Category: Politics

Attorney General Holder – please call a special prosecutor

Attorney General Holder – please call a special prosecutor

By | | Comments 0 Comment

This is getting bad. We really need a special investigator to be named on the issue of the IRS targeting certain groups. It now “appears” that there was coordination between the IRS and FEC (Federal Election Commission). It seems like every week there is another “Oh by the way, we found another potential abuse of power” story. If you like to read the NY Times, Washington Post, or CNN you may not be seeing these stories but they make the largest paper in the US, The Wall Street Journal.

So it now “appears” that the FEC did an illegal investigation of a couple of groups at the request of the Obama administration. The FEC went outside of its charter and coordinated this investigation with the IRS and the IRS fed them information that “appears” to be illegally shared.

Why is this so important? Simple. Is there anything that is more precious in the US than our right to select our leaders? Some may argue our freedom of religion or freedom of speech (both very important) but each of those only exists because we select our leaders. When people in leadership can “tip the scales in their favor” all of our rights start to diminish. When our leaders can say “That group doesn’t have the right to speak and influence others” then we are in trouble.

I put appears in quotes above because I really don’t know. Neither due the reporters that are trying to dig in. Neither do the Congressmen that are investigating the issue. Neither do you. However, IMO there is enough smoke here to say there is a fire. Without a special investigator, we really won’t know what is going on. I am not throwing stones at the Obama Administration. All I am saying is that there are enough concerns that a special investigator is required and leaving it up to Congressional committees is probably a mistake.

There is an old story that you have likely heard. I will shorten it here:

They came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I didn’t speak out – now there are no Jews. They came for the Muslims, but I was not a Muslim so I didn’t speak out – now there are no Muslims. They came for the gun owners, but I didn’t own a gun so I didn’t speak out – now there are no guns. They are coming for me now and there is no one else to speak out – what am I to do?

RANT:  WHY WON’T ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER NAME A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO LOOK INTO THESE ISSUES? I guess that is a rhetorical question.

If you are so compelled, I suggest that you check out two articles on WSJ.com. If you don’t have a subscription, you can probably Google the topics and someone has probably reposted the entire article somewhere. I don’t like to repost entire content that is secured behind a subscription wall and so will only include a snippet that is allowed under Fair Use.

Another Agency Goes IRS: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323681904578642190875395974.html?mod=trending_now_3

One big question raised by IRS political targeting is whether Obama officials or their bureaucratic allies unleashed the power of the administrative state for partisan ends. Now evidence is emerging that officials at another agency, the Federal Election Commission, used their enforcement power as an anti-conservative sword.

The House Ways and Means Committee this week released emails showing that, in 2008 and 2009, the FEC’s general counsel staff sought tax information about conservative political groups from Lois Lerner of the IRS. Ms. Lerner is the IRS official who took the Fifth before Congress rather than tell her side of the story. She had previously worked at . . . the FEC’s general counsel office.

New Links Emerge in the IRS Scandal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323681904578642180886421040.html

Congressional investigators this week released emails suggesting that staff at the Federal Election Commission have been engaged in their own conservative targeting, with help from the IRS’s infamous Lois Lerner. This means more than just an expansion of the probe to the FEC. It’s a new link to the Obama team.

In May this column noted that the targeting of conservatives started in 2008, when liberals began a coordinated campaign of siccing the federal government on political opponents. The Obama campaign helped pioneer this tactic.

In late summer of 2008, Obama lawyer Bob Bauer took issue with ads run against his boss by a 501(c)(4) conservative outfit called American Issues Project. Mr. Bauer filed a complaint with the FEC, called on the criminal division of the Justice Department to prosecute AIP, and demanded to see documents the group had filed with the IRS.

Egypt and the Islamic world have more growing to do

Egypt and the Islamic world have more growing to do

By | | Comments 0 Comment

EGYPT-PROTEST/I am very saddened by the political happenings in Egypt right now. I was hoping the secular leaning people of Egypt could make Egypt a true democracy. I now think more pain and frustration is needed.

Muslims are very much about follow the rules and you go to Paradise when you die.  The religion is designed to be rule followers. Mohammed was the political, military, and religious leader of his time so there was no separation and that non-separation has continued.

In Christianity, it is about choice.  Granted some sects have veered from that over the centuries but for the most part it is a personal choice to believe.  In fact, New Testament actually says you cannot believe for someone else.  Therefore western culture evolved to independent choice with a respect to the 10 commandment laws.

Democracy gets along much better with independent christian-like thought processes.  Muslim thought processes are about obeying the rules set down by others and being deferential to the leader who is often ruling at the discretion of the religious leadership. It is hard for people that have been raised for centuries to do what they are told to now act independently.  This will happen over time but the birthing process is painful.

I don’t think that Islam and democracy are 100% at odds but I do believe that the separation of state must be allowed. The religious community cannot dictate to the political community. The reverse of this is true. One person cannot believe for another therefore laws and processes that dictate belief are ultimately doomed to failure.

 

Capital gains should be counted as wages–to a point

Capital gains should be counted as wages–to a point

By | | Comments 0 Comment

warren.buffet.secretary.caption_picIf you pay attention to the news, you have heard Warren Buffet claim that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. This pronouncement has prompted President Barack Hussein Obama to propose new taxes, affectionately nicknamed “Buffet taxes” or the “Buffet Rule.”

The “Buffet Rule” is going to get a lot of press attention in the coming weeks and it will get more attention if Mitt Romney successfully wins the nomination of the Republican Party.

MittRomneyProfilePicAt this writing, Mitt Romney is running for the Republican nomination and at some time he is probably going to have to divulge his finances more fully than he has already. Mr. Romney doesn’t appear to have a wage-earning job, therefore, his daily spending on clothes, food, mortgage, and hair-styling products comes from interest, capital gains, or dividend income from his earned fortune. It appears that Mr. Romney paid less than 15% on his income where a wage earner would pay a much higher rate.

A lot of people say that the tax code is broken and I agree. Some propose a flat tax rate for all income, but that is probably a political hot potato. A flat-tax is also a little repressive as low wage earners probably shouldn’t have the same tax rate as the more affluent.

In America, everyone can have an opinion. So here is my suggestion:

  • All Americans should pay a minimum of 1% of their income in Federal taxes.  The approximately 46% of Americans who pay no taxes needs to stop. If everyone pays at least a little bit, then they all are part of the general sharing of the load. Everyone will be a bit more invested in making sure that the spending is appropriate.
  • All income, regardless of source, needs to be considered wage income for the first $500,000. The top line of your income for federal taxes needs to include all wages that come from your W2 or 1099. If that number is less than $500K, then include dividend and capital gains income up to $500K.  Why did I choose $500K? It seems like a fair number. I could make an argument that it should be up to $1M, but I cannot make a logical argument that it is less than $300K. Here is my logic:
    • Everyone has daily expenses that need to be paid. For most Americans, these expenses are covered with our income from our job. The expenses are things such as food, clothes, house and car payments, cable TV, the occasional movie and dinner out, and (since Mitt’s expenses in this area are likely quite high) hair care products.
    • Money that covers these regular expenses comes from wages for all but the most affluent Americans.
    • It is not appropriate that those that are very wealthy and do not make a wage should have the source of funds for expenses categorized as anything but wages. Even if they don’t make a wage and received the money from dividends or interest, a portion of that income is used for exactly the same thing as the minimum wage earner. Therefore, we need to classify it as a wage since that is what it is replacing.
  • FICA is currently capped at first $110,100 of income. This needs to change.  The upper cap needs to be on all wages as I have described in the previous bullet. This is fair, as well. All wages should be subjected to FICA tax. This would likely fix the problem of Social Security being underfunded for quite some time. Yes, I think that Social Security should be eliminated, but that isn’t going to happen either.

The great thing about a blog is that I can rant. There is little chance that any of the above will ever be enacted. It was fun to argue the point though and I hope that it was fun for you to read.

The images in this post are assumed to be in the public domain. I have linked to the sites where I found them. I do not own the copyright for these images.

Should America vote online?

Should America vote online?

By | | Comments 1 comment

Today is election day in much of the US.  It isn’t a Presidential Election so many people won’t vote. Most municipalities will have a few referendums, some school board officials, and maybe a judge or city councilman on the ballot.  Since it is not a big election with a lot of TV time, the turnout was relatively low and so conversations start to theorize about voting online.

The argument goes that I can buy many things if not everything that I need online, why can’t I vote? This is much the argument that CNN made today. Unfortunately one cannot make this comparison and even if that comparison was valid, we still shouldn’t do it.

  1. Ecommerce is not as safe as you think it is.
  2. It is inherently unfair to the poor.

Ecommerce is not as safe as you think it is

In the case of ecommerce there is a level of risk that is taken by the seller, bank, and user.  That risk is managed but is far from perfect.  It also requires a fairly high level of personal data to be shared and yet is still not foolproof.  The estimated fraud rate is at 0.9% which is far higher than is allowed in voter counting error!  In addition, stores reject over 2% of all transactions.

In most municipalities, a recount can be justified if the race is within one percent.  If we would implement a system based on our existing ecommerce technologies that would force a recount if the vote was within 4 or 5% (1% for too close, 0.9% for fraud, 2.5% for obvious fraud).  Would you accept it if the voting system said it doesn’t believe that this you are a valid voter so it is rejecting it and you will now need to go to your voting booth even though it is 5:45PM.  You would almost certainly sign the petition of your candidate saying that you were denied the right to vote even though you were legitimate and therefore the votes should be recounted or invalidated.

Couple this with the safety and honesty of voting today. In the US, a voter can be harassed and beaten up before and after they enter the polls but once they walk into the building they are very safe.  Unless they specifically ask for assistance, they have no one looking over their shoulder. Even when they ask for assistance the process is usually two people of opposite parties help the individual to insure no undue influence is happening.  Contrast that to the activist preacher that has coffee and cookies at his house and invites all of his members to come over and use his computer to vote and is right there to help you with all of the intricacies including making sure you push the right radio buttons.

With ecommerce fraud, there is the transfer of goods, services, or money to the criminal.  This means that there are clues as to that criminal’s identity and potentially over time the police can catch that criminal.  With internet voting, it happens once or maybe twice per year and the transfer of wealth is extremely hard to connect.

The ecommerce systems also requires a huge amount of personal data that consumers are willing to share with their bank and their store but NOT their government.  Can you imagine the outcries if you were required to have a credit card or a bank account and a phone number to vote!  In the process of checking your credit card, the processing company can check to see if you are paying your bills – no way the government is going to get that right.

Until we allow a national identification system with biometrics, there really can be no online voting and you shouldn’t trust it if it was there.

It is inherently unfair to the poor

The bigger issue is that it is heavily biased to the rich and likely even the white voters. We already have complaints that internet access is difficult for poor and colored people (Jesse Jackson likes to talk about this in his speeches).

Without being too racist or too broadly generalized, rich white people that can afford to have lots of computers in their homes (1 plus for every adult for sure) could easily vote without having to brave the storms, ice, and cold.  It would almost certainly give them nearly 100% participation and they normally vote Republican or at least are more likely to vote Republican.

But what about the working stiff that is barely making minimum wage and therefore cannot afford to own a couple computers with high speed internet.  Let him brave the snow and ice. He is poor and generally speaking is a Democrat so make him go to the voting booth in the back of some school or church, wait in line, and fill out the manual forms that are reserved for the poor people.  The really travesty is that since there will be less rich people at the polls then we don’t need so many of those expensive polling machines and booths and we can have fewer polling locations. Those poor people can take the bus farther to vote.

So even when it is technically possible to vote online, until we can make the access to that voting infrastructure equal we shouldn’t do it. Thurgood Marshall taught us that “separate but equal” is never possible. We cannot make it easier to vote for the wealthy than it is for the poor. It probably already is slanted this way with access to transportation and more flexible work hours but at least all people, rich or poor, need to trudge to the same voting location to make their voice heard.

Dominion preachers are not preaching Christian teachings

Dominion preachers are not preaching Christian teachings

By | | Comments 2 comments

Dominionist teachings have been in the news quite often lately. The Houston based meeting, The Response, brought quite a bit of attention to this issue. Various cable TV commentators such as Matthews and Maddow ran stories on the more extreme preachers that are proponents of dominionism. They also tried to tie Republican nomination candidate, Rick Perry, to these aggressive preachings (Maddow’s clip is even called, “Rick Perry, conduit to radical Christian overthrow of US government?”).

I have no idea if Rick Perry is a dominionist. I sincerely hope not since, as you will see in this article, this is a false teaching. If Mr. Perry’s goal is to govern the US as a theocracy where punishment is delivered due to lack of adherence to biblical teachings then he would be failing to follow the teachings of Jesus. I have tried to find evidence that Gov. Perry is dominionist by his actions as Governor or scripted speeches (I try to avoid non-scripted off comments in political analysis as these are frequently misspoken, mistakes of wording, or simply out of context comments). As of this writing, while I am not sure that Gov. Perry is qualified to be the President of the United States, I find no evidence of dominionism aside from some people that are dominionists were at a religious gathering that he helped kick-start.

First, what is dominionism? It isn’t the worship of dominion. Well, actually, it is kind of close to that. According to the best definition that I can find (Wikipedia) it is:

“the tendency among some politically active conservative Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States. It is also known as subjectionism. The goal is either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.”

The key point of this definition is the concept of a nation governed by Christian understanding of Biblical Law.

I will dig into the concept of Biblical Law in a bit but first a bit of understanding to the viewpoint. In a world where several influential nations are governed by Islamic Law (or Sharia), it is not surprising that in a nation that has a large population of another religion (Christianity) for those people to feel threatened and therefore try to entrench. Also, in times of hardship, it is easy to think back on younger days when everything is remembered (or rumored) to be wonderful and blame the changes in religion for the hardship. I don’t want to dismiss the frustrations of many people that feel that our government could be more ethical or more fair and think that if there was more religious observation in the world, that could be a good thing. However, the ends doesn’t justify the means – a government or a empowered constituency cannot make others be Christians. It just doesn’t work that way. …

Read More Read More

Time to talk about flat rate taxing

Time to talk about flat rate taxing

By | | Comments 1 comment

Now that it appears that the Democrats and Republicans agree on how to increase our US deficit by $500B-$1T, it is time to talk about throwing out the old tax code. With the passing of the unemployment extension, the Bush tax cuts and other deficit growing measures, we have succeeded in making our tax code even more unwieldy and unfair.

Eliminate the loopholes and eliminate the tiered system. Make it fair and make it easy.  Here is a great video explaining one way that this might be possible.

Site info