A Modest Political Proposal

Creative Taxation on Capital Gains

2008-05-13T10:36:00.000-07:00

Capital gains taxing has been a hot-button topic for as long as I can remember. Cuts in the rate benefit the rich disproportionately. But they benefit anyone who holds mutual funds or IRAs or any other security, property, or commodity with the potential for eventual profit. One major problem is creating a tax-rate has always been a shot in the dark - 36%, 28.2%, 21.4% - proposals fly based on predictions of expected income, which are tied to the performance of the economy, and are therefore unpredictable.
The main problem is created by profit-driven speculators. Reducing the capital gains rate across the board benefits those who buy stocks for a day and sell them the next, which doesn't benefit the company at all - and represents a very small portion of the population.
If the goal of our government (as it has been stated by many) is to encourage long-term investment, which benefits industry, which creates jobs, which improves our economy, and on and on; then there is an easy way to do that.
Instead of creating a new rate, tax capital gains at the prevailing tax rate. If a security or property is held for over 2 years (even 1 day over), divide the tax rate by 2. If held for 3 years, divide by 3, and so on. That way, a capital gain realized after a taxpayer in the 28% bracket, who sells a house held for 4 years would be 7%; if held for 28 years, it would only be taxed at 1% - which encourages holding long-term, which prevents someone from becoming financially house-bound, and the rate is EASY to figure out, even by someone completing their own taxes.
Taxing gains on anything held less than 2 years at the prevailing tax rate, instead of a reduced rate, should much more than make up for any loss of future income due to this program - and if speculators hold investments longer to avoid the higher tax rate, that's good for everyone.

Retroactive Action

2008-05-10T20:53:00.000-07:00

Whether you sympathize with Hillary Clinton or not, it does seem as if every thinking Democrat (is that oxymoronic?) ought to be able to reject out of hand the idea that the delegates from Florida and Michigan would be seated. It is clear that this was a planned campaign tactic on her part; while others respected the call of the Party, those who refrained even from campaigning in those states, responding to the terms which were set before them - playing the "game" according to the rules at the time. Clearly running against a Clinton they ought to have anticipated that for them reality has nothing to do with the bid for office.
Hillary blatently lies about being shot at while visiting troops overseas, and the media jump all over her like hyenas attacking - well, a nap. Her spokespeople blatently lie about her lie - saying it is because she was tired, it was late - she's been campaigning hard - she did after all live with Bill for many years, and how could that not cause you to be confused over what is actually true? And none of them are called on the carpet. While accepting public monies (matching funds), or donations solicited over the internet, or through the United States Post Office, shouldn't there be some standard of expectation that candidates and their representatives tell the truth? Are we going to hold Roger Clemons to a higher standard of "testimony" before Congress, than someone running for the office of President?
Aren't the candidates, each time the step up to the podium, and have their comments broadcast over the public airwaves, essentially testifying, not only before Congress, but before the electorate? Could they not be sworn in, at the inception of each campaign? I can understand spin - like when Barack wins more delegates on a given day, and Hillary claims victory. I can understand optimism in the face of daunting odds. But this is a person who directly lied - a lie which, if believed, would work to her benefit - then lied about the lie. Isn't that what she and the other lawyers who went after Richard Nixon claimed was the worst, most unforgivable, of his actions?
She and the other candidates entered the arena, agreeing to certain rules. Among those rules it was clearly known that the delegates from Florida and Michigan would not be seated at the convention. Now, again when it is to her benefit, she argues vociferously for their inclusion. Changing the rules now would be like changing the tax burden on a business in the middle of the year - okay, not a good example - they do that all the time. That kind of retroactive re-drawing of the rules is absurd. Of course, that does depend on what your definition of is - is.

A Delicious Dilemma

2008-05-08T13:32:00.000-07:00

Despite the fact the two incumbent parties have so hijacked the system that no one even questions any longer the expense of over $100 million by each candidate to earn their parties nomination, making the office virtually inacessible to anyone who is not embedded in the two-party system, how wonderful this Presidential election is about to become, as soon as Hillary Clinton is forced to face the music.
We will be left (on the left hand) with Barack Obama, an amazingly gifted orator, an inspiring dynamic intellectual; who happens to be black, giving us the opportunity to participate in meaningful history by voting for him as President - and on the right hand with John McCain, an honest-to-goodness war hero (not a pretend hero who threw away medals he really didn't deserve), a man who has maintained a fierce individualism despite the pressure of his party, one who has demonstrated a willingness to work with both parties, one who has extraordinary experience in Foreign Policy and in Washington. We will, for once, actually have a choice as thinking voters - not just a determination of the lesser of two evils.
How delicious.
Best of all, both candidates have steadfastly refused to participate in dragging their opponents through the muck, both have stated outright that they respect the other, and both have set forth an expectation to change the politics of derision in America. It might actually be a General Election campaign that focuses on issues of weight - and by the conduct of its participants may even have enough cache to erase from our minds the sound and fury of the past year's primary debacles, to the point where everyone is aware that the tales they told signify nothing.

I Would Cross The Border Too

2006-04-19T12:49:00.000-07:00

Nothing is ever going to be done on the issue of illegal immigration, unless the underlying issues are addressed. Advocates of stronger enforcement are dismissed as being racist. And there are those who are motivated by racism. That must be acknowledged, and the arguments in favor of stronger enforcement must include a method which compensates for the inherent racism in some of their number.
Advocates of amnesty, driver's licenses for undocumented workers, and guest worker programs are dismissed as being for open borders, opening America to terrorists. They maintain that the vast majority of immigrants, legal and illegal, simply want to feed and provide for their families. And that is true. Hwoever, they must acknowledge that a certain percentage of those who cross the border illegally are coming to this country to commit crime in a "target-rich" environment, with a built-in escape hatch - the border. A certain percentage of those who cross the border illegally are those who are on Federal Watch lists, because they have been associated with groups that want to bring harm, as much harm as possible, to this country.
Let us ALL agree that in re-designing a border-control program which must serve all of America, that ALL of the border control will be directed at the very small percentage of those who would bring harm to America, whether that harm is terrorist, criminal, or economic overwhelmment (is that a word?).
No one can be satisfied, much less happy, that there are dozens of hospitals which have been forced out of providing any service at all; and most of them have been located in the very heart of the communities that need them most.
No one can be satisfied, much less happy, that the schools in California, especially in densely populated areas, suffer immense rates of drop-outs, gang violence, drug use, and academic failure.
No one can be satisfied, much less happy, that the law-enforcement officers, paramedics, and 911 dispatchers spend great swaths of time dealing with non-emergency issues, partly because of mis-use of a system by those who do not comprehend it.
No one can be happy that the roads are as congested as they are, that the cars most likely to contribute most heavily to pollution are driven by those who cannot afford repairs, that accidents involving those who cannot purchase insurance drive up costs for everyone, that those who do not take tests to show they understand our rules are much more likely to cause accidents.
I am not trying to argue that illegal immigration is the cause of all of these tragic circumstances. However, there is not a doubt in my mind that it is a factor in all of them.
Hearing that admission from the advocates of guest worker programs, and a willingness to include in their program something that would address each of these on some level, would go a long way toward breaking down the resistance of those on the side of greater enforcement.
Hearing an admission from the advocates of greater enforcement that there is and will remain in this country a need for continued immigration, that if the shoe were on the other foot, if they were caught in a rigid, corrupt system like those prevalent in Mexico and many of the other countries from which those immigrants come, that they might consider breaking the border to achieve for their families the tremendous wealth, freedom, and opportunity that are available in this country.
If both sides would acknowledge an ability of this country to provide through invention and technology, through hard work and organization, through the competition inherent in our economy, not only enough for our citizens, but also enough to help boost the economies of the rest of the world, we might actually be able to create a solution which would be a win-win instead of a compromise.

Illegal Immigrants Will Deport Themselves

2006-04-11T09:24:00.000-07:00

The joy of truly moderate politics is being able to freely take the best parts of plans offered by those of the unreasonable left, and those on the unreasonable right, and weave them into a truly workable plan.
The first necessary step for a rational national debate, as opposed to the emotional shouting and fear and name-calling to which we are currently being subjected, is to remove the rhetoric that those who call for enforcement of the borders are doing so out of racist tendencies. Many are racist. That is an unfortunate truth. Many who involve themselves in this issue are doing so out of a racist tendency, or an isolationist tendency, which they will not admit to.
Those of us who are not motivated by racism or isolationism must insist that the FIRST step taken (yes, even before we all agree to actually enforce our borders) is to proclaim that our unified will is to create a program which will have as its desired result, an ENORMOUS increase in LEGAL immigration.
Just think what that would do to those who argue that anyone arguing for enforcement of the borders is anti-immigrant. It takes away their cheif argument, their most emotion-provoking argument, in the same way that, running for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan eviscerated Mondale's attacks on his age, by proclaiming that he would not hold Mondale's youth and inexperience against him.
These emotional issues must be removed before true development of an honestly workable program are possible. We are NEVER going to create enough bureaucracy to test whether people have been here five years, or two years, what they owe in back taxes, whether they have been good citizens all that time, etc. We are NEVER going to develop the political will, though I disagree with those who maintain it is physically and financially impossible, to deport the millions who have crossed (and are currently crossing in record numbers) our borders, bypassing the legal process.
I sincerely hope we NEVER agree to create a new slave class, those who are doomed to clean our toilets, make our beds, and pick our fruit in perpetuity, because we "need" them. Whatever we come up with must allow (demand) that the full freedom of the American Dream is available to all!
However, we can also NEVER surrender our right and responsibility to our citizens, to maintain security at our borders. We can NEVER afford to reward those who flout the process, and jump to the head of the line, and retain any ability to maintain control over legal immigration.
Therefore, they must deport themselves.
We must dangle a big enough carrot in front of them (American Citizenship) to make it worth their while to voluntarily pull up stakes, and return to their countries of origin. We must give them time to prepare to be out of the country for at least 6 months.
We must make it simple enough for them to register for a program which would have three tiers. Those who apply for a Guest Worker program, from outside the United States, may enter a track which will eventuate in American Citizenship. Those who have violated our borders, who apply for Guest Worker status may in fact gain such status, may even stay here (for 3 years, 5 years, whatever is agreed to); but they can NEVER become American Citizens. Either of these tracks would include an agreement to learn basic English skills, to understand the workings of basic American Government and Civics, to be finger-printed, to show that they have a marketable skill, or are willing to work in unskilled-labor, and whatever other restrictions and responsibilities are deemed to be reasonable.
There are MANY things we can do to ease this transition.
The third track is deportation. If (after a reasonable time to put together your affairs) you fail to register for either track, and you are found to be in this country, or if you have committed any felony in this country, or a certain number of misdemeanors, then you will be deported back to your country, and you can NEVER become an American citizen, and you can NEVER enter the Guest Worker Program.
This program is simple. It must remain so. You cannot publish a program which is 200 pages long and expect anyone to be able to adequately explain the requirements of it to an immigrant who has only a basic knowledge of our country.

Back In Business

2006-04-07T10:05:00.000-07:00

Of course the trouble with blogging is that if you don't keep it up, you disappear off the face of the ether. Today I am re-enthused by finding numerous other sites authored by passionate moderates, while trying to re-locate my way into this one.
The impetus for my return is my infuriation regarding the mixing of the terms illegal immigration and immigration, in a debate which is likely to result in hugely increasing the bureaucracy of our government, while making it much less able to deal with any aspect of illegal immigration.
Can someone explain to me how you are going to determine how long someone has been in the country, when there are no records of their entry, when there are no records of their employ, when they clearly have every motive to lie and maintain that they have been here 5 years (if that becomes the gold standard)? Are we now supposed to take the INS, the Border Patrol, which is already stretched so thin that it is essentially nothing, so that 10,000 "migrants," knowing that amnesty is in the offing, are crossing the border every day, and have them conduct interviews with the illegal aliens, the ones they cannot even find to stop them from crossing the border?
The same overworked INS agents are supposed to sit down and chat with the undocumented workers whom we supposedly cannot find, and have been told by both incumbent parties that there is no possible way to get them to leave the country, to find out if they have been here between 2 and 5 years, so that all those who have been here less than 5 will somehow be forced to return to their country of origin (which is really unfair if you are from China, or Nigeria, or Chile, or any country other than Mexico or Canada).
And somehow we are going to gather the fortitude to confront all those who have been here less than 2 years, and get them to leave for good - even though that number is considerably over a million, and we've already been told that it is impossible to even consider shipping out 10 million - so how, after the winnowing, are we going to carry that out ?
Until that explanation is forthcoming, there is absolutely no purpose in my consideration of any of the other terms of the bill under consideration in the Senate, and the horrifying sight of Senators I have previously admired (Barack Obama for one) and detested (Ted Kennedy) standing up and proclaiming that this bill, even were it to pass exactly as it is, without any further honing, would be a great thing, is a sight that will haunt me for years.

Time For Revolution?

2005-03-23T18:17:00.000-08:00

This is no time for moderation.
"To secure these [inalienable] rights [to life, liberty, and thepursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government."
These are the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.
This government has clearly shown that it is no longer answerable to the people or to the Constitution.
Are you furious?
Are you furious that Congress called a special session to tend to the needs of ONE American, at great expense, in complete contravention of their authority, trampling on the Constitution and the will of the judiciary?
Are you furious that thousands of others languish in the horror of similar circumstance of vegetative states, and are specifically omitted from any consideration, as our wise lawgivers state, "This is not a precedent."
I look at Bill Frist and I say, this is not a President.
This is a man who allows the power of his religious conviction to override the good of the people. This is a man who calls a special session to tend to the needs of one individual while hundreds die of malnutrition, of neglect, of preventable mistakes (7000 a year due to being given the wrong medication); all things Congress MIGHT actually be able to do something about, all within their over-extended authority.
Are you furious enough to overcome the power of incumbancy?
I don't think so. I think Americans are just going to sit back in their relative safety and continue to allow their liberties to be infringed upon.
I think we're going to allow murders in L.A. County to remain unsolved because the murderers are escaping over the border; and the President and the Congress think it is more important to come up with legislation that reaches yet another tendril into our lives, driving their non-precedent setting stake into the heart of marriage at the same time touting the "Defense of Marriage Act," instead of securing our general welfare or any of the other portions of our rights which we have ceded them the authority to tend to.

Fighting For Principal

2005-01-28T16:24:00.000-08:00

This recent stand by 13 Democrats against the nomination of Condoleeza Rice has really got me steamed. To start a term in such contentious fashion, fighting a cause which they admit on the floor of the Senate they do not hope to win, is outrageous.

How much better could it have been to state their objections for the record, to air their concerns, but not in a bellicose manner, not in a way that invites derision and signals an intent to fight on every issue, even when there is no intent to change the minds and hearts of those to whom they are speaking?

We'll never know; because we are so entrenched in government of the parties by the parties and for the parties, that we have forgotten that decisions made and even debated affect all of the PEOPLE, and that is who the government is supposed to be of, for, and by.

Our voice in government has been supplanted by the voice of the political party.

Passionate Moderates

2005-01-25T16:20:00.000-08:00

It is time that we in our right minds, meaning all those who are not out on the fanatical fringes of issues became more passionate about demanding attention be paid to the center. There is so much babble about red states and blue states, the right-wing and left-wing, and virtually no one paying attention to those who are intelligent enough and reasonable enough to listen to both sides of an issue, and make up their minds not based on a label, but based on the facts of the particular case.

Moderate has come to be synonymous with dispassionate; and that has to stop. It is unreasonable to disregard the wishes of the majority. It is also unreasonable to simply cast minorities, the weak, the elderly, out to sea because they do not have numbers to speak for themselves.

I remember hearing Harry Brown, the Libertarian candidate for President, repeatedly state in previous election years that were he elected, he would get rid of the IRS, get rid of the Public Schools, that he would get rid of our drug laws, then take a break for lunch. That kind of rhetoric doesn't take into account that the President must govern all of the country. You don't get to just implement whatever those who voted for you want; you must go through the appropriate checks and balances, and Congress (Democrats and Republicans) would never approve those sweeping changes, nor should they.

Worst of all such statements betray a simplistic idealism, as do most fanatics, that do not take into account the incredibly complex layering of our economy, the inter-dependent nature of our laws, our fiscal policy, and the businesses and families which plan their expenditures and adventures around existing laws and public structures.

Easy To Be Cynical

2005-01-24T15:44:00.000-08:00

Somehow political pundits have gotten the idea that cynicism is the proper approach when covering any attempt by either party to reach across the aisle. It is easy to be cynical in more than one way. Mostly it is easy because it doesn't require any thorough understanding of what would make this offer unique. It doesn't require any investigation into what would be the ramifications if the offer were treated seriously. A detached cynicism passes for intelligent, and allows the observer to state "See, I told you so," no matter which way the issue falls, or fails; in the same way that John Kerry places himself firmly astride both sides of an issue.

We need to cast the cynicism aside, and drop the comfortable belief that one side or the other has all the correct answers, even that the "conservative" approach is always going to be appropriate, or the "liberal" view should always predominate. This would never be tolerated from a coach in a professional sport. There are times to air out a long pass; and there are times when more caution is warrented.

Let us start looking more to the heart of the matter; and the parties be damned.

Term Limits

2005-01-21T13:36:00.000-08:00

Let's take something relatively simple and attempt to solve it as a Win-Win. Term Limits.
Those in favor of them cite the incredible power of incumbancy; with over 98% of elected officials re-elected, despite polls showing that majorities are disappointed in the service of those they have elected to serve.

On the other side of the issue, those against term limits primary complaint is that preventing the public from re-electing a qualified person, who has great experience in the position, is not in the best interest of the electorate.

If, however, term limits were not permanent, if there were a reasonable limit on the limits, both sides can get what they want. For example, after 12 years in any elected office, the office holder may not hold that office again until 4 years have elapsed. After that, they are eligible once again to hold the same office for up to 12 years, followed by another hiatus.

This would allow wonderful public servants to serve as many years as they wish, would allow the electorate to re-elect those wonderful public servants, and would still allow for fresh blood, innovative ideas, and a valid comparison, by allowing a newcomer in to the office every twelve years. An important ancillary benefit would be that in the intervening four years, the electorate could judge the mettle of their esteemed public servant by what they choose to do to fill those four years.

Inauguration Protests

2005-01-20T15:03:00.000-08:00

I watched a good many of the speeches at the ANSWER protest, via C-SPAN, and was struck by the simplistic tenor of many speakers. These issues are complex. They are not going to be solved, or helped, by chanting "Bush and Cheney go away!"

No objective observer could have watched or listened to President Bush's second inaugural address, and left with the opinion that the man is either dumb or evil. You may disagree with his choices, or his behavior, or the results of his actions. If you really do want to influence American policy, let us start with the premise that he really does want to do what he claims to want to do, to spread freedom to oppressed people all over the world. If that is true, would that be a bad thing?

If that is true, and if you have valid points to make, to show that the "unintended" consequences of his actions are lessening the freedom of people in America, or in other nations, are interfering with their ability to live freely, or to live at all, then President Bush ought to be open to your suggestions regarding how to better accomplish his agenda.

It is only when we enter the discussion with the bias that the other side is lying, or is manipulating the truth (they may be), or has ulterior motives (no doubt they do), that we interfere with our ability to communicate. Shouting slogans at each other ought to be a last political resort. Instead it has become the first action to be taken.

What Is A Moderate?

2005-01-20T10:20:00.000-08:00

In recent days I have heard many commentators, on virtually every type of media (including those typing on virtual media), claim they don't understand how anyone could be a "moderate." They state they don't even know what a moderate is. I was moved to create this site because I have yet to hear an adequate response to their derogatory characterizations of moderates.
These commentators have made careers largely by appealing to those who tend toward the visible ends of the political spectrum, those who are most willing to put their time and effort and voices behind what they believe, because they believe it rabidly, because they are either ultra-left or infra-right, they are blinded to the truth.
There used to be a concept enforced in American court rooms, the Reasonable Man Clause.
There used to be a concept in American politics, an understanding that at the end of the debate, all on both sides of the aisle are fighting for what they truly believe is going to further the good of the American people.
There are those in America, those whom Dr. Martin Luther King called the "Uncommitted Majority," who have in latter days been called the "Rockefeller Republicans," "Reagan Democrats," and "Soccer Moms," who have been the decisive factor in every national election in the past 35 years, and will be the decicisve factor in every election in the foreseeable future.
We "Moderates" in California just succeeded in ousting a Governor who was not responsive to the will of the people, in what I believe will come to be known as one of the most significant political revolutions in American History; and we elected a man who ran as a Republican, while espousing many beliefs anathema to that party. And yet, in the 2004 elections in California, not one office of 153 changed political party.
Watching Barbara Boxer attempt to embarass Dr. Condoleeza Rice, I was embarrassed for America; because this is what the state of our politics has become. After citing the recent Dr. King Holiday, someone who proudly claims to be Liberal, assails the character and integrity of someone she will have to work with for at least the next four years, someone on the verge of assuming the most powerful political position ever held by an African-American woman. Why?
It SEEMS she did it only because she disagrees with her politically. She admits Dr. Rice is qualified for the post. But then she states that Dr. Rice "lost her respect for the truth." Had she only prefaced her remark with the phrase, It SEEMS, Dr. Rice would have been given an opportunity to explain. Had she allowed Dr. Rice that opportunity, and remained open to the possibility that perhaps there is a valid explanation, those people who share Senator Boxer's viewpoint might have gotten a fuller accounting of the truth. Instead now we are treated to the fallout of the attack, speculation of Sen. Boxer's political positioning, discussion of the state of American politics, a cascade of vitriol that could have easily been avoided.
We Moderates believe that the only way out of this current political climate is for those on both sides to put the good of the country (meaning all the people of the country) over the good of their own party, or their own career. If Democrats will stop claiming that Republicans want to kill children and leave old people to starve on the streets, and if Republicans will stop claiming that the Democratic Party wants Communism in America, if both will approach each situation honestly looking for a win-win solution, there is hope for this Nation.
If we Moderates continue to allow fanatics on the edges of the spectrum to dominate our parties (including virtually every Independent party) we will continue along the destructive path we are on. It is time for the Uncommited Majority to stop applauding the losses of one side or the other, and only support those who would advance the good of America.