucus has branded Mr. Wilson's act of calling President Obama a liar as an act of racism. Former president Jimmy Carter says that Mr. Wilson's comments are "based on racism." What is racist about one man calling another a liar? Would it have been an act of racism if President Obama had called Mr. Wilson rude, as did nearly everyone else? (Even Mr. Wilson admitted his act was rude). Would it have been a racist act if Mr. Wilson had called Kanye West a "jackass" as President Obama apparently did? Why must every unpleasant interaction between two people of different color be labeled a racist incident with assumed motives of hate when the same interaction between people of the same color is just a disagreement? Why must insecure and paranoid people imagine motives? And why do we, as a nation, allow them to make political hay of their own ignorant brayings? In the words of Rodney King, "Why can't we just all get along?"

Meanwhile, testing the truth of Brendan Behan's statement that "There is no such thing as bad publicity...", Mr. Wilson may be wearing the House's rebuke as a badge of honor. We note that his home state campaign contributions have surged by well over $1,000,000 in the past few days. Living in our society surely is not EZ.

Taxing businesses.

If I accomplish nothing in my life but to open the eyes of a few U.S. citizens to the truth of the nature of taxing businesses, I will be satisfied that it was a life well lived. A life lived, I may add, as a worker and not as a wealthy business owner.

On TV last night a senator called for higher taxes on businesses to ease the burden on the average citizen. This senator, supposedly an educated man, proved that he is either sadly ignorant or that he is a purposeful liar--misleading the very average citizen he claims to protect.

Here is the truth: No business has ever paid taxes. No business ever will. Set the "business taxes" high or higher. Punish the businesses. Still, no business will ever pay taxes. Businesses may collect taxes and pass those monies on to the government, but, trust me, businesses don't pay taxes; their customers pay the taxes. Taxing businesses does more than indirectly take money out of the pocket of the consumer: It hurts the economy overall.

When a government wishes to collect taxes through a business, there are at least two basic ways the tax may be assessed, through a consumption tax, such as the new dollar per pack for cigarettes or a gas guzzler tax on thirsty autos. This method has the disadvantage (to a tax-hungry government) of being obvious. Consumers easily see who is paying the tax. The second method is to tax the businesses revenues or activities regardless of the consumer's choices. (If we consider fees, there are actually dozens of ways governments penalize the average consumer by taxing businesses.)

This is more oblique and less obvious to the consumer. But consider: If a tobacco firm sells 1,000,000 packs of cigarettes, a dollar per pack collects for the government one million dollars. And the consumer easily recognizes the cost as a tax and knows who is paying the tax. But if the government, instead, places a tax on the company's activities or revenues that will yield one million dollars in tax, what is the result? Assuming steady sales, the price of the pack of cigarettes has to go up one dollar per pack in this case as well. But since the tax is not obviously per pack, it is less clear to the consumer (who is paying for the cigarettes [and the tax]) exactly what it is that makes up the extra cost. The company collects one million dollars at a dollar a pack either way and passes the money to the government as a tax. But in the second case, the consumer likely thinks the business is gouging them and making great profits. Ask yourself, in which case did the business "pay" more taxes?

Answer: neither. The result is the same, consumers pay one dollar more per pack.

Now do you see why I say the good Senator is a liar? the business has no money except for the money paid to them for the products or services they provide. The only source of their money is from their customers. Who pays the tax? The customers.

If our elected representatives really wanted to protect the consumer, we would not have taxes on business revenues and activities nor on reasonable corporate profits. We should tax businesses only on their excess profits. Anything over, say, maybe 12% of gross revenues in profit. If a business is generating excess profits, they could either pay very high taxes on the excesses or they could lower the profits by reinvesting in the business (good for the economy); paying the employees more (good for the economy-and employees pay more income taxes); lowering their prices (which may increase sales volume: good for the economy); or, more likely, if the profits are really good, competition will move in and force the profits lower (again, good for the economy).

If our elected representatives do NOT care about protecting the consumer but are only concerned about short term personal gain and power, they would likely favor harming both the economy and the consumer by misleading us about the impact of taxing business revenues, activities, and all corporate profits. This form of taxation takes money out of the economy (and away from you, the consumer); it discourages and artificially limits business development and growth (bad for the economy); it encourages businesses to take their operations to a more favorable tax environment (bad for the economy). Worst of all, it hides from the taxpayers the true extent of the government's taxation of its citizens. Not even discussed here is the fact that it costs businesses money to collect and pass along the taxes, which increases costs to the consumer and hurts the economy even more.

Another way that the government collects monies from businesses is through employment taxes. Do you think the business really pays these costs? The business does not. Who does? The employee does. Now these taxes may be for a good cause, federal retirement and health benefits, unemployment insurance, etc. But we should be smart enough to know who really pays the costs. The costs come out of the total compensation the business pays for the employee's services. Were they not paid to the government, the business could pay more to employees in salary. Would they? Well, if the corporate tax structure only taxed excess profits the business would be motivated to leave more money in the employees checks or to reduce costs to consumers or grow the business. In each of these situations, everyone eventually comes out better.

For every penny of tax collected, more than a penny has to come out of the citizens' pockets. How we collect and allocate those monies is a societal decision. Perhaps we want to tax consumption in a way that raises revenues and impacts behaviors (like a “sin” tax or an excise tax on luxuries). Perhaps we want to tax all transactions, as most European countries do. Any and all taxes and fees on businesses (except for taxing excess profits) is, in effect, a consumption or transaction tax anyway, since all money to pay the taxes ultimately comes from the pockets of the citizens (and out of the economy). How much better off we would all be if our politicians would just be truthful to us about these matters.

So the next time you hear a politician calling for more and higher taxes on businesses so that you, the consumer, will get a break--ask yourself: Why is this politician not telling me the truth? What else is he (or she) misleading us about?

Managing expectations - or why you can't REALLY have that new jewelry I promised you last night!

Ya gotta love American Politics. This morning, I heard announced that the Obama transition team has a special group whose job it is to "manage expectations" of the public. Meaning, I interpret, to explain why they will be disappointed but should be happy anyway. Meaning, I interpret, their job is to explain to the American public why the Obama administration will not be able to fulfill the promises of the Obama campaign. So it was, so it is, so it shall always be.

The American public's expectations are only one challenge facing the new administration. The expectations of a Democrat Party-controlled legislature may be even a greater challenge. President Obama will have to control the legislature and not let them run rough-shod over the Constitution and common sense if he wishes to secure a second term. And that, surely, is the number one goal of the new administration's first term.