Tag: Congress

There is no fourth branch of the federal government

There is no fourth branch of the federal government

The US Constitution defines three separate (and supposedly equal) branches of government:

  • Executive
  • Legislative
  • Judicial

Unfortunately, today we have a fourth branch of government:

  • Administrative (or maybe called the Regulatory branch)

How did this happen?

The founders probably could not have anticipated this happening. In the day and age of the writing of the US Constitution, it was not anticipated that regulations would need to be created that were so specific that the Congressmen themselves could not write the words (or at least with the help of some assistants).

Read More Read More

Why should a teenager in America be afraid of a Congresswoman?

Why should a teenager in America be afraid of a Congresswoman?

Some people are very nice and helpful to others…and some people are not. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez seems to be firmly in the latter camp.

Check out this interaction on Twitter. Why in the world should this young man be afraid of Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez? Isn’t she an elected member of Congress that is charged with the responsibility to serve America and protect its Constitution?

Here is the young man’s response.

And then

For me, maybe Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez should leave Congress and CJ Pearson should replace her.

I have not seen a statement from the Congresswoman as to why she should be feared by this young man. Is it because CJ Pearson appears to be African American (at least according to his Twitter image)? Is she racist? Or, is it because he is a male? Or, is it because he is young? Or, is it because he appears to be a conservative? Or, is it a combination of all four, a young, male, conservative African American?

Regardless, the oath of office of a Congressperson would mean that no citizen of the US should ever fear an elected official.

So if the Congresswoman is that power-hungry then maybe we should all be afraid.

A tax plan that would promote economic growth

A tax plan that would promote economic growth

Both halves of Congress are trying to create a more fair tax plan that will promote growth and simplify the code. I am skeptical that anything will get done though as it appears that this Congress is incapable of doing anything significant.

Since Congress will almost certainly fail, I thought I would put my suggestion on the table. As I analyze it, it is probably the most likely plan that I have ever seen to encourage employment growth.

The first step is to not change anything for individuals except to increase the amount of money saved in long-term savings without tax penalty. This should be doubled from its present rate. The government is in the retirement business, and it isn’t doing a sufficient job of managing it. The government needs to get out of the retirement business because the government can rarely do something well. Social Security is a broken plan, and we all know it – we just need to transition out of the retirement business slowly so that we do not screw up the American workers that depend on Social Security.

Currently, the government taxes employees directly via the FICA tax on each dollar earned. The government increases this tax by assessing the employer an equal amount. This direct tax exceeds 15% and is used to fund Social Security. While it is essential to finance Social Security for today’s seniors, we need to get away from this transfer of cash from working Americans to retired Americans. We need to make it financially affordable for working Americans to save for retirement so that they can live off of their own money and not their children’s and grandchildren’s money. The fact that Social Security will be insolvent between 2025 and 2034 (depending on analyst assumptions) points to the fact that the system is systematically flawed. I have ranted on this in the past.

The biggest change in the tax plan is to change the way we tax our employers. Not just big companies but every employer – be they big or small. We need to reward companies for investing in their business and investing in their employees.

Currently, the corporate tax rate is around 35%. This tax burden is massive. Unfortunately, it is unevenly allocated and most directly hurts companies based in the US, primarily employs US workers, and principally sells to US customers. This is preposterous! Why is the federal government trying to hurt the best companies, but reward those companies that have substantial foreign investments?

My suggestion is to eliminate all tax loopholes in the corporate plan except for the ones that I itemize here. Yes, that means that Congress will never go along with me since every special interest lobbyist will argue and bribe vehemently to fight my simple and easy ideas. Here are the highlights of the plan:

  • Corporate income tax is 35% for all income.
  • Income taxed in a foreign country returned to the US corporate parent is the difference between the original tax paid and 35%. This balance of tax is still available for the following discounts (as well as all US based income).
  • For every dollar that is paid to train employees plus one additional dollar, there is no US corporate tax. Corporations should be encouraged to train their employees so that money shouldn’t be taxed and additionally they should be rewarded by claiming 200% of that investment up to 35% of corporate income. This reduction in taxes is good for the company, great for the employees, and magnificent for the US economy. In the 21st century, only smart workers are valuable, and we need to increase that pool of people.
  • Today, wages and benefits to employees are already written off and not counted toward income. This expense will remain the same (as with all business expenses) however if the employer hires more workers in the US and its territories from the previous year then the company should be rewarded. The company will be able to write off that new employee’s wages plus an additional 300% up to 35% of corporate income. Please note that this is ONLY for the growth of full-time employees from the previous year to the current year. The employer doesn’t get to deduct this cost for perpetuity but only for the first year. Also, note that this doesn’t allow the employer to increase foreign-based workers, the workers have to be reporting to work in the US and its territories.
  • Any improvements in facilities are already written off, and that will continue. However, this will be accelerated in my plan as the company can write off 200% of all INCREASES in facilities, marketing costs, sales costs, etc. as long as they are spent in the US and up to the 35% cap that already exists. They will be able to write this off in the year that the expense occurs. Note that this is only for increases in those costs over the previous year. If the company doesn’t grow those costs, then it is simply held at the standard 35% deduction, but if the company increases those investments in US-based assets, then the company can accelerate those year-over-year savings.

So how is this good for the US economy and the US worker? Simple, it is all about the economic growth, the growth of employment, and improving the lives of US workers. Companies that are unable to grow their business will not get this benefit, but companies that can employ more US-based people, create more US assets, and improve their ability to market to US-based customers will thrive. It puts America first in our corporate tax policy. It rewards companies that invest in America and it doesn’t help any company that chooses to invest internationally at the expense of America.

This plan will accelerate the return of money from foreign lands back to the US. This plan will encourage companies to hire more US-based workers and will significantly increase the quality of life of Americans.

This isn’t a giveaway to the corporations or a supply-side “hope for the trickle-down plan.” It only rewards companies that truly make the trickle-down (in the form of a gusher rather than a trickle) happen. No company will be able to take advantage of this plan unless they truly change that “trickle” to a firehose of economic prosperity.

This plan will never pass. Too many lobbyists will be hurt. Too many special interest groups will not have their interest served. However, this is one plan that would almost guarantee massive prosperity for the American middle class and therefore massively increased tax revenue for the Federal government.

It just makes sense which is why it will never be adopted by Congress. Simple things that make sense never seem to get done by Washington DC.

Photo by 401(K) 2013

First thoughts on the day after election

First thoughts on the day after election

The massive mid-term election of 2010 is now over. My phone won’t ring 25 times today with some computer imploring me to vote for one candidate over another. The signs that are all along the streets in my town can come down (hopefully the candidates come out and clean up their mess). Life can now go back to some sort of normal.

The Republicans evidently picked up approximately 60 seats in the House of Representatives. They also made major increases in the Senate and that house appears to be split nearly 50/50 (the exact count probably won’t be known for a couple days as Alaska will probably take a while to count due to the write-in candidate).

What does this election mean? Does it mean that the 2-year era of liberalism is over? Does it mean that conservatism is the rule of the day? Does it mean that Barack Hussein Obama will lose in 2 years? Does it mean that the Republicans have a mandate to go ultra-conservative? Does it mean that the poor and down-trodden will need to look for their medicine in the trash cans of the homes of the wealthy? Does it mean that I have to give up drinking coffee and now drink tea?

What I am 100% confident in is that it doesn’t mean any of the above! It doesn’t mean that BHO is done. It doesn’t mean that all of healthcare should just go to the wealthiest. It doesn’t mean that we should now savage the environment.

I don’t think that the newly elected Republicans have a mandate at all except for the mandate to do a good job and figure out the best way to solve each individual problem regardless of party direction.

I think it means that Americans want a government that works. We want it to work rather slowly and deliberately. We want politicians that don’t act like politicians but rather act like leaders. We want compromise to be the rule of the day. We want our leaders to read, understand, and thoughtfully debate the bills that are before them. We don’t want to find out about what is in the bill after it is turned into law – we want our leaders to know what is in the bill before they make it a law.

We don’t want stagnation. If Boehner drives the government to a stall the way that Gingrich did, that would be a mistake.

Most of all, I think Americans don’t want to deal with the federal government. We don’t want our lives to be tied up with governing. Life is hard enough with births, jobs, bills, lousy bosses, teenagers, sickness, and death – we don’t want to worry about the feds as well. I think most Americans would be perfectly happy if government would just get out of our lives with the exception of keeping us safe, making sure the infrastructure works, and helping out with the truly disadvantaged. We will pay a reasonable tax for that as long as we think it is well managed.

I raise my coffee cup in a salute to the Tea Party activists for energizing America in making their point. That point, I believe, is that we want our legislators to pay attention to us, don’t tax us to death, and spend what you need but make sure what you buy is needed. 2 years ago, pundits were saying that the Republican party was dead, now the pundits need to say, “Listen to your constituents if you want to keep your job.” 

There is no such thing as a mandate to do radical things. Extremism is a bad position no matter which side of the scale you are on.

If the grown men and women in the federal government can’t get along better than a bunch of nursery school kids, then we will take away their ball and send a new bunch of children to Washington in 2 years.

Is this a Constitutional crisis of epic proportions?

Is this a Constitutional crisis of epic proportions?

I don’t know about you but I remember my federal government classes in high school (and grade school for that matter).  I even remember a cute little commercial by School House Rocks talking about how a bill becomes a law. Under the U.S. Constitution a bill has to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely “deem” that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Barack Hussein Obama to sign anyway.

Under the “reconciliation” process, the House is supposed to approve the Senate’s Christmas Eve bill and then use “sidecar” amendments to fix the things it doesn’t like. Those amendments would then go to the Senate under rules that would let Democrats pass them while avoiding the ordinary 60-vote threshold for passing major legislation. This alone is an abuse of traditional Senate process but is not truly unconstitutional as it is only Senate “rules” and not constitutional law.

But Pelosi fears she lacks the votes in the House to pass an identical Senate bill, even with the promise of these reconciliation fixes. House Members hate the thought of going on record voting for Harry Reid’s Cornhusker kickback and other special-interest bribes that Reid added to get this mess through the Senate, as well as the new tax on high-cost insurance plans that Big Labor hates.

So at the request of Pelosi, New York Democrat Louise Slaughter, the chair of the House Rules Committee, may insert what’s known as a “self-executing rule.”  Under this procedural ruse, the House would then vote only once on the reconciliation corrections, but not on the underlying Senate bill. If those reconciliation corrections pass, the self-executing rule would say that the Senate bill is presumptively approved by the House—even without a formal up-or-down vote on the actual words of the Senate bill.

Democrats would then send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature even as they claimed to oppose the same Senate bill. They would be declaring themselves to be for and against the Senate bill in the same vote. Even John Kerry never went that far with his Iraq war flip-flops!

This two-votes-in-one gambit is a brazen affront to the plain language of the Constitution, which is intended to require democratic accountability. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says that in order for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate.” This is why the House and Senate typically have a conference committee to work out differences in what each body passes.

If Congress can now decide that the House can vote for one bill and the Senate can vote for another, and the final result can be some arbitrary hybrid, then we have abandoned one of Madison’s core checks and balances. As long as one party is in power in both houses and the Executive branch then legislation can simply be rammed through by the party leadership.

We have entered a political wonderland, where the rules are whatever Democrats say they are. Mrs. Pelosi and the White House are resorting to these abuses because their bill is so unpopular that a majority even of their own party doesn’t want to vote for it. Fence-sitting Members are being threatened with primary challengers, a withdrawal of union support and of course ostracism.

Democrats are, literally, consuming their own majority for the sake of imposing new taxes, regulations and entitlements that the public has roundly rejected but that they believe will be the crowning achievement of the welfare state. They are also leaving behind a procedural bloody trail that will fuel public fury and make such a vast change of law seem illegitimate to millions of Americans.

The concoction has become so toxic that even Mrs. Pelosi isn’t bothering to defend the merits anymore, saying instead last week that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Or rather, “deeming” to have passed it.

Healthcare for illegals

Healthcare for illegals

First, let me be clear, I think that Rep. Wilson of South Carolina should be censured for his outburst while President Barack Hussein Obama was speaking in a joint session of Congress. He reminds of irresponsible brats such as Kanye West. Public outbursts while the President is speaking are simply unacceptable in any format and definitely not allowed in a joint session of Congress.

I do think that it is interesting that the rude outburst occurred due to a statement from BHO regarding healthcare for illegal aliens. There is a reasonable argument that BHO, while perhaps not lying, was not telling the complete truth. Check out this interesting video below and then read the rest of my comments.

 

Now I see that the Democrats in the Senate would like to toughen up the loopholes to prevent illegal aliens from getting taxpayer supplied insurance. I don’t get it, BHO says that this can’t happen but now a few days later there is an amendment that prevents this thing that can’t happen.  Makes me think that BHO was bending the truth a bit and probably knew it.

Of course the solution that the Senate is currently thinking about is to use Social Security numbers.  Seems reasonable.  SS numbers have become the defacto national identity card that we need. I have ranted on this before, if we would just have national identity cards then we would control much of the illegal problem that we have.

Below are a few clips from a recent article in the Wall Street Journal:

A key Democratic senator said Friday that lawmakers planned to toughen provisions in a health bill to prevent illegal immigrants from enjoying benefits, in a Democratic response to concerns by some Republicans.

Members of the Senate Finance Committee met Friday, and Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) said they wanted to use Social Security numbers to ensure that illegal immigrants weren’t eligible for subsidies envisioned as part of a plan to expand health coverage.

President Obama’s health-reform proposal has sparked heated debate over whether the plan benefits illegal immigrants, as demonstrated by Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie” outburst. WSJ’s Elizabeth Williamson breaks down the details of the proposed new government-run insurance plan.

Still up in the air is whether illegal immigrants would be banned from participating in federally regulated insurance “exchanges” under Democrats’ health bills, even if the immigrants were willing to use their own money to buy policies. On Friday, a coalition of three dozen faith-based groups wrote to Congress to express anger at the proposed ban.