I have been giving some though to the allegations against Roy Moore.
Even before these allegations were made, I already believed Roy Moore is one of the few politicians around even less qualified for office than Donald Trump. Unlike Trump, Roy Moore has already been removed from office for misconduct not once, but twice. His misconduct was not some trivial nonsense not related to his job – he was removed because he refused to follow orders from higher courts. When any government official refuses to obey lawful court orders, that’s bad enough. But Moore was a Justice on the State Supreme Court whose refusal to follow orders disrespected the very office he held, and that shows a lack of character and integrity.
Now, I do not for one minute think the Washington Post made these allegations up in an effort to discredit the judge. Their investigation was very thorough. They interviewed over 30 people in order to corroborate the allegations. They were very transparent and complete in their reporting. Regardless of whether you agree with their editorial board on its opinions, the news department at the Post is completely separate from the editorial board, and has a stellar reputation for its integrity and professionalism that runs back many decades.
I also believe the women who made these allegations. They have nothing to gain by coming forward at this time. Their stories are believable, and the dates and times match up with verified events. What makes these women even more believable is that their allegations do not include actual rape or forced sexual acts other than one attempt to get the girl to touch his underwear. If one were to make these stories up, the more lurid and outrageous the behavior, the greater the slander would be.
But here is where I have some issues:
In this country, we are innocent until proven guilty. Since the statute of limitations has long since run out on all of these allegations, there will be no criminal charges, and no trial to prove his guilt.
I realize that we are not talking about legal prosecutions. We are talking about public opinion and an upcoming election. But I would still like to know the whole story before passing judgement.
The timing of these allegations immediately arouses some suspicion. After all, it’s been 40 years. Why now? It’s easy to think that these women came forward because of a political agenda, but I doubt that. At least one of them appears to be Republican and voted for Trump in the past election. A more credible explanation for the timing is that it seems to coincide with the current changing of attitudes toward sexual harassment we are seeing with the release of allegations against other public figures in the past few weeks.
There is another point to consider. Unlike the allegations against Weinstein, Spacey, Trump, C.K., and others whose sexual improprieties were much more recent and continued until the allegations were made public, all of the allegations against Moore allegedly occurred 40 years ago, and there are no allegations of his behaving inappropriately (sexually) since that time. By all accounts, he has been happily married and faithful for over 35 years.
However, he was no kid when these acts allegedly happened. He was 30 years old, and an attorney. He definitely should have known better.
But how appropriate is it to judge and punish someone for alleged bad acts that occurred forty years ago, but has led an exemplary life since that time? There is a reason we have statutes of limitations on almost all crimes except murder. Had any of these women come forward back then, he could have been properly tried, convicted, punished, and given a chance to rebuild his life.
In this case, however, it may indeed be appropriate to consider these allegations. For, if they are true, we are not talking about a mistake or a lapse in judgement. We are talking about a man in a position of power taking sexual advantage of children. This shows a complete lack of character. While you can atone for bad acts and not repeat them, you cannot change your character; you can only mask it. And let’s not forget it was the children’s fear of his power over them that prevented them from coming forward at the time.
I don’t live in Alabama, and I won’t be voting in that election. The voters of Alabama will have to make up their own minds as whether to believe the women or believe Judge Moore. It may come down to a question of character, and, as I stated at the beginning of this post, Judge Moore already demonstrated on at least two occasions that he is not a man of character and integrity.
Saturday, November 11, 2017
Monday, November 6, 2017
Use Common Sense, People: Demand Universal Background Checks
I thank God that a good and decent citizen was armed and willing to take on that madman in Texas yesterday. If he had not intervened, who knows how many more people would have died? We are blessed to live in a free country. But freedom is not free. We have the right and the duty to defend ourselves, and I’ll be damned if I will allow any politician to ever force me into a position where I have to take a knife to a gunfight. Don’t ever doubt my support for the Second Amendment.
But I also believe in common sense gun control laws. Background checks must be universal and without exception. There should be a reasonable waiting period before you can take possession of a gun. Last month, I stated this on my Facebook page and asked for comments from anybody who disagreed. None did. Even the NRA once supported universal background checks.
In 1999, Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, stated to a Congressional Panel, “We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone.”
Supporting background checks does not mean you don’t support the Second Amendment. Supporting background checks does not mean you want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Background checks cannot take guns away in any event since they are done before you even get the weapon.
Last month, the Las Vegas shooter used bump-stocks in his shooting spree, which allowed him to kill many more people. Bump-stocks are legal because of a loophole in the law outlawing automatic weapons. This could have been fixed by a one-page bill that could have been passed quickly and easily by Congress. Several such bills were introduced.
But Paul Ryan blocked them. His reason? “This is better handled at the regulatory level.” What a crock! Isn’t this one of the same politicians who is constantly complaining about over-regulation and government bureaucracy? He is just scared to do the right thing and has taken the coward’s way out by trying to pass the buck.
What even worse, The Trump Administration has actually WEAKENED laws already on the books. Earlier this year they REMOVED a requirement that the SSA coordinate with law enforcement to insure that those with disqualifying mental health issues would be flagged when a background check was performed.
We ALL need to take action.
Call or write your congressman.
Call or write the White House.
Call or write the NRA.
Now, anybody can complain about what is not working, but few have any answers.
But I do have an IDEA. Here is what I would like to see implemented:
First, let’s distinguish between the needs of most gun owners and the needs of gun enthusiasts.
I would propose that a background check be required before any one is allowed to purchase or possess a firearm. That would not only include gun shows, but private transactions as well, even including gifts from family members and friends. No exceptions. Second, I would enact a 30-day waiting period before anyone could take possession of a firearm. The 30-day waiting period could be waived by a judge if circumstances warranted. Once you pass a background check and wait 30 days, you can purchase a firearm, but not an assault rifle or military-grade weapon. You would also be limited to four guns per year.
Now, for the gun enthusiasts and collectors, I would propose a second program. There would be a National Permit and would replace state concealed weapon permits. To get the permit, you would have to pass a much more thorough background check with stricter requirements, take a gun safety course, and carry liability insurance. But, once you have the permit, you could purchase a gun without any waiting period, and the merchant would only have to make a quick call to verify that the permit is still valid. Permit holders could also take an extended safety course and would be allowed to purchase assault military-grade weapons, and would not be limited to four guns per year. These National Permits be valid nationwide and would permit holders to carry concealed weapons wherever concealed weapons are allowed to be carried in each state. (States would still have to right to limit locations where they could be carried.)
All the background checks would be done through a single process, and all law enforcement agencies and courts would be required to report arrests and convictions to this single point. THIS IS NOT THAT HARD TO DO. Private companies that provide background checks to employers already do this on their own.
Now, before people start writing their objections, read the remarks below:
I know we will never completely prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. But every time we do prevent one, that means lives have been potentially saved.
I also realize that the only time we seem to talk about gun control is after one of these mass shootings. It’s ironic that, in most cases, gun control laws probably would not stop them. These madman are crazy, but usually not stupid. They have the determination, time, and are willing to spent the effort to get guns illegally. They know they are probably going to die during the act, so they are not worried about breaking any laws. (In yesterday’s case, a better background system might have prevented this tragedy. This was a person who should never have passed a check.)
Background checks will not stop people who have no criminal past or history of mental illness. But Universal Background checks will prevent common criminals from easily obtaining access. They have already stopped over 3 million of them. If we close the loopholes, we could stop many more.
Waiting Periods will allow enraged persons time to cool down, and possibly allow deranged people more time to be noticed and helped by those around them. A 30 day waiting period for the average person is not unreasonable. If you are in a situation where you need a gun quicker than that, you probably are in a situation where you need more help than a gun would provide. If you have time to get to a gun store, you have time to get to take actions that will not require the immediate use of a gun.
But I also believe in common sense gun control laws. Background checks must be universal and without exception. There should be a reasonable waiting period before you can take possession of a gun. Last month, I stated this on my Facebook page and asked for comments from anybody who disagreed. None did. Even the NRA once supported universal background checks.
In 1999, Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, stated to a Congressional Panel, “We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone.”
Supporting background checks does not mean you don’t support the Second Amendment. Supporting background checks does not mean you want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Background checks cannot take guns away in any event since they are done before you even get the weapon.
Last month, the Las Vegas shooter used bump-stocks in his shooting spree, which allowed him to kill many more people. Bump-stocks are legal because of a loophole in the law outlawing automatic weapons. This could have been fixed by a one-page bill that could have been passed quickly and easily by Congress. Several such bills were introduced.
But Paul Ryan blocked them. His reason? “This is better handled at the regulatory level.” What a crock! Isn’t this one of the same politicians who is constantly complaining about over-regulation and government bureaucracy? He is just scared to do the right thing and has taken the coward’s way out by trying to pass the buck.
What even worse, The Trump Administration has actually WEAKENED laws already on the books. Earlier this year they REMOVED a requirement that the SSA coordinate with law enforcement to insure that those with disqualifying mental health issues would be flagged when a background check was performed.
We ALL need to take action.
Call or write your congressman.
Call or write the White House.
Call or write the NRA.
Now, anybody can complain about what is not working, but few have any answers.
But I do have an IDEA. Here is what I would like to see implemented:
First, let’s distinguish between the needs of most gun owners and the needs of gun enthusiasts.
I would propose that a background check be required before any one is allowed to purchase or possess a firearm. That would not only include gun shows, but private transactions as well, even including gifts from family members and friends. No exceptions. Second, I would enact a 30-day waiting period before anyone could take possession of a firearm. The 30-day waiting period could be waived by a judge if circumstances warranted. Once you pass a background check and wait 30 days, you can purchase a firearm, but not an assault rifle or military-grade weapon. You would also be limited to four guns per year.
Now, for the gun enthusiasts and collectors, I would propose a second program. There would be a National Permit and would replace state concealed weapon permits. To get the permit, you would have to pass a much more thorough background check with stricter requirements, take a gun safety course, and carry liability insurance. But, once you have the permit, you could purchase a gun without any waiting period, and the merchant would only have to make a quick call to verify that the permit is still valid. Permit holders could also take an extended safety course and would be allowed to purchase assault military-grade weapons, and would not be limited to four guns per year. These National Permits be valid nationwide and would permit holders to carry concealed weapons wherever concealed weapons are allowed to be carried in each state. (States would still have to right to limit locations where they could be carried.)
All the background checks would be done through a single process, and all law enforcement agencies and courts would be required to report arrests and convictions to this single point. THIS IS NOT THAT HARD TO DO. Private companies that provide background checks to employers already do this on their own.
Now, before people start writing their objections, read the remarks below:
I know we will never completely prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. But every time we do prevent one, that means lives have been potentially saved.
I also realize that the only time we seem to talk about gun control is after one of these mass shootings. It’s ironic that, in most cases, gun control laws probably would not stop them. These madman are crazy, but usually not stupid. They have the determination, time, and are willing to spent the effort to get guns illegally. They know they are probably going to die during the act, so they are not worried about breaking any laws. (In yesterday’s case, a better background system might have prevented this tragedy. This was a person who should never have passed a check.)
Background checks will not stop people who have no criminal past or history of mental illness. But Universal Background checks will prevent common criminals from easily obtaining access. They have already stopped over 3 million of them. If we close the loopholes, we could stop many more.
Waiting Periods will allow enraged persons time to cool down, and possibly allow deranged people more time to be noticed and helped by those around them. A 30 day waiting period for the average person is not unreasonable. If you are in a situation where you need a gun quicker than that, you probably are in a situation where you need more help than a gun would provide. If you have time to get to a gun store, you have time to get to take actions that will not require the immediate use of a gun.
Thursday, November 2, 2017
The Great GOP Tax Cut Scheme of 2017
It looks like Trump’s tax scheme, if passed into law, will save me a bunch of money next year!
But what is good for me is not always good for the country.
I am a true Republican, and I am a fiscal conservative. But being a conservative does NOT mean that we simply want to cut taxes willy-nilly. A conservative is a good steward of the public’s money, and is fiscally responsible, ensuring all funds spend are necessary and efficiently used. But it is NOT fiscally responsible to cut taxes to the point that the deficit skyrockets. It is NOT fiscally responsible to cut taxes to the point that essential services must be cut back.
Our leaders have a fiduciary duty to put the good of the country over their own personal wants and needs, and today the GOP has failed this test miserably. In fact, this tax cut scheme fails the smell test in almost every way.
The GOP is pushing this scheme for two reasons, both of which are self-serving and bad for America:
(1) The GOP has failed to pass any major legislation this year, and is desperate to be able to claim to have done something, regardless of whether it helps the average American or not, and
(2) It delivers huge tax cuts to the Trump family, as well as the wealthy donors who bought and paid for the GOP politicians.
Even worse, the GOP is attempting to push this scheme through quickly before people figure it out.
They are doing this by selling us LIES.
LIE #1: Donald Trump stated that this plan would NOT benefit him. But the elimination of the Estate tax will save his family over $1 BILLION dollars. That sounds like a benefit to me. This scheme also eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax. The purpose of this tax is to ensure that wealthy people cannot take advantage of so many loopholes that they would owe little or no taxes. It guarantees that they will pay SOME taxes based on actual cash flow. In 2005, Donald Trump would have personally paid NO taxes if it had not been for the Alternative Minimum Tax.
These two taxes only effect the wealthy. Estates under $5 million ($10 million for married couples) are not taxed at all. Eliminating these two taxes does NOTHING to help the middle class. It only helps the rich!
LIE #2: We need these tax cuts to get our economy going again. But our economy is ALREADY going great! It was been growing at a steady rate for over 100 months now; one of the longest sustained growth periods in our history. It has continued its growth since President Trump took office, maybe even growing a little faster! Indeed, Trump himself tweets often about how great the economy is and how low unemployment is, usually taking credit for all of it.
The GOP is saying that the economy is great except when talking about their tax scheme. Then, the economy sucks and needs a boost! Well, GOP, which is it?
We want a strong economy that grows steadily. What we do NOT want is a roller-coaster economy, also known as a boom-and-bust economy. When the economy is strong, the LAST thing you want to do is add additional stimulation. That is the time to RAISE taxes, not cut them. The time to cut taxes is when the economy is on a down-slide or in a recession.
But there is another, even more important reason NOT to cut taxes during a period of economic growth: If you cut taxes now, you lose the option to cut them later during the next recession.
LIE #3: Donald Trump promised to eliminate the deficit, reduce the debt, and improve our infrastructure. This tax scheme does just the opposite! Even conservative economists acknowledge that the deficit will skyrocket under this tax scheme. To improve our infrastructure, we need to raise MORE revenue, not cut taxes. That’s common sense 101! The same goes for eliminating the budget deficit. If you cannot balance the budget under a strong economy, how the hell do you propose to ever balance it? But Trump’s scheme that should not surprise us. He built his fortune by taking on huge debts, filing bankruptcy, and leaving other people holding the bag. But the U.S. is not a casino. We can’t declare bankruptcy. Every year the debt increases means we are leaving even more debt to our kids.
LIE #4: They are selling Trickle-down Economics. BUT TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK! It has been theorized that reducing taxes on the wealth will actually result in increased tax revenues, as the wealthy will take their tax savings and reinvest them into their businesses, resulting in increased revenues and increased taxes. Economist Arthur Laffer first proposed this back in the 1974, and Regain based his tax reform plan in the 80’s on it. This theory has been called “Trickle Down Economics” and “Voodoo Economics”.
But, time has shown that this theory DOES NOT WORK! Deficits soared after Reagan’s tax reforms. In fact, looking back over the past 40 years, whenever taxes have been raised, deficits are reduced, and deficits increase when taxes are cut. We have had only four years of surplus in the past 40 years, and three of those years were after Bill Clinton raised taxes. The last year we had a surplus was George W. Bush’s first year in office, before he had time to cut taxes. As soon as he did, it was back to deficits again!
So, if we want to increase spending on our infrastructure and reduce the deficit at the same time, taxes must be increased, not decreased.
There is also another, simpler, reason why this theory is flawed. Our government spends all of the taxes it collects. Voodoo Economics suggest that the economy will spurred by the wealth taking their tax savings and putting it back into the economy. But, our government is already doing that with those tax dollars! For example, if our government collects $100 in taxes, it spends that money, resulting in $100 being put back into the economy. But, if taxes are reduced to $80, the government only puts $80 back into the economy. The rich person who now has an extra $20 because of reduced taxes can choose to put some or all of that $20 back into the economy. If he puts ALL of it back into the economy, that means that the total amount put back into the economy is $100, which is exactly the same as it had been before the tax cuts. But, if the rich guy chooses not to put ALL of his tax savings back into the economy, the result is LESS money is put back into the economy than before the tax cuts!
LIE #5: It will reduce taxes for the middle class. Maybe. But a lot of middle-class folks will pay MORE under this tax scheme, especially families with multiple children.
LIE #6: Eliminating many of the tax deduction loopholes hurts the rich more than the poor. The fact is that many of the deductions, such as student loan interest, are phased out when incomes rise over $150,000 or so. Someone paying $7,500 in student loan interest making $75,000 per year can take a $7,500 deduction under the current tax law. Someone making $200,000 cannot take this deduction at all under the current tax law. Under Trump’s scheme, NO ONE can take the deduction. So who loses? Not the rich guy who never got the deduction in the first place. The one who loses is the guy who is struggling to pay student interest payments that are 10% of his total income!
LIE #7: We need to reduce taxes on businesses because we are the highest taxed nation in the world. Although the nominal tax rate is 35%, the effective tax rate, which is the actual rate business pay after all of their deductions and loopholes, is only 14% (22% when you add state, local and foreign taxes), which is among the lower rates in the industrialized world.
We need REAL TAX REFORM that will address our REAL ISSUES:
(1) We need to balance the budget.
(2) We need to improve our infrastructure.
(3) We need to address the growing gap between the rich and poor, and the shrinking middle class.
It’s time for the public to stand up and DEMAND that our leaders do what’s RIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY. Call your Representatives and Senators and make your voice heard. Tell them that they can listen to us now and do the right thing, or they will hear us loud and clear next November!
But what is good for me is not always good for the country.
I am a true Republican, and I am a fiscal conservative. But being a conservative does NOT mean that we simply want to cut taxes willy-nilly. A conservative is a good steward of the public’s money, and is fiscally responsible, ensuring all funds spend are necessary and efficiently used. But it is NOT fiscally responsible to cut taxes to the point that the deficit skyrockets. It is NOT fiscally responsible to cut taxes to the point that essential services must be cut back.
Our leaders have a fiduciary duty to put the good of the country over their own personal wants and needs, and today the GOP has failed this test miserably. In fact, this tax cut scheme fails the smell test in almost every way.
The GOP is pushing this scheme for two reasons, both of which are self-serving and bad for America:
(1) The GOP has failed to pass any major legislation this year, and is desperate to be able to claim to have done something, regardless of whether it helps the average American or not, and
(2) It delivers huge tax cuts to the Trump family, as well as the wealthy donors who bought and paid for the GOP politicians.
Even worse, the GOP is attempting to push this scheme through quickly before people figure it out.
They are doing this by selling us LIES.
LIE #1: Donald Trump stated that this plan would NOT benefit him. But the elimination of the Estate tax will save his family over $1 BILLION dollars. That sounds like a benefit to me. This scheme also eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax. The purpose of this tax is to ensure that wealthy people cannot take advantage of so many loopholes that they would owe little or no taxes. It guarantees that they will pay SOME taxes based on actual cash flow. In 2005, Donald Trump would have personally paid NO taxes if it had not been for the Alternative Minimum Tax.
These two taxes only effect the wealthy. Estates under $5 million ($10 million for married couples) are not taxed at all. Eliminating these two taxes does NOTHING to help the middle class. It only helps the rich!
LIE #2: We need these tax cuts to get our economy going again. But our economy is ALREADY going great! It was been growing at a steady rate for over 100 months now; one of the longest sustained growth periods in our history. It has continued its growth since President Trump took office, maybe even growing a little faster! Indeed, Trump himself tweets often about how great the economy is and how low unemployment is, usually taking credit for all of it.
The GOP is saying that the economy is great except when talking about their tax scheme. Then, the economy sucks and needs a boost! Well, GOP, which is it?
We want a strong economy that grows steadily. What we do NOT want is a roller-coaster economy, also known as a boom-and-bust economy. When the economy is strong, the LAST thing you want to do is add additional stimulation. That is the time to RAISE taxes, not cut them. The time to cut taxes is when the economy is on a down-slide or in a recession.
But there is another, even more important reason NOT to cut taxes during a period of economic growth: If you cut taxes now, you lose the option to cut them later during the next recession.
LIE #3: Donald Trump promised to eliminate the deficit, reduce the debt, and improve our infrastructure. This tax scheme does just the opposite! Even conservative economists acknowledge that the deficit will skyrocket under this tax scheme. To improve our infrastructure, we need to raise MORE revenue, not cut taxes. That’s common sense 101! The same goes for eliminating the budget deficit. If you cannot balance the budget under a strong economy, how the hell do you propose to ever balance it? But Trump’s scheme that should not surprise us. He built his fortune by taking on huge debts, filing bankruptcy, and leaving other people holding the bag. But the U.S. is not a casino. We can’t declare bankruptcy. Every year the debt increases means we are leaving even more debt to our kids.
LIE #4: They are selling Trickle-down Economics. BUT TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK! It has been theorized that reducing taxes on the wealth will actually result in increased tax revenues, as the wealthy will take their tax savings and reinvest them into their businesses, resulting in increased revenues and increased taxes. Economist Arthur Laffer first proposed this back in the 1974, and Regain based his tax reform plan in the 80’s on it. This theory has been called “Trickle Down Economics” and “Voodoo Economics”.
But, time has shown that this theory DOES NOT WORK! Deficits soared after Reagan’s tax reforms. In fact, looking back over the past 40 years, whenever taxes have been raised, deficits are reduced, and deficits increase when taxes are cut. We have had only four years of surplus in the past 40 years, and three of those years were after Bill Clinton raised taxes. The last year we had a surplus was George W. Bush’s first year in office, before he had time to cut taxes. As soon as he did, it was back to deficits again!
So, if we want to increase spending on our infrastructure and reduce the deficit at the same time, taxes must be increased, not decreased.
There is also another, simpler, reason why this theory is flawed. Our government spends all of the taxes it collects. Voodoo Economics suggest that the economy will spurred by the wealth taking their tax savings and putting it back into the economy. But, our government is already doing that with those tax dollars! For example, if our government collects $100 in taxes, it spends that money, resulting in $100 being put back into the economy. But, if taxes are reduced to $80, the government only puts $80 back into the economy. The rich person who now has an extra $20 because of reduced taxes can choose to put some or all of that $20 back into the economy. If he puts ALL of it back into the economy, that means that the total amount put back into the economy is $100, which is exactly the same as it had been before the tax cuts. But, if the rich guy chooses not to put ALL of his tax savings back into the economy, the result is LESS money is put back into the economy than before the tax cuts!
LIE #5: It will reduce taxes for the middle class. Maybe. But a lot of middle-class folks will pay MORE under this tax scheme, especially families with multiple children.
LIE #6: Eliminating many of the tax deduction loopholes hurts the rich more than the poor. The fact is that many of the deductions, such as student loan interest, are phased out when incomes rise over $150,000 or so. Someone paying $7,500 in student loan interest making $75,000 per year can take a $7,500 deduction under the current tax law. Someone making $200,000 cannot take this deduction at all under the current tax law. Under Trump’s scheme, NO ONE can take the deduction. So who loses? Not the rich guy who never got the deduction in the first place. The one who loses is the guy who is struggling to pay student interest payments that are 10% of his total income!
LIE #7: We need to reduce taxes on businesses because we are the highest taxed nation in the world. Although the nominal tax rate is 35%, the effective tax rate, which is the actual rate business pay after all of their deductions and loopholes, is only 14% (22% when you add state, local and foreign taxes), which is among the lower rates in the industrialized world.
We need REAL TAX REFORM that will address our REAL ISSUES:
(1) We need to balance the budget.
(2) We need to improve our infrastructure.
(3) We need to address the growing gap between the rich and poor, and the shrinking middle class.
It’s time for the public to stand up and DEMAND that our leaders do what’s RIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY. Call your Representatives and Senators and make your voice heard. Tell them that they can listen to us now and do the right thing, or they will hear us loud and clear next November!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)