Hey, Where’s Perry?
OK, first of all, only those with small children will get the “Hey, where’s Perry?” title. Check out your Disney kids programs and you’ll get the reference.
Second of all, I didn’t watch tonight’s Iowa debates, for three main reasons. One, it was my last night of vacation and my wife would kill me if we spent it sitting at home watching the debates. Two, it’s like a year and a half away from the presidential elections; I’ll catch plenty of other debates and see more about this election than I want to before it is all over. And three? Rick Perry hasn’t announced yet, so it doesn’t matter.
However, I have read a number of different accounts and opinions of this debate, and it was best boiled down to three main arguments (at least from what I have read, feel free to leave your own thoughts).
Pawlenty and Bachmann, first, got into it pretty good with Pawlenty pointing out that she didn’t have much experience in executive decision making (which is correct). From what I’ve ascertained he didn’t beat around the bush at all, and she made a point of not blinking and coming right back at him with his supposedly liberal voting record (though I’ve read more about Pawlenty, and know that a lot of that record has to do with finding middle ground on different issues, which is essential for Governors who want to run their state and not let it turn into a political fire fight). All in all, I don’t think either of them are going to win the primary, so it doesn’t matter much, though my ten cents is this: I probably agree with Bachmann on more points than Pawlenty, but recognize that a Governor who is willing to work with his opponents is a more valuable leader. So it’s a wash, for me at least.
The second main point was Newt’s general rant against the media. It irritates me, a bit, when big time Republicans (and arguably Newt is as big as it gets, being former Speaker of the House) fall into this trap. Yes, the media often times has a bias. Yes, it is generally harder to be a Republican than a Democrat (because we don’t, as a rule, hand out free crap by the bucket load). But, at this point, it is pointless to point it out, particularly in a Presidential debate (not to mention the fact it was a rant directed at Chris Wallace from Fox News). Newt needs to step aside and put his support and funding efforts behind somebody else who has a better chance.
The third was Santorum’s views on the Tenth Amendment (and, in this same “rant”, if one wants to call it that, his rant against Ron Paul). Santorum made his point that though he is all for state’s rights, he believes there are some areas where the national government has a responsibility to step in; the points he uses in the quote I read specifically used polygamy as an example (which I suppose could have been a back door way of slamming Romney’s religion, though I obviously don’t know for certain).
All in all, I didn’t miss much, and I’m sure neither did you.
However, the candidate that I have been keeping an eye on (ever since Daniels decided he wasn’t going to run) and have been hoping would throw his hat in the ring has all but entered: Rick Perry is expected to announce his candidacy this Saturday.
I have several reasons for wanting Perry to run. First, I kind of have a thing for Texas Governors. Sue me. Second, statistically speaking, Perry has been polling just under Romney when he has been entered as running against Obama. Pretty good considering he isn’t even an official candidate yet. He is also the Governor of a state that is CONSISTENTLY in the black, creates gobs and gobs of jobs, and has great hair (yeah, I went there). Yes, he used to be a Democrat and at one point worked with Al Gore on a past campaign. Remember, though, that Reagan was once a Democrat, so ultimately that doesn’t matter. There are a few other odds and ends that could (and will, I’m sure) come up about him. For example, the amount of money that was spent on his Governors mansion while he was in power, and his flip flopping on gay marriage, etc. However, in my own humble opinion, this is the guy with best odds of winning both the primary and the general election, who has executive experience, and is overall a conservative Republican. I don’t want to try and tell you who to vote for or who to support (I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, vote for whoever lifts your skirt, it doesn’t matter to me one way or another) but this is a guy who is worth looking into, for the reasons I gave and beyond.
The Debt Ceiling Debate: A Matters of Opinion Critique
The one thing that has been “the talk of the town” these past couple of weeks, at least as far as politics is concerned, is whether or not the debt ceiling should be raised, and what kind of deal should be cut. The scenario, originally, was playing out a little to my disapointment; just like in the 90′s, government was going to come to a standstill (as a conservative I can’t say I would notice, but regardless) and the Republicans in the House would be blamed for it, ushering in another 4 years under Democrat rule. It’s not so much that I’m in favor of raising the debt ceiling. The part of me that recognizes the insanity of just letting government spend and spend and spend until we’re taxing Americans making more than 30 grand a year 100% (don’t snicker, it could happen) tells me that if we don’t start making some tough decisions now, we won’t have ANY decisions to make at a later date.
However, the part that recognizes the political mistakes that were made in the 90′s and also the part that recognizes an increase in the debt ceiling is only a drop in the bucket when looking at all of the money we owe takes over at this point and, begrudgingly, my brain allows it. It sucks. There’s no better word, really. It sucks that here we are, running up to the end of July, and we have to increase the debt ceiling in order to make good on our INTEREST for our debt, not to mention our ever increasing deficit in general. But, if fiscally responsible people are going to be able to WIN in 2012 and make sure that we have any kind of future worth talking about, we have to raise the debt ceiling; but, we don’t have to do it without a fight.
And that is what has surprised me, over the past few days, regarding this whole mess. Republicans are presenting multiple options and ideas, and all that Obama and the Democrats can say in response is: We want to raise taxes. That’s it! They’re burying themselves with this; the public is seeing that the Republicans are trying to work out a way to fulfill their obligations to their constituents (which, as Republicans, more oft than not means a pledge to not raise taxes on ANYONE in such a volatile economy like the one we are in right now) while simultaneously trying to make sure that we, as a nation, are able to pay our bills and not get downgraded to a Aa rating.
Now, I’m not going to lie. When this whole debacle started up, I was not exactly “glass half full” about how the Republicans were handling it; but, then again, I’m not in Washington getting paid six figures, so I guess I should just chalk it up as that. But then, in the past couple of days, after reading the articles about President Obama’s reactions to the Republicans’ plans (“time to eat our peas”, “call my bluff”, etc.) I started to feel like he was getting flustered, and Obama doesn’t do well when he’s flustered.
On top of that, he has a birthday party planned for August 3rd with famous musicians singing songs to him, charging people an arm and a leg, all set up in Chicago? THAT would look bad. Correction, WILL look bad, no matter which way this goes. Plus, as a recent Gallup poll has shown today, Obama loses to “Generic Republican Candidate” 47% to 39%. All of these things put together make for a difficult political atmosphere for the President right now.
Ultimately, Republicans should hold their ground as long as they can ; they should make sure that they can drag as many spending cuts out of this administration as is possible, and if it looks like it is possible, they should push for a “balanced budget amendment” to the Constitution. But, at the end of the day on August 1st, they are going to have to raise that debt ceiling, or else they risk making the same mistake that Gingrich and the Republican House made in the 90′s; and while not all Republicans are fiscally responsible, taking a gamble versus electing a President whom is not known to be exactly a “penny pincher” is an easy decision for anyone who is worried about the future of this nation.
Stephen King Mixed With Politics Could Be Fresh Horror
This has been a piece in the works for a while now (or rather the general idea of it has been rattling around inside my head for some time now), but it seems that every time I sit down to write it I just don’t have the energy because I know once I start rambling on about my favorite author it’ll be hard to stop.
First, a little back story. Stephen King is probably THE man responsible for my love affair with the written word at an early age. Sure, I was big into Goosebumps books before King, and I had all of the classics supplied to me by my parents (Treasure Island, Robinson Crusoe, Tom Sawyer, etc.), but it was the summer between fifth and sixth grade that made me really dive into a book and forget where I was; it was the summer of “It”.
My mom had the book on her shelf, and by some chance I happened to glance at it, and asked my mom what it was about. She told me to see for myself. I really didn’t want to read the book; anybody that has seen the book “It” knows it’s very thick, and a pretty long read. But, I was curious, and so my summer went by with me mostly sitting on a swing set with hours flying by while I read the story about a killer clown abducting children from the town of Derry and how a group of misfit kids tried to kill the clown; and then how they returned in adulthood to finish the job.
It’s still one of my favorite books, and it was the start of me wanting to read anything I could get my hands on (primarily Stephen King books, I’ve read every one of them and own almost all of them by now, but plenty of other authors and genres have crossed my path enjoyably as well). King’s style of writing I think is what has been most appealing to me, and I’ve been told that my own writing style is similar(though not intentionally copied). King’s style (and supposedly my own) is a very conversational style. He doesn’t write his books to be examined by literary scholars, and doesn’t feel the need to write his horror novels like, say, Mary Shelley; where every other word is worth about twenty dollars. This is not to say that King CAN’T write like that, I have no doubt in his abilities, but he recognizes that most people don’t always necessarily ENJOY reading novels and novelettes like that.
Anyways, that’s just my own thoughts about King, not the focus of this piece; my apologies for doing the rambling that I was hoping not to do. The point is that King has, recently, begun to inject some politics into his work at an unprecedented level (for him, at least). He’s never made it a big secret that he’s a liberal; he’ll mention it when asked in interviews, and has even gotten involved politically in the past regarding a potential ban on violent video games (though this last one I don’t think can be pigeon holed to either party, I happen to agree with him that I don’t want the government telling me what games I can play). He’s had a handful of little comments throughout books, certainly, from different kinds of characters saying different things like, “Well, you know how the eighties were, what with Reagan and all…”, but his two most recent books have surprised me by taking it to a different level.
Stephen King’s “Under the Dome” was the first of the two books that I had read, mostly because it was the first one to come out in paper back (I’m just too cheap to buy hardcover books, even if it is my favorite author). “Dome” was VERY much based on politics; which was fine, because it worked for the story. I was surprised, because he’s never ventured into this with his stories, but was happy because he was, I think, pretty fair to each side. Both sides had their stereotypes, of course, but that’s fine; when writing fiction, stereotypes are sometimes the best and easiest way to give the reader the impression of what kind of person this character is. For example, two characters from the book are introduced; one is a long haired hippie college professor, the other his little twenty year old student. They are caught having sex in an old cabin, caught with pot, and drive away in his car with a “Yes We Can” bumper sticker. Certainly not the description of all liberals, obviously, but a stereotype addressed and used in the book none the less. On the flip side, the people that run the town are building and housing a secret meth lab, are ultra right wing christian fundamentalists who use the “n” word periodically when referring to President Obama. This too, obviously, is not an accurate description of most people on the right; but a stereotype used to create the characters and the atmosphere of what the town of Chester’s Mill, Maine, is like.
Aside from those stereotypes, he makes one of the heroes of the book a lifelong, staunch Republican journalist who is involved in the battle against the above described right wing stereotypical antagonists. I won’t say anything more about the book, I don’t want to ruin it for anyone who hasn’t read it, but it was an example of King diving into politics, and at a positive level.
The next book, a collection of short stories entitled “Full Dark, No Stars”, was, by contrast, not political at all. BUT, the afterword (which I religiously read), just had to but a damper on my experience. In it, he talks about how he takes his writing seriously and doesn’t appreciate those that “phone it in”, so to speak. Somehow, he manages to mention Sarah Palin and her death panels remark, through this, and though I KIND of see the point he is trying to make, it still made me shake my head with disappointment. Obviously, it’s his decision what he wants to write in his afterword, and I can’t say that if I were to be a fiction writer I wouldn’t just load my forwards and afterwords with all kinds of political writings; just for fun(I’ve also had some ideas for a collection of short stories that are all loosely politically based, so I can’t say too much in that department, either). But for a writer like King, who has been so prolific and hasn’t done this in any other book, I have to wonder if it is wise for him to do so. It won’t make me stop reading him, but it may affect future sales from other readers. Maybe he doesn’t care, at this point; Lord knows he’s made his money with his craft, and maybe he feels that at this point he’s earned the right to preach to his fans a little here and there. If it’s just a little here and there, too, maybe it won’t make any difference; I don’t know. All I know is that I hope that, if he’s deciding to inject politics into his writings more, that it is more like “Under the Dome”, and less like the afterword of “Full Dark, No Stars”; otherwise King’s novels could double qualify as “horror”, for this conservative, at least.
Travis Gearhart For Hebron Town Council
Anybody who frequents this site knows my position on…well…just about anything. I’ve never been afraid to let people know what I think, and I’m not about to start now. I’m running for Hebron Town Council this year, because I want to do more than sit behind a computer screen at my desk and write about what needs to be changed; I want to actively work towards creating better government. As anyone knows, campaigns are EXTREMELY costly, and I’m not exactly able to finance everything out of my own pockets, nor do I have a war chest to turn to. Please, if you have a moment and are fiscally able (I realize that these are tough times), click on the donate button. Even something as small as a five dollar donation will be stretched as far as it can go. I would greatly appreciate it!
2012 GOP Field Begins To Take Shape
Both Donald trump and Mike Huckabee have now announced that they will not be seeking the Republican nomination in 2012 for President. They join the “not going to run for President club” with New Jersey Governor Christie and Indiana’s own Mike Pence, to name just a couple.
So who’s running right now, and what are their hang ups (you know, hang ups, things from their past or present that would and could conceivably get in the way of winning)? It’s important for Republican voters to recognize these; not because I want to trash any one candidate or sway people from voting for one person or the other (if I’m going to do that I’ll save it for individual pieces or in private conversation, this isn’t the piece for that) but because it lets us know what we’re getting into. Also, its much better, in my opinion, for our side to recognize these “hang ups” first and address them; not only because it is good for the vetting process and assures the best candidates, but because it allows us to frame the debate and not let the left lead the Independents around by the nose with their takes on the problems with the candidates. Those that aren’t of one party ideology or the other troll the internet for info, and the well informed ones (or rather, those reading this piece) recognize and appreciate the honesty that comes from supporters on our own side not blindly following, but rather proactively criticizing and keeping our own guys in line.
The announced candidates are:
Newt Gingrich: It’ll be hard for him in the primary because so many conservatives are upset about him working with Pelosi and putting out the ad on global warming. Additionally, conservatives, independents, and liberals alike will be sure to skewer him about his infidelity, and the apparent hypocritical gesture of trying to impeach Clinton over his. He did do a good job while Speaker of the House though, at least I think so, so as long as he is able to move past the primary and keep his personal baggage checked he stands a chance, though not necessarily a great one.
Gary E. Johnson- While Johnson has a good track record as former Governor of New Mexico, he doesn’t have much name recognition (which is a bit of a problem with many of the people on this list). He is also a libertarian, which will reek havoc on Ron Paul’s already slim chance of winning the primary.
Ron Paul- As mentioned above, while Paul has a large libertarian following, and probably the best chance of winning the primary this year than any other, Johnson’s candidacy will more than likely file away those better chances of winning. His recent comments about his positions on drugs and that he wouldn’t have ordered Osama Bin Laden’s assassination didn’t sit well with a lot of people (both on the left and right) as well.
Tim Pawlenty- The former Minnesota Governor and self pronounced social conservative has two main hurdles: name recognition and his lack of exciting the grass roots base.
Herman Cain- The former Federal Reserve banker and CEO of Godfathers Pizza stands out as a black Republican, which excites those black conservatives that would like to see themselves better represented. While he certainly can tout business experience, again, lack of name recognition is a problem. Also, with many a person on the right weary of the Fed, he would have some problems getting the vote of farther right fiscally minded people.
Fred Karger- This candidate stands out to many moderate and libertarian candidates because he is an openly gay Republican. Like Cain, he could snag that segment of voters and shows that there is diversity in the party, but he will have trouble winning over social conservatives at the same time.
Mitt Romney- Two words: Romney Care. With the health care debate still glaring in the mind of many a Republican, Romney will have a hard time winning the primary. When it comes to the general election, polls have indicated that he can win over a lot of Independents and moderate Democrats, but I’m not certain there are enough clearly defined differences to energize Republicans and get them to the polls to beat Obama.
These are the officially announced candidates I’ve been able to find; by all means, if I’m leaving somebody out, message me or leave a comment and let me know. As other candidates join the club I’ll be certain to write about them as well.
What Does Bin Ladens Death Mean Politically For Obama?
Well, it’s been over a week since Bin Laden was shot in the head by a Navy Seal. The President did the right thing by ordering the death of Bin Laden, and he deserves kudos for a job well done, even though he’s milking this thing for all it’s worth (not that any other politician, Democrat or Republican, wouldn’t, but it’s still a little aggravating to watch). Over night President Obama’s approval rating shot upward, predictably, until it hovered around fifty five percent, varying, obviously, poll to poll. Immediately many a pundit started asking that inevitable question; how will this play out politically? The President’s numbers were beginning to sink lower and lower as the economy continued to stale and gas prices, so this boost in ratings was a pretty significant amount.
Certainly one can’t argue that the death of Bin Laden will be a non factor in the 2012 elections; Obama will have this as part of his platform, as he rightly should, and it will probably sway some of the moderates that are very much foreign policy hawks. After all, this combined with the numerous drone attacks shows that Obama hasn’t ended up being weak when it comes to the wars overseas. Also, he hasn’t shut down GITMO yet (and probably won’t, at least by the next elections) and though he has declared that the Iraq War is pretty much “over”, we still have a lot of young men in that area training their troops. Aside from Obama not being willing to speak out about Attorney General Holder’s plans to go after those that water boarded and interrogated terrorists (which, it has been said, got us the information to Bin Laden in the first place), he has pretty much followed Bush’s game plans.
Ultimately, there will be two main factors in 2012 that will either make or break an Obama reelection. The first is the economy. If things don’t begin looking up soon (and there are very few indications that they will), many a fiscally conservative Democrat and Independent will be voting against him, and it was the Independents and younger adults (who are having a hard time finding work after high school and college) who pushed him over the edge last election. The second main factor is who the GOP fields as a Presidential contender. Again, the economy will be a major factor with the primary race, and fiscal issues will take precedence over social ones; as long as the GOP focuses on this more than anything, and puts forth proactive ideas and policy options, an Obama reelection will be tough to achieve.
Are Progressive Tax Rates Really “Ethical”? And what are the other options?
The progressive tax rate (named for the progressing of the percentage that people owe in taxes as the amount of money increases) is lauded by its supporters as the “great equalizer”. Their reasoning is that those that make more money should pay a higher percentage amount in taxes in order to fund the government programs that they are more often than not against. This may seem fine for those that are favor of the progressive tax rate as a “more ethical” system and “more fair” way of dispersing wealth, but those that are on the opposite side don’t necessarily see what is “ethical” about taking hard earned money from one person at an unevenly distributed tax rate. Wouldn’t it, rather, be more ethical to have a flat tax rate across the board, in the spirit of fairness? What is ethical about a person who doesn’t go to college and gets a job working at McDonald’s flipping burgers for minimum wage and doesn’t end up paying anything at all in taxes because at the end of the year he gets a refund check being supported by a person who goes to school for 8 years, starts his own business, and is taxed out the nose and made to subsidize those that didn’t work hard to make something of themselves?
The biggest problem with the progressive income tax is that it actually stifles progress in general. Rather, it could be said that we have a “regressive income tax”, in that the higher taxes on those that make more money creates less money that works through our economy. For example, if a person that makes five hundred thousand is taxed at the higher “progressive” rate, then he/she isn’t going to spend that extra money to, say, purchase a new car. That new car would help out that car company, which in turn would need to hire more people, which would come from the lower income pool, supplying jobs and livelihoods. Additionally, service jobs in that region would benefit from having more people stop off to fill up their gas tanks, purchase everyday commodities like food and drink in that area, etc., etc. It’s a never ending cycle that benefits those that are on the bottom just as much if not more than those on the top.
On a similar, yet different example, the taking of more funds from those that make larger sums of money doesn’t allow those funds to be in savings accounts in banks. This is important because the banks need those pools of money to lend out to people who are starting their own businesses. Without the money to lend out capital to budding entrepreneurs (that inevitably end up competing with those that put their savings into the bank), the progressive tax rate that is supposed to save the livelihoods of the less fortunate ends up putting up an obstacle course for those that want to make their lives better on their own.
One would think that those that want to see the business realm become more “progressive” and “fair” would want to make sure that that competition is there to keep the larger corporations in check, as well. Without the ability to lend out capital to the small businesses, only major conglomerations would exist. This is not the way that it is supposed to work in a free market; there is supposed to be competition in order to make sure that there is no price gouging and to make sure that there is a “fairness” factor in every aspect of the market. The only way that real monopolies are able to happen is if the government enables them to happen.
All of the above scenarios are built around one concept: the economy is invariably tied together, and the government cannot take from one without affecting the lives of all others. This is the basic idea behind Adam Smith’s invisible hand; that people individually pursue their own selfish goals and end up helping out the whole. For example, a man needs to eat, and so he visits the butcher, helping to keep a job from disappearing. A man needs to have a place to rest his head, hence the housing industry, and etc. and etc. for innumerable amounts of goods. When a man has to limit his resources, it ultimately leads to a limitation on the resources of every other person that benefit from another man’s resources.
The argument for the progressive tax rates that refutes this thought process is that those people that may be hurt in a small way will still reap a higher benefit, or at the very least break even, by receiving the tax refunds and claiming the multiple deductions. However, this ultimately will lead to a downward spiral of sorts, with those that benefit from the rate needing more and more benefits, which drain resources from those that subsidize those benefits, and the spiral goes down and down. The ways to stop this spiral are jarring, unfortunately, for those that have been the benefits of the progressive tax system, but it is an inevitability that the system will have to be reformed in a major way in order to keep the entire system from failing.
On a different level, one looks at how ethical it is to each individual (rather than from a macroeconomic standpoint) to have a progressive tax system. What it comes down to is the issue of fairness. Those that are in favor of progressive tax rates use this word often to describe their support, and they justify it by using the usual points; it isn’t fair for the few to have so much while the many have so little, it is for the good of all society (which in the previous articles I’ve dissected and proved to be untrue), etc., etc. They believe that economic equality is an essential right that the people have, and that governments job is to step in and make sure that everything is “fair” (at least to their standards of what is fair).
Certainly it cannot be argued that the free market doesn’t have losers; it inevitably has losers because it is based on individuals work and effort more than anything (although there is a fair amount of luck that is always factored in). Most people don’t have an issue with helping out those that have lost under this system because they have been unlucky, also; though those that have lost based on their own negligence is a completely different story. The progressive tax system was put in place as a way to amend these losses, though hindsight being twenty twenty, as it always is, those on the lower wrung would benefit as much if not more under a flat tax or a Fair Tax than a “progressive” tax system that does not naturally enable them to help themselves.
Those that are against the progressive tax also think that it is unfair though based on a very different principle. They argue that it is not fair that people that succeed should be punished unequally for that success. One of the most pronounced voices over the years has been Ayn Rand, using fictional satire mixed with articles and expert opinion (some from the likes of former Federal Reserve Chairman Allan Greenspan). This group of people call themselves “collectivists” and argue that that it is indeed unethical to punish success and want of material goods and monies; people work hard for their wealth, and for the government to steal from them is not unlike any individual stealing any other good.
Really, from an ethical point, what is the difference? It is a bit of the “Robin Hood” theory; Robin Hood was justified because he was stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, in the opinion of many, but why is that right? What makes this stealing any more right than if the stealing is done the other way around?
For these reasons, many that are against the progressive tax are in favor of different tax systems. There are really three main schools of thought regarding replacement systems, and the first and most unrealistic is the complete abolition of the Sixteenth Amendment (which is the one that states that the government can impose a federal income tax) with the replacement of taxes on exports and imports (which is how America originally obtained it’s revenue) only. This is the most unrealistic, in my mind, because there is no possible way that enough could be made to make up not only our deficit, but our national debt. Granted, America has become a country that imports just about all of its finalized goods (like televisions, stereos, etc.), and so one would think that these tax revenues would and could be enough if governmental spending were reduced to minimal levels. However, the reality of this is that those spending levels would have to be reduced first, and everyone knows how hard it is to get the government to cut down on spending. I’m not saying that a reduction in spending isn’t needed, just that the amount that would be needed is more than is possible with this replacement option, particularly since there are so many other things that have to be taken into account that didn’t need to be back in 1913, when the Amendment was ratified. The positive side of going back to such a method, however, is that it would essentially FORCE politicians into reducing spending levels in a major way. Again, this is unlikely, but it is a fact none the less.
The second option, and much more possible, is the elimination of the progressive tax and the instatement of the flat tax. The flat tax is pretty much exactly how it sounds; it is an across the board tax of some percentage (many countries vary anywhere from 9 to 15%) for every person, regardless of income. This is the fairest way of distributing the tax, on an ethical level, because it does not discriminate in any way, shape, or form. Basically, whatever one makes, regardless of income, regardless of whether or not one has children, or has purchased a new car, or has kept all of his/hers receipts from work (if you haven’t caught on yet I’m talking about all of the deductions that are a part of the progressive income tax), they will still pay x amount of dollars. This will actually make those in the top one percent pay as much if not more than what they are already paying in income taxes, while not hurting the middle class people nearly as much as the progressive tax system does. Granted, this will mean that the lower wrung of people (on a scale with income, not personally) will actually have to pay taxes; this may be hard for many of them to swallow, but it is an inevitability if America is to ever get out of the debt that it is in.
The only problem with a flat tax is that it is primarily a Republican owned idea, which creates political struggles. Even if it is the best idea, Democrats more than likely would not allow it to become our countries new tax code because of simple politics. This means that a super majority would be needed in Congress, as well as a Republican President, and the odds of it passing, even then, are very slim. Most politicians (particularly of the conservative mind) don’t want to pass sweeping legislation that affects so many people.
The third, and probably most likely (from a political standpoint), is the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax is basically a replacement system of taxation, though instead of replacing it with a flat percent like the flat tax does, it collects its tax revenue at the retail level. This means that every person will receive 100% of their paycheck, except for state taxes. All taxes will be wiped clean on a federal level; Medicare tax, Social Security tax, Income tax, etc. Those will be replaced with a tax, at the retail level, of goods and services (a national sales tax of sorts). This tax replacement system has the highest likelihood of actually going through Congress and being signed by the President for a number of reasons. First, there is a built in “prebate” with this tax system that ensures that those that are on the lower wrung will receive a check in the mail that is about the amount that they would be paying in goods and services for normal everyday living. This tax replacement idea also puts a tax on all imports to help supplement any losses and to help promote growth in industries within the United States, which has been lacking because of the “progressive” tax system.
The first question many have about this tax replacement system is: How does this actually LOWER my taxes? It doesn’t, really. It is a replacement system, and what it basically does is bring in the exact same amount of income that is brought in right now, but it does it fairly (hence the name Fair Tax) per individual. If one doesn’t want to pay any more taxes, then, they wouldn’t buy any extra commodities that they don’t need. It puts the power of the tax into the hands of those BEING taxed. Sure, one could do that by not working as many hours under the tax code now, but that would punish that individual as much as it would punish the government; this way, that person could still make the money, they just don’t have to SPEND the money, if they so choose.
Additionally, since it does away with the current tax code (which harbors a LOT of taxes on businesses that actually trickle down to the consumer, since businesses don’t pay taxes, they only transfer the costs onto the people that purchase the goods and services) it ensures that businesses wouldn’t take advantage of this tax and gouge the consumer. Any individual who is remotely educated in this replacement system would know that all goods and services SHOULD go down due to the lack of extra taxes; therefore, they could gauge this fact when purchasing anything and make sure that the retailer that is offering the more reduced price (or the price that reflects the lack of excess taxes) is afforded their business. This competition is not only healthy for the economy, but it keeps each business honest with their prices. The only downside to the Fair Tax is that it would not, ultimately, lower taxation levels, which is a major issue with many a person who would ultimately support the plan otherwise.
There a lot of pros and cons with each alternative, but the end result would still be the same; it would make a more ethical taxation system become a reality, arguably. Taxation isn’t something that American’s (or human beings, in particular) much care for, but a system can and should be put in place to ensure that people aren’t asked to bear more than their fair brunt of the burden. Additionally, it should be a priority of the government to stop hurting those that want to help make this country more economically stable anymore than they are hurting any other group or sub group with the Draconian tax laws that are in place currently.
Relativism In Ideological and Practical Applications
There are a lot of things going on in the political stratosphere lately, but every now again it’s fun to tackle an ideological point of view and lay out the pros and cons. Sure, I could write about redistricting here in Indiana, or the Libyan battles, or any number of topics (including my own campaign for Hebron Town Council, sorry for the drop) but these ideological pieces are important to throw in every now and again because, while there is often less of a consensus among people on these sorts of things, they are equally important when talking about politics.
When dealing with the issue of relativism, both on a philosophical level and a “real time” level, so to speak, relativism is…well…relative. Goodman certainly makes a case in “Some Moral Minima” that relativism’s role in society is a limited doctrine and that there are universally agreed criteria that have trumped this thought process through the ages (i.e. woman’s rights, slavery, etc.). However, the practical applications for many other social issues through the political spectrum are still being “vetted”, in a sense, by the general public. I happen to agree, on a grander scale, with Goodman; not everything is relative. But I also agree that, on a less grand scale, people are not altruistic in nature. We are selfish, stubborn beings, who usually require some kind of push in order to do what is right, and this push usually comes in the form of the classic “invisible hand” (meaning we are doing what is right because it is mutually beneficial) or some kind of heavenly doctrine (like the Bible teaching that something is wrong and so, to save our souls, we don’t do that thing).
Each issue in particular, for me at least, has its own argument where relativity comes into play. One good example would be the classic argument against capitalism, whether that argument is being made by those of a socialist orientation, a Marxist one, etc., the argument against is pretty much the same; capitalism isn’t fair and, therefore, not relative, because there are those that have a lot of goods and monies and those that have no goods and monies. These statements are true; through capitalism there are those that amass large sums of wealth that could never be spent in one lifetime and those that make almost nothing and live out of their vehicles. However, this is one case that I defer to relativism, because while capitalism is not perfect on a societal scale, it is perfect on an individual one. Each person is given the responsibility of their own wealth and fortune, and the loss of that wealth and fortune is typically that individuals own fault. That person either mismanaged his finances, or didn’t plan well, or was foolish with his spending. Certainly there is a case to be made that there are those that lose their wealth and it is not their own fault, whether it be through medical accidents, bank failures, etc., and definitely this is an area that I think most people are fine, as a practical real time application, with looking past that individualism to play a greater role as a society by using tax monies to help remedy the situation, for a time at least.
However, a look through another filter, that of the anti-altruistic, shows that this in itself doesn’t prove that people would prefer something other than capitalism, but rather that people accept some forms of relativism, because there are some things that are just right; like helping those in need. This point can be argued, of course, by the altruistic that this proves that people are at heart good, unselfish people, however since charity is taught in almost all religious scripture, the counter argument that people do these things to save their souls more than anything comes into play. Additionally, nobody wants to be labeled a “Scrooge”, and nobody wants to have their neighbor’s home become foreclosed because it would then lower everybody’s property value on that street; all points that make a case for people being inherently selfish by nature.
One more example of the “great debate” between relativism supporters and the opposition, when looking at real time scenarios, is the argument over abortion. Is this a matter of a woman’s reproductive rights? Or is it a matter of the rights of an unborn child to life? When polled, people are pretty well split down the middle; most people want abortion to stay legal, but want restrictions on abortion, particularly in the later stages of pregnancy. These polls suggest that the general public does not know the answer of whether abortion is, as a whole, wrong, or don’t want to think about the issue in depth, and therefore the thoughts of the public body as a whole cannot be used as any sort of societal “right vs. wrong” scale in this instance.
Those that look to abortion as an issue of reproductive rights use relativism to justify their thoughts. Granted, an unborn child is being killed, they argue, at least when talking about the later stage abortions, but the rights of the woman trump those of the child. The woman is already a member of society, and whether one thinks abortion is morally right or wrong that woman is the person who will ultimately have to stand before her god and answer for what she has done. So in this case, though it may be wrong or unjust, it is all relative to that individual’s point of view. This, as noted, does not include early stage abortion arguments, which are centered on the thought that it is not a child, but rather a “fetus” that is being aborted; again, it is relative, because it depends on how one looks at the early stages of the pregnancy.
Those that don’t believe that the abortion issue is one of relativity, but rather that there is a moral element to the issue, with that element being that abortion is the murder of an unborn child: period. The early stage of pregnancy does not demote the status of the child to “fetus” simply because it is still forming its organs and growing. Whether or not a person will have to stand before their god is not relative; in the late stages of pregnancy a child can, with medical support, survive outside of the womb, and so there is no real reason for late term abortions. Abortion cannot be explained away, cannot be reasoned into submission, abortion is murder, willful murder, or an individual who cannot speak for him or herself.
The philosophical debate over abortion may never end; both sides of the issue are very ardent in their views and ideology, with little room for middle ground, even if the general population takes a middle ground stance on the issue. My own personal thoughts on this issue, in particular? I fall on the pro-life side, though I would like to see the middle ground worked towards because it is at least better than two hard lined positions with nothing really getting done on the issue. On the issue of economic differences, I find myself very much pro-capitalism. Certainly a person could read through my thoughts and claim me to be a hypocrite. How can a person think one issue is relative, and another not? Doesn’t that put me in two ideologically different camps on two separate issues?
Yes and no. Relativism certainly has its place when one is looking at issues on all levels; ideological, philosophical, and practical. Relativism should not be a blanket that envelopes every issue, just like ideological and philosophical thoughts on matters shouldn’t. Rather, it should be a tool to help one figure out not only one’s personal thoughts on varying issues, but solutions to those issues and ways to better keep individual liberty while simultaneously promoting the well being of society as a whole. There are plenty of other arguments out there both for and against different issues, including the two talked about above, and there are infinite different combinations of different individuals who embrace one idea and reject another for different reasons. However, to use relativism as anything else other than another tool to learn about the world around you is foolish thinking that allows one to be led by the nose by one singular idea.
Gun Rights Should Be Celebrated; Not Condemned
Below is the link to the article that was written for and published in “The Times”. After reading the copyright information for the piece, I realized I probably shouldn’t be re-posting the article itself. So give it a click and give it a read!
Gun rights should be celebrated; not condemned
Indiana Unemployment Cuts: A Matters of Opinion Critique
I want to start off by saying this: I am sympathetic to those that have been laid off and are living off of unemployment. I have been laid off once or twice in the past few years, and yes, it is not fun. Granted, the first time lasted only a month; the second time only a week. But still, I understand the plight of the unemployed.
With that said, by the time a month had passed (during my first lay off period), I was more than ready to start looking for work. I was at the point where I was pulling the hair out of my head, and I was ready to start putting in applications at McDonald’s, Burger King, whatever it took to start earning a paycheck again.
Part of the legislation that is sitting around, waiting to be voted on, is a plan to cut Indiana unemployment benefits by 25%. I understand the reason’s for such a cut. Currently, unemployment is paying out significantly more than it is paying in. In order to keep unemployment from drying up like an Egyptian watering hole, Daniels and other Indiana Republicans want to cut unemployment’s pay out by 25%, while simultaneously increasing the amount that employers pay into this pool. Smart idea, really. In order to keep the possibility of NOBODY having unemployment from becoming a reality, steps are being taken to remedy the situation before it gets out of hand.
Here is my issue with this.
Unemployment’s level of payout is, currently, at that “awkward” level; it pays too much to make taking a minimum wage job, yet pays too little to really pay the bills. However, for those workers that have been paying into this for years and years and are recently being laid off, they are getting the shaft. There are a lot of people that have been milking unemployment for quite some time now; they should, by all means, be downgraded to the -25% level, because lets face it, unemployment isn’t supposed to last forever. However, those that are just recently collecting on that are not to be blamed for the short fall. After all, they have been contributing.
So, what to do, you may ask.
I propose a sliding scale. Those that are on or will be on unemployment in the near future should have the benefit of getting back a little of what they have been paying into. Lets throw out the number 4 months. After that amount of time (or some other amount, that number is really just the amount of time it would take me to go bat crap crazy with out working) that number would go to -15% of the original amount, and a few months after that it would drop to the -25% of the original amount that was originally proposed.
This way, the cuts (that are very much needed) are still be imposed, while respecting the fact that those that have been paying for a good long while and have not been a drain on the system are not to blame for the current problems in funding. People would, all around, I think, be more supportive of the cuts, and the deficit would still be taken care of.
Thoughts?
