50 Year Plan – Page 2

Who will I support? – part three

The other day I was reading an article Michelle Malkin wrote on her website that talked about Republicans being a little apathetic when it came to their Presidential choices, noting about the apathy, “That’s about where I’m at now, alas. How about you?”

Well, Michelle, here’s one part of your answer, courtesy of monoblogue.

Today I’m going to hit up issue number 10 on my list, election reform. This also includes camapign finance so it’s a relatively broad issue and candidates are all over the map on it.

If you go back and look at my chapter on election reform and campaign finance, my pet issues are voter ID, early and absentee voting, and removing campaign financing restrictions in exchange for instant disclosure.

But one thing I didn’t mention that deserves consideration because it’s favored by many Democrat candidates while I’m against it is the issue of felons voting. Here is the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied of abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

While Democrats argue that “condition of servitude” can be construed as a jail term, to me serving time is not “servitude”, but punishment. Slavery was servitude where those born into it had little or no choice in the matter; serving jail time is commonly (but not always) because of a choice made to violate laws that society dictates. And something tells me they’d do their damndest to deny Scooter Libby (who is now a convicted felon despite the trumped-up charges) his franchise.

As I did the research, I found that this is a “trap” issue for Democrats, who by and large were on the opposite side of the fence to me while the GOP candidates pretty much (with one notable exception) stayed away from the subject. In a way that’s wise, because I see this as mostly a state issue so not discussing it in a national campaign is actually closer to how I feel about it. Probably the main area of concern I have with existing law is in the area of campaign finance.

Thus, unlike my last installment which predominantly featured Republicans, this time we showcase Democrats trying to federalize everything – it’s something they’re good at.

However, the GOP does go first and there’s one guy who mentions the subject.

John McCain:

Most Americans understand that competitive elections in a free country require money. Since campaigns require spending funds to communicate with voters, they know we can never take money completely out of politics, nor should we. Americans have a right to support the candidates and the parties they endorse, including financially if they so choose.

But what most Americans worry about profoundly is corporations or individuals with huge checks seeking the undue influence on lawmakers that such largesse is intended to purchase. That is why John McCain has fought to enforce long-standing prohibitions on corporate and union contributions to federal political parties, for sensible donation limits, disclosure of how candidates and campaigns are funded, and the diligent enforcement of these common sense rules that promote maximum public participation in the political process and limit opportunities for corruption.

John McCain understands that in America the people are sovereign, and deserve a political process worthy of the sacrifices that have been made by so many to keep us free and proud. As President, John McCain will see to it that the institutions of self-government are respected pillars of democracy, not commodities to be bought, bartered, or abused.

Wow, that was easy. Now we turn to the Democrat side, beginning with Joe Biden.

Joe Biden:

This is from a news report on a New Hampshire debate:

Biden argued that political campaigns should be financed publicly to remove special interests from the political process.

Hillary Clinton devotes an issue page to voting, and also I found an excerpt from a speech she gave on government reform:

(W)e have to reform our election system. That’s where our democracy starts. We have to make sure that every vote is counted and every vote counts – and we know that the best place to hold a government accountable is at the ballot box. Unfortunately, there’s been a lot of interference with our electoral system in the last years, and there have been new requirements that have been put up as obstacles, that have really discouraged people from exercising their right to vote.

I’ve introduced legislation called the Count Every Vote Act, which is a comprehensive voting reform bill. It will make our voting systems more accountable and accessible. It will expand the right to vote of most of our citizens. It will create more opportunities for people to register to vote, and it will give greater assurances through paper-verified ballots that those votes will be counted. We need more oversight in our electoral system to discourage manipulation and deception. It is almost heart-breaking that I have to mention this on my reform agenda. American should lead the world in the best electoral system, using the best equipment.

Mike Gravel weighs in with what he calls the National Initiative.

Meanwhile, Dennis Kucinich has plenty to say on the subject, devoting two pages on his Presidential website to the twin issues of election reform and campaign finance.

Barack Obama chimes in from his website as well.

Bill Richardson:

In 2006, Governor Richardson signed into law the landmark New Mexico Make Every Vote Count Act, that moves the state to a single paper ballot system, makes New Mexico’s elections system more transparent and helps guarantee that every New Mexican’s ballot will be counted.

Looks like it’s time to add them up; or in this case it’s going to be subtract them out because I don’t agree with the vast majority of what these candidates say. Moreover, the stakes start to get higher as this part counts for nine points.

John McCain has my permanent disdain for introducing McCain-Feingold, and it doesn’t look like he’s learned anything since then. While he pays lip service to our right to donate to campaigns, his proposal’s not worked whatsoever, never mind it violates the First Amendment as I see it. It’s solely because he’s a Republican that I don’t hammer him for all nine points, he loses 8.5 and moves into negative territory overall.

No, Joe Biden, we do not need public financing of campaigns. He loses half of the possible points only because he said very little on the subject otherwise. A big minus 4.5 to you.

Hillary also has a completely wrong-headed approach, with the possible exception of a paper trail. Why make Election Day a national holiday? If a person’s not going to vote, they don’t deserve a day off to not do it. Same-day registration is a quick invitation to voter fraud, and who decides whether a person is an “impartial observer”? Most states already have provisions for elections to be supervised at the polling place by at least the two major parties. And something tells me Ben Cardin had a hand in the part about “(allowing) the attorney general to bring suit against anyone using deceptive practices (like distributing flyers with incorrect information about voter eligibility) to keep voters from voting.” You lose 8.5 points, Hillary.

Mike Gravel wants to use the Constitution to change our country from a Constitutional republic to a true democracy. All this would create is mass chaos as public opinion on some topics wildly diverges from one place to another, nor is public opinion always correct. After all, I’m told that the majority of people in Colonial times would’ve preferred to stay under the British crown. Should we have listened then? So much for your plus rating, Mike, you lose nine points.

Dennis Kucinich goes through a so-called progressive wish list of voting rules: completely public financing, Election Day as a holiday with instant registration, felons voting, and a concept called “instant runoff voting” where people pick a second and third choice, used if no candidate gains a majority. That may work in a primary situation (which occurs at the state level) but I’m not sure that’s feasible nationally. I’ll be ranking my choices in order here so I’m doing something similar; however, I only get one vote next year. So I give him credit for an interesting thought that may merit study at the state level; also he favors including “credible” third-party candidates in the debates. My only complaint there is who determines “credible.” I’ll subtract only six points overall; he has some decent ideas but the total package is dreadful.

Barack Obama notes his attempt to nationalize election rules and is dead-set against voters showing ID. That’s 180 degrees away from my view, so he loses all nine points.

Finally, Bill Richardson is just vague enough that he doesn’t lose many points. I’ll grant him that he did this on a state level; however, my assumption is that he would follow through with this on a national level, which violates states’ rights. So he loses three points.

In the revised standings the biggest change is McCain plummeting, and this time starts to reveal the divide that there is between Democrats and Republicans. But I also added and subtracted points based on comments Marc made regarding my previous gun control post; having read the evidence he submitted I found some of my point totals were worth changing. I’m adding 3.5 points to Ron Paul’s total thanks to this article (much appreciated since I found nothing on the subject on Paul’s website), subtracting 1/2 point from Rudy Giuliani, and adding 1 point to Bill Richardson on the Democrat side.

With these changes also factored in, we get these revised totals.

Republicans:

Duncan Hunter, 8 points
Ron Paul, 7.5 points
Mike Huckabee, 6.5 points
Sam Brownback, 4.5 points
Rudy Giuliani, 3.5 points
Tom Tancredo, 3 points
Fred Thompson, 2 points
Tommy Thompson, 1 point
Mitt Romney, no points
John McCain, -3 points

On the Democrat side, note that having no points is simply because there’s no opinions on the first three issues:

Chris Dodd, no points
John Edwards, no points
Bill Richardson, -2 points
Joe Biden, -4.5 points
Dennis Kucinich, -6 points
Mike Gravel, -8 points
Hillary Clinton, -8.5 points
Barack Obama, -9 points

On Tuesday we move up to the 9th place issue, that of trade and job creation. The economy is an issue and something tells me that there’s going to be some serious movement starting next week.

Who will I support? – part two

Today I move up to my issue ranked number 11, Second Amendment rights. It’s a topic I happened to write about right after the Virginia Tech shootings. And I get the feeling that this issue will begin to separate the men from the boys; or more properly the GOP from the gun-grabbing Democrats. Unlike my last effort discussing property rights, almost every candidate has a stance on the Second Amendment.

Once again, if I have a link I’ll simply use it, if the stance is part of a general issues page I’ll quote. This is also a handy method to tell which candidates spend more in-depth time discussing particular issues and which ones seem to wish their site be a contribution inlet. I’ll start with the GOP side and work my way through the Democrats. Since this issue is slightly more important, I bump the point totals up from 5 to 7.

Sam Brownback:

Gun Rights/Second Amendment

At the heart of the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment. This Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms, which is essential, as the Amendment itself affirms, to “the security of a free state.” Restrictive gun control laws aimed at weakening this constitutional right are not the answer. Instead, it is important for the government to enforce criminal gun laws already on the books, for communities to stand against gun violence, and for parents to teach children about gun safety.

Also, according to a press release on his site, “Brownback is proud of his 13-year track record of supporting the right to bear arms and his lifetime ‘A’ rating from the NRA.

In addition, I have a video link from the Brownback blog that discusses the Second Amendment.

Rudy Giuliani:

Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. When he was Mayor of a city suffering an average of almost 2000 murders a year, he protected people by getting illegal handguns out of the hands of criminals. As a result, shootings fell by 72% and the murder rate was cut by two-thirds. But Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn’t necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana.

Plus I found a video where Rudy discusses the Second Amendment, focusing on the DC gun ruling.

Mike Huckabee places his views here on its own web page.

Duncan Hunter:

Second Amendment

It seems every election year, some liberal politician dons an NRA cap and grabs a shotgun for a hunting photo-op, as if that means they support our right as Americans to keep and bear arms. I, myself, thoroughly enjoy hunting, having just recently spent a great weekend hunting elk in Arizona. But, the second amendment is not about hunting. It is about the right of you and me to be secure in our homes. We must vigorously defend against all attempts to chip away at the Second Amendment. You know as well as I do that there is one thing criminals prefer over any other: unarmed victims.

John McCain notes his Second Amendment views here.

Tom Tancredo:

I fully and completely support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The failure of the ACLU to defend this right, and of federal courts to make the second amendment binding on the states, as they have made the first amendment and most others, testifies to their intellectual hypocrisy.

On his blog site, Fred Thompson outlines how he sees gun rights.

Tommy Thompson:

Governor Thompson is a gun owner who signed legislation that banned Wisconsin communities from passing anti-gun ordinances that are stricter than state law.

For the other two on the GOP side, I didn’t find anything pertaining to Ron Paul’s or Mitt Romney’s views on the subject, although it was stated by Sam Brownback that Romney’s a flip-flopper on the issue because Romney has only been an NRA member a short time and was not a particularly gun-friendly governor in Massachusetts. I have to give Brownback a few props (how about 1/2 point) for violating the Eleventh Commandment when he feels it necessary. It’s not a personal attack at all.

Now it’s on to the Democrats. At the start of planning this series I struggled with the concept of “negative” points, but a bad view is worse than no view at all and should be penalized. Besides, if a Democrat is in negative territory and a Republican is in positive territory, there’s not much doubt whose side I’m on is there?

But oddly enough, I found only one Democrat willing to make a stand on the Second Amendment, Mike Gravel. The other seven didn’t see that as an issue of enough importance to bother with – possibly because they cater to their gun-grabbing base? Here’s Gravel’s stance on the issue:

Mike Gravel:

While Senator Gravel fully supports the 2nd Amendment, he believes that fundamental change must take place with regards to gun ownership. The senator advocates a licensing program where a potential gun owner must be licensed as well as properly trained with a firearm before they may own one.

Of course, the question is how do they rate? We’ll actually have a little more movement this time around as 9 of the 18 hopefuls (8 of them GOP) took a stance.

Sam Brownback starts out well, but loses points because he speaks of enforcing existing gun laws and not repealing them. But he wants no further laws so he gets some credit, I’ll give him 4.5 out of 7 points, since he got the half-point bonus.

Jim Gilmore has the NRA leadership post, which is good. Despite that I have the same quibble with him as I do with Brownback, in that he advocates no rollback in federal law. Also, logic would dictate that getting the guns out of the hands of criminals would mean fewer guns on the street. After all, is a criminal not going to commit murder just because for him having a gun is illegal? Jim picks up 3 points.

Rudy Giuliani points at his record of keeping guns out the hands of criminals but makes no mention of getting the federal government out of the gun law business. On the other hand, he does mention in the video something that rings true – regardless of his personal views, the Constitution is clear on the matter of gun ownership. And he also shows an awareness that individual states need to have their own laws, so I’ll give Rudy 4 points.

Mike Huckabee comes thisclose to getting all seven points, I just wish he’d talked about repealing bad laws with the actual term. But he’ll get 6.5 points.

Duncan Hunter could do better if he expanded on his short statement. His heart’s in the right place but I want specifics, not platitudes. Hunter gets 3 points for effort.

With the exception of advocating trigger locks, John McCain’s Senatorial record is pretty good. But I see nowhere in the white paper where he’d roll back federal laws either. I’ll give him 5.5 points.

Like Hunter, Tom Tancredo suffers from a lack of specifics. Obviously I support the Second Amendment; hell, even most Democrats say they do with certain caveats. He’ll get three points for his effort but that’s all.

Fred Thompson did a nice commentary with background information and correctly points out that there are advocacy groups who would like to see the Second Amendment eroded. So he has a grasp of the problem; now what’s his solution? He’s lacking in that so he only gets two points.

Nor does Tommy Thompson say much about the issue, which is unfortunate. Signing one bill, albeit fairly sweeping, does not a pro-gun candidate make. One point.

On the Democrat side, I have to surprise myself and actually give Mike Gravel one point for advocating training and licensing. While firearm licensing is truly a state issue and not a federal one, he’s not explicitly in favor of taking away guns so I’ll give him a bit of credit.

With the number of comments on gun control from the GOP and Jim Gilmore’s withdrawal from the race it means my GOP standings are revised to a degree and will mostly reflect this issue.

Duncan Hunter, 8 points
Mike Huckabee, 6.5 points
John McCain, 5.5 points
Sam Brownback, 4.5 points
Rudy Giuliani, 4 points
Ron Paul, 4 points
Tom Tancredo, 3 points
Fred Thompson, 2 points
Tommy Thompson, 1 point
Mitt Romney, no points

And on the Democrat side, it can now be argued that, for at least three days, I support one Democrat (Mike Gravel) more than one Republican (Mitt Romney). Trust me, I doubt that will last, having seen both websites! And just wait until the D’s go into negative territory with all of the issues yet to come. Today’s rating is what you call a statistical fluke.

Mike Gravel, 1 point
Joe Biden, no points
Hillary Clinton, no points
Chris Dodd, no points
John Edwards, no points
Dennis Kucinich, no points
Barack Obama, no points
Bill Richardson, no points

On Friday, I’ll continue this series by looking at my next most important issue, election reform.

Who will I support? – part one

Welcome to those of you seeing this through Carnival of Maryland 11. This is the first of a series that will continue on Tuesdays and Fridays through August.

As many of you know, I still haven’t made up my mind regarding who I’m going to support for the GOP presidential nomination. So it’s high time I did it.

Most people have some pet issue that they base their support on. I’m definitely not a one-issue person in that my support isn’t based on a candidate being simply pro-life, pro-gun, anti-judicial activism, or wherever their passion lies. As frequent readers know, my issue base is much more broad and, while it’s generally considered conservative, I don’t subscribe to the portion of conservatism that advocates Constitutional amendments regarding flag burning, abortion, etc. Much as the recent immigration fight had its opponents (including myself) that advocated simply tightening enforcement of existing laws, by and large I’d like to see Congress and the federal government as a whole follow the Constitution they already have, with a few additions that I spoke about previously.

But the first part of my decision comes on the issue of eminent domain and property rights. This is how the game will be played:

Each issue is worth a certain number of points. In this case, eminent domain ranks 12th on my list of the most important issues so it’s worth just 5 points. Other issues will rank accordingly higher and be worth more points.

The points are not static. In this example I only found three candidates who had an explicit position on the eminent domain issue – thus only three get a score right now. But if I find out later about other candidates with a view on the subject I’ll amend the scores accordingly. This will also hold true if one or more do a John Kerry-style flip-flop.

And most importantly, if a supporter wants to pitch their guy and give me evidence to back up the statement they make, I’m open to changing scores. But like Ronald Reagan I’m going to “trust but verify.”

To make this an easier read, I’ll go by the following rule. Having perused all the major candidate websites today, some have their issues page as just one page with short descriptions and others do separate pages for each issue. Particularly when they get to the most important issues, it’ll be wise on my part to simply link to a page rather than make the articles much longer. So if there’s a separate page, I’ll post the link to follow and if not I’ll quote directly.

So here goes. The three candidates who get my initial score are all Republicans: Jim Gilmore, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul. Gilmore has separately paged what he terms the “National Property Rights Initiative” and writes about it in Human Events; meanwhile, Hunter and Paul are more brief so I’ll reproduce their statements below.

Duncan Hunter:

Kelo property rights/eminent domain decision by the Supreme Court:

I am deeply concerned with the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision greatly broadening local government’s use of eminent domain in Kelo vs. New London and believe it is important that Congress protect the property rights of private landowners and curb the government from excessive regulatory takings. It is for this reason that I voted in favor of expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion in the Kelo case.

Additionally, I cosponsored H.R. 3268 (Gingrey-GA), the Eminent Domain Tax Relief Act of 2005, which abolished the capital gains tax on private property taken by the government through eminent domain. I also voted in favor of a legislative amendment Congressman Scott Garrett (R-NJ) offered to H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, prohibiting federal funding from being used to improve or construct infrastructure support on lands acquired through the use of eminent domain of private property for private development.

Ron Paul:

Property Rights and Eminent Domain

We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.

Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.

We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying “just compensation.”

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.

All three have written thoughtful pieces on the subject. But Gilmore’s plan had just a little bit too much extra bureaucracy and regulation to me, adding a Special Assistant, a Presidential Commission, and a mandate for the HUD Secretary. So it’s an effort but not done all that well, he’ll get 2 points.

Duncan Hunter has gotten behind some good common-sense legislation and properly points out that it is indeed up to Congress to take care of the problem. His approach is actually more proper (asking Congress to take care of the problem) than Ron Paul’s, although Paul does note correctly that federal agencies (which are under the purview of the executive branch as well) do play a role in overreaching their proper bounds. The only fault I’d find with Ron Paul is his use of the hackneyed “special interests” phrase. Thus I give Hunter the full 5 points and Paul 4 points.

Like the first inning of a ballgame, it’s too early to make predictions but all three of these guys got off to a good start. So the early standings through one post are:

Hunter, 5 points.
Paul, 4 points.
Gilmore, 2 points.
Brownback, no points.
Giuliani, no points.
Huckabee, no points.
McCain, no points.
Romney, no points.
Tancredo, no points.
F. Thompson, no points.
T. Thompson, no points.

Of course, since no Democrat has that issue among the websites I looked through (generally I did a search for the word “Kelo” and the phrase “eniment domain”) no one got points. But judging from their liberal leanings and the known persuasion of most of those on the Supreme Court who voted for the defendant in Kelo v. New London, I doubt there were points to be had anyway.

And like I said, if you’re a supporter or work for a candidate and you can show me where I’m not finding something or interpreting incorrectly, by all means set me straight. I may have missed something on a website or a related blog.

In the meantime, on Tuesday I’m planning on moving up to the 11th most important issue, that being Second Amendment rights. I know we’ll get some points out of that subject!

Late note: Jim Gilmore dropped his bid on July 14th, so I have one less website to peruse now. That’s too bad, he was in the early running for my endorsement. He was a bit handicapped because of a late start and health issues (eye surgery). I wish him good luck with his future endeavors.

A 50 year plan moves forward

If you read monoblogue during the first half of the year, you’ll certainly know that I spent several posts talking about what I call my 50 year plan – so-called because it’s going to take at least the next two generations to implement some of the sweeping changes I seek. Hopefully I’ll be around to see them!

At this juncture I’m going to take my thoughts on the direction our country should go down two paths. One of these paths will be posted on monoblogue for all to see and the other will hopefully find a wider audience sometime in the near-term future.

Starting later this week, I’m going to use most of these pet issues I care about to compare and contrast the Republican presidential candidates and see which ones I think are best suited to run the country. And as an added bonus, I’ll rate the Democrats and minor party ones as well, insofar as I can with some of the limited information available to me from some of the lesser lights.

From the sixteen chapters I originally devoted to the 50 year plan, I’ve whittled them down to 12 issues that I’m going to grade the candidates on. After looking at the issues and rereading the posts, I’ve decided that some are related enough to be combined. I also graded the twelve in order of importance, so what I’ll do is begin the process with the twelfth most important and proceed, probably on a semi-weekly basis, to number one. I’m shooting for this to run on Tuesdays and Fridays starting this coming Friday. I’m also exploring other ways to interact with various campaigns.

I’ll need to work offline as I can for the second path. One goal I had in doing the 50 year plan was to promote discussion. And while that’s occurred in most cases, it’s a case of the limited scope of my readership retarding the progress I seek. In the back of my mind, though, the posts were intended as a sort of outline for a longer form of writing.

All told, my posts dealing with the 50 year plan ran about 22,000 words. In book form, that’s somewhere between 70 and 90 pages. And while a lot of assertions I made were factual, I also wrote this in a Maryland-centric way and I think I need to do further research and study into some of the subjects I delved into. It’s probably not going to change my views on them any, but buttressing my arguments with a more diverse set of facts, figures, and research can only make the argument stronger.

To achieve this I have a goal of, in the next year or so, enlarging the 50 year plan into a book format. If it can get published, great – if not, it’s still helpful for doing monoblogue. I figure, why can’t I write a best-seller? After all, many greats in political writing and thought started out with just an idea and made it into a lucrative career. May as well dream big, huh?

In the interim, I’m still planning on being helpful in enlightening the voting public into the choices that we’ll be faced with here in February and November, 2008. Being into politics as I am, this will be a fun process. Seeing that the Shorebirds season is now over 60% complete, soon it’s going to be “back to school” and Labor Day (the traditional start of political season) is not all that far away. It’s going to be a LONG season since we have the early primary, but it’s also quite possibly a watershed election in American history. My goal is an informed electorate, so stay with monoblogue as we learn together.

A 50 year plan: Taxation

Welcome to the final action chapter of my 50 year plan. The next chapter will be about where I’m taking the concept.

Over the weekend I read a book that I recommend everyone check out: The FairTax Book by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder. Say what you will about the concept of a national sales tax, the argument in favor of this system is well-spelled out in the book. I can’t say that I’m a total convert, but I do know the system as it stands is corrupted, complicated, and I think broken beyond repair. If it were a computer our tax code would be headed for the scrap heap.

I think the progressive tax system that Boortz and Linder currently revile is exactly the wrong approach because I don’t go in for the bullshit about soaking the rich. People who manage to amass wealth generally do it through hard work and I feel that should be rewarded, not punished. So for quite awhile I’ve been an advocate of a fairer, flatter tax system. A decade ago I was a big Steve Forbes supporter because of his flat tax idea. Former Congressman Dick Armey was another flat tax proponent.

But as time went on I did see some problems with the Forbes and Armey approaches. I think my biggest one was that there are still two numbers that can be toyed with, as both the rate and the standard deduction could be tweaked. And of course, some brilliant mind would come up with just one extra deduction that simply had to be in there and that would start yet another rush back to the system we have now. (In fact, Armey’s plan maintained a few cherished deductions.) Moreover, I don’t see any effort to end backup withholding. Originally people wrote yearly or quarterly checks to the IRS, similar to the way people who pay estimated tax do now. Backup withholding started in the World War II era, sold as a way to ensure more revenue to the government for fighting the war but not dropped once hostilities ended. So people don’t tend to think about what they pay in taxes because they never actually see the money they would’ve received.

Let’s say for the sake of my argument that the FairTax is the way to go. Job number one is to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. Obviously the tricks to that are a) getting a 2/3 majority of each house of Congress to go along with it and b) convincing 38 states to do the same. If we ever get through step A I’d be willing to bet a good dinner at a fancy restaurant that Maryland would be one of the holdouts insofar as step B goes. The reason repealing the Sixteenth Amendment has to be done first (or concurrently) with adopting a new sales tax system is that I could just see some Democrat saying, ok, you have the FairTax, but we need to keep the income tax around in case we need a backup source of revenue – first chance they get, bam! Double taxation.

More tellingly, we know that some in Congress would fight a national sales tax tooth and nail because then they can’t divvy out tax breaks to favored constituencies, like homeowners. But is it the duty of government to provide market-busting incentives to promote some action or penalize ideas that lead to vast wealth? For example, the state of Maryland had a program to give tax incentives to those who wanted to build “green” buildings. Is this a noble purpose? Possibly. But shouldn’t market forces allow this to happen naturally? After all, if a “green” building provides energy savings that’s worth the extra price, one would think developers would adopt all of those standards. Obviously the added cost is still a disincentive, or not deemed to have a worthwhile payback period yet.

But getting rid of the usage of the tax code as a carrot or stick is probably the biggest hurdle. To that end, it’s going to take getting a majority in Congress that aren’t power-hungry but truly citizen servants. And that’s where the next two generations have to play a part.

Another hidden benefit of a tax based on consumption is that I’m not forced to pay it. Every two weeks I get a paycheck only to find that 28.7% of it has been vacuumed out by the federal and state governments (yes, that backup withholding thing.) And that doesn’t add in a couple “breaks” I get because my flex benefit and 401.(k) are pre-tax deductions. Because of the tax laws I can’t use that money I earned unless certain restrictions are met – in the case of the flex benefit I have to spend it on medical-related expenses to be reimbursed at a later date. I can’t touch my 401.(k) without penalty for another 17 years.

But under a consumption tax I can choose to pay it when I spend money on goods. With the somewhat frugal lifestyle that I lead, I’d have less of a tax bite than a person who spends money like water. It’s the element of choice I have in the matter that appeals to me. Right now I have the “choice” of paying taxes or being financially ruined by the IRS. Plus it’s tough to practice architecture from the federal pen (and it goes without saying they’d pull my license to practice in Maryland). I also have a sneaking hunch they’d frown on me writing a blog from there too, particularly one like monoblogue.

If you look at all 15 chapters of my 50 year plan (16 if you count the introduction) you’ll see that there’s one underlying theme that ties them all together.

I want the next generations of Americans to enjoy more of the benefits of freedom and less of the oppression of an ever-expanding federal government. In this case, it’s the freedom to keep more of what they will earn if they choose to. I’m also aware that they’ll have to fight for their freedoms against many and varied enemies, not just from outside our nation, but some from within who will be seductive in their promises of equality for all.

As a nation we should strive for equality of opportunity. But we have to guard against the big-government do-gooders who preach equality of outcome. Just like in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, those in power have a tendency to deem themselves more equal than others. If I live to see another 50 years, all I ask at that point is to see that those generations have the freedom and ability to live and succeed as far as their talents, abilities, and knowledge take them. Show me the American Dream envisioned by the Founding Fathers is still alive.

A 50 year plan: Health care and Medicare

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Health care is NOT a right.

This chapter may sound suspiciously like my last chapter on Social Security because the solution is pretty much the same. It’s time to get the federal government out of the health care arena too. But instead of a gradual sunsetting of the program as I suggest for Social Security, the Medicare program would likely be better served by turning it over to each individual state and letting them set their methods of payment and such. Thus the federal government wouldn’t be sending states billions to assist with their existing health care and health insurance program costs. Because many states require a balanced budget (like Maryland does), it will bring a debate on what should be done about the issue of government involvement in health care and how to pay for it to each state capital, instead of just depending on the bottomless well of the federal government to cover their shortfalls as they currently do.

Some states have made attempts to change the system by focusing on the health insurance aspect. Probably the most well-known is the Massachusetts plan that Presidential candidate Mitt Romney sheperded through. In simple terms, Bay State residents either need to have insurance through their employer, through the state (for unemployed or poorer residents), or pay a penalty with their income taxes. Many compare it to a state requirement to carry auto insurance, but there’s one piece of the puzzle that tends to be forgotten. People can get along in life without owning a car (hey, the Amish do it) and, particularly for those young and relatively healthy, some don’t feel the need for health insurance. The Massachusetts plan compels people who might not want a product to buy it anyway as the price for living in the state. While it’s their right as one of the several states, I tend not to agree with mandates of this sort.

A good resource for further discussion of the Massachusetts plan is here.

Obviously, people want to live longer and enjoy a better quality of life. Compared to our ancestors, we live much longer and in general have healthier lives because many of the diseases and ailments that plagued earlier generations have been wiped out or controlled. Going under the knife used to be a risky proposition, now millions do it simply for vanity reasons or to improve their eyesight. Drugs have moved from simply being lifesavers (like penicillin) to those devoted simply to improving one’s perceived quality of life, such as Rogaine or Viagra.

So why did President Bush and Congress push a prescription drug program (Medicare Part D) that entwines the federal government even deeper into the internal business of Big Pharma? Heaven only knows, but it’s another Gordian knot we have to figure out how to untie. The sad thing is that many people didn’t need this program expansion but will have to deal with it anyway. Instead of leaving well enough alone, or, even better, allowing the states to propose their own solutions, taxpayers are stuck with yet another entitlement.

It’s amazing how many other issues of import affect our health care system as well. Illegal immigration has forced a number of hospitals and emergency rooms in the Southwest to close as they were not being compensated for caregiving. Without tort reform, doctors practice what’s known as “defensive medicine”, ordering unneeded tests and procedures to build a case in their defense if they’re brought to court. Like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon most issues in the national limelight can touch healthcare sooner or later. Solving the issue will take a coordinated effort across many fields; paying for it is my focus here.

With the income tax system we have now (more on that in my next chapter), I think the best interim solution is to allow health savings accounts (HSA) to become easier to get and more accessible. In general, the HSA is treated like an IRA for tax purposes and is combined with a high-deductible medical insurance plan. The problem is that not all health insurance providers cater to the HSA market. Also, many states still mandate certain coverage types that may or may not apply to the individual case. Perhaps by delinking the insurance component we could get better participation. While the insurance aspect could be encouraged through financial incentive, if folks wanted to go without and participate they still may.

And just like the fiscal responsibility discussion in my last chapter, there’s an element of personal accountability that becomes part of the solution. For example, one aspect of attempting to drive down health care costs is businesses not allowing smoking on their premises. While I don’t think the nanny state should have a say in this, it’s just fine for a private entity to do so. Whereas I’m not in favor of banning transfats, common sense dictates that if you slam down two Whoppers and a king-size order of fries on a regular basis, you’ll get to be obese and that’s not a particularly healthy thing. (Welcome to my former world, I finally got a bit smarter about that. Fortunately I didn’t do a whole lot of damage to myself.)

The best way to avoid the high cost of health care, particularly the high-dollar results of cardiac treatment or combatting diabetes, is to live in a reasonably healthy manner. It’s a shame to me that kids today are already too portly for their own good because of a sedentary lifestyle. As a kid, I was out the door like a shot during the summer, out riding my bike or playing sandlot baseball. While the dregs of society have dictated a few changes to the world kids live in today, it’s not impossible for a kid to get outside and have the stink blown off him or her.

It’s those sedentary kids of today who are going to have to deal with our healthcare woes. I’d not like to see their paychecks eroded as badly as mine is now to deal with the federal government’s “one-size-fits-all” solution.

A 50 year plan: Fiscal responsibility

It’s sheer happenstance that I write this chapter of the 50 year plan at a time when budget battles are looming at all levels of government – locally fighting over a property tax increase, the state looking at a special session of the General Assembly this fall to combat a structural deficit, and the federal government perpetually makes a show of trying to whittle down its deficit spending.

Over the last few decades, a number of ideas have been bandied about as possible solutions to the problem of government overspending. I’m going to talk about three in particular for this chapter.

To begin, many have attempted to jumpstart the process by introducing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The argument goes that most states have a balanced budget amendment so the federal government should as well.

There are times I would agree with that; however, in this era of an open-ended war with the forces of radical Islam, a balanced budget may not be readily attainable. Generally a balanced budget amendment leaves an exemption for times of war, and, whereas states cannot declare war, the federal government retains that right to do so. Also, since 2001 the government has a stated position of dealing with the national security threat brought about by al-Qaeda and its allies globally in any and all ways possible.

So a balanced budget amendment is probably not in the cards, at least for the foreseeable future. Something much more attainable but probably just as realistic as enacting a balanced budget amendment is reforming the system of “earmarks”.

A couple months ago we had our state Senator, Lowell Stoltzfus, as a guest speaker at the WCRC meeting and the subject of state spending naturally came up. Like all other states, Maryland has a capital improvements budget and what we call “bond bills.” What occurs during the portion of the General Assembly session devoted to the budget is a lot of serious horsetrading and competition as legislators scramble to secure pork for their districts.

The point Stoltzfus brought up was that you have two choices: you can take the high road and not seek any money for the district as a means of cutting spending. Unfortunately, there’s always another legislator without those scruples who would be happy to fund something in his or her district with that money since it’s going to be available anyway. Or, you can sort of hold your nose and grab for as much cash as you can get, which is distasteful but is also a sad reality that the money is going to be made available because almost all legislators like being in Annapolis and want to be reelected. Yes, in my way of thinking it’s called buying votes.

Now multiply that by 50 states’ worth of elected officials on the federal level and you see why our financial house is so far out of order – particularly when there’s a theoretically unlimited money supply out there. After all, the deficit is just a number to them.

So you come to a third theory, which isn’t always thought of as a fiscal responsibility aspect but I believe would contribute to the effort of reining in spending.

At one time, I subscribed to a fairly libertarian theory that term limits were bad policy because you deny voters all of the possible choices. But over the last few years, as I’ve seen hundreds of career politicians spend decades in office, I’ve changed my thinking. Our Founding Fathers intended political duty as something done for just a few years, which is why the House of Representatives was set up to be elected by the people every two years. Many don’t realize that the Senate was set up with six year terms in part because Senators were not directly elected by the people, they were chosen by state legislatures. The longer terms were in order to bring continuity to the office when there was turnover in state legislatures on a semi-annual basis. These terms were not changed when the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913, only the method of Senate election.

While term limits may seen an unnatural limit on the will of the people, the principle is already in the Constitution as the 22nd Amendment. Ratified in 1951, it codified what had been a tradition started by George Washington and carrying through until Franklin Roosevelt defied the norm by running for a third consecutive term in 1940. Prior to FDR, no President had served more than two terms. Teddy Roosevelt ran for what would’ve been almost a third full term in 1912 (taking office upon the assassination of President McKinley in 1901), but he had been out of office since 1909.

Further, since the Amendment was ratified, regular change has occurred at the executive branch. A party holding the office of President for 8 years has been the norm, except for the years of Jimmy Carter through George H.W. Bush. Democrats only held the presidency for one term under Carter (1977-81) before the GOP held sway for 12 years (1981-1993, Reagan and G.H.W. Bush.) We returned to an eight year cycle with Bill Clinton and the trend would continue if a Democrat wins back the Oval Office in 2008.

But this change does not occur in lesser levels of government. A number of Congressmen and Senators, generally Democrats who favor an all-encompassing government, have held their offices 30 years or more. Once entrenched, they become obstacles to reform. And, above all, reform is what’s needed at the federal level if the taxpayers are ever to get true relief as I’ve outlined in earlier parts of my 50 year plan.

I also wanted to write about fiscal responsibility on a personal level. Sure, it would be nice to have all levels of government tighten their belts in order to keep more money in our collective pockets where it belongs. But we have a part to play in this too.

I tell people the story of one of the downstairs neighbors I had when my first ex-wife and my daughter (step in name only) lived in the upstairs half of a duplex. He bragged about his $800 TV and $800 stereo (which had bass enough to thump my apartment at 2 a.m.) but it turned out he could never keep his wife’s car in repair and they were eventually evicted for not paying the rent – after they had the gas turned off. Hopefully they learned a lesson from that but something tells me they just skipped to the next rental and did the same thing.

And I know that I talk about things I do that are frivolous, but it’s a question of moderation. I don’t see bands every weekend, my Shorebirds tickets are a company benefit, and I didn’t buy an overly expensive house or car even though I could have. The Sun yesterday had an article about car sales slowing because of longer finance periods for their present cars.

I suppose the best advice I can give to young people is to take the first 10% off your check and stick it in a 401.k or someplace else you can’t easily touch it. Then pay your bills and groceries and such. Also cut up the credit cards, and if you own a house ignore the siren call of home equity loans for the most part, unless it’s something that would improve your property value or a needed repair like fixing the roof. If there’s one thing that’s become a pet peeve of mine, it’s seeing and hearing dozens of advertisements a week that tell the unsuspecting that they can have (and deserve) it all, just refinance your home. Never mind the deeper hole that you’ve dug for yourself just to take a cruise to Aruba or buy the big-screen TV you’ll likely have to replace (with a bigger one, of course) in three years. Sure, you can deduct the interest off your taxes – for now.

Am I frugal? To an extent, yes. I can be a little tight with my money but my life has taught me the hard way that it’s a good policy to have. I paid a lot of interest to the folks at MasterCard, Visa, and Discover for a bunch of years before I finally got wise. So I make every attempt to stay within a budget and plan for the future.

So maybe the “buy now, pay later” basis of our economy takes a hit. Smart people are always able to land on their feet when adversity strikes. I’m trying to avoid two generations’ worth of train wrecks with some simple advice. It’s up to my readers of that age to take it.

Social Security blowback

There’s a comment that I want to respond to but the point is too important to bury in my comments section. So I guess it’s back to politics for a bit.

“Myndful” has been a critic of my Social Security plan, which is fine. I wrote it off the cuff, almost as a conversation starter about a possible solution I see to the problems inherent in the program. But he (or she, I’m not sure) made this statement as part of the last comment:

“I tend to agree that social security as a retirement insurance program needs to be rethought. But going back to my comment about my age group (late 20’s) – how many people my age do you think have seriously thought about supporting themselves 40 years down the road?”

There’s two responses I have to this portion of the comment. Number one, by sunsetting the program over the amount of time I’m proposing it’s not like they’re not going to get fair warning. And how many young people already have an inkling that Social Security isn’t going to be around for them anyway? We hear on a regular basis that the program’s going to go into the tank in 2040 or whatever year they decide sounds scary but far-off enough to plug the latest “fix.” So this is my idea for a solution, and for most young people it’s just going to make what they’ve thought all along a self-fulfilling prophecy.

My other response is actually going to lead me into part of my next chapter in the 50 year plan, because I was planning on talking about fiscal responsibility – moreso on a governmental level but to some extent on the personal level.

Maybe I had a bit more of a head on my shoulders than most late 20’s types but I was already attempting to put money away for my retirement. Unfortunately, I also had a spouse who enjoyed having a lot of “stuff” and I could never put away a good sum of money until much later. (To be fair, we also bought a house in that time and used a chunk of my retirement money as a down payment.) Each time I tried I ended up having to withdraw the money I’d squirreled away. So I really didn’t get a good start on my retirement until about 8 years ago, in my mid 30’s.

But I look at the “bling” that kids in their 20’s spend their money on and it makes me shake my head. If they took 10% of what they spent on tricking up their little Hondas or buying games for their PlayStation and salted it away, they wouldn’t miss it but it would add up over time, not to mention keep their credit card payments at bay.

“Myndful” also noted:

“Making a sweeeping (sic) statement like ‘drop social security’ is all well and good, but what are you offering instead?”

My copy of the Constitution says not a thing about the federal government securing retirement. However, if a state wanted to get into that business, it’s up to them. An obvious example is where Alaska already distributes oil royalty payments to certain citizens – they could easily recast it as a retirement program and set up accounts for each resident. And we all know Maryland Democrats would have the attitude that you really don’t need the 12% that FICA takes out anyway and they’d likely try to vacuum it out of your wallet to set up a state program after the demise of the federal one is enacted. I’d fight that tooth and nail because I’m of the opinion we should try to take care of ourselves as much as we can, but Constitutionally it would be acceptable.

I have to give “Myndful” credit for making good comments that advance the post, as did the other people who gave their two cents. Really, I think I get the best comments of any of the blog sites around here, which I suppose means I have the best readers. So keep up the good work!

A 50 year plan: Social Security

A facet of my 50 year plan that’s going to take a combination of diligence, guts, and sacrifice is embodied in what I’d like to see done with the Social Security program. I personally feel that Social Security should be sunsetted.

There. I’ve said it.

Let the AARP bitch and complain, I don’t care. I’m going to give the AARP a piece of advice – in less than 7 1/2 years I become eligible to join your organization (it is age 50, right?), but just save yourself the mailing because I’m going to tell you to drop dead.

And I know that there’s millions of people who draw a Social Security check out there, and they were promised benefits for placing their taxes in the trust of the government for all those years that they worked. One myth is that you’re only receiving the money you put into Social Security. I ran some basic numbers at the Social Security website.

A mythical person who was born on today’s date in 1945 (so he/she turns 62 and is eligible for benefits) would receive the following per month based on these income levels at his/her last full year:

$30,000 income would get $691 per month now, $965 per month if they retired at age 66, and $1,333 per month if they retired at age 70.
$60,000 income would get $1,086 per month now, $1,537 per month if they retired at age 66, and $2,147 per month if they retired at age 70.
$100,000 income would get $1,438 per month now, $1,980 per month if they retired at age 66, and $2,701 per month if they retired at age 70.

For this mythical example, I also found the tax rates for each year, starting with the 3.625% rate in 1963, the first year the SSA assumes earnings, and up to the current 6.2% rate in effect since 1990. (This doesn’t count the Medicare tax.)

At the $30,000 income level and retiring at age 62, it takes until 1990 (27 years) for one year’s taxes to practically equal one month’s current benefit of $691. The first month of benefit collection exceeds all of the money put in during the first 10 working years. All told in this particular case, the total taxes paid by the individual equal $27,657.11, or 40 months’ worth of benefits. If this person decides to work until age 70, the payoff is slightly shorter, about 32 months. (SSA assumes the same $30k income on out years though.) The person at the $60,000 income level has a little more room to complain because of the lower relative benefit; that mythical recipient has 51 checks come before the taxes are redeemed. Retiring at 70 bumps that down to 40 months, again assuming the same $60,000 income level.

And what of our executive drawing 100 large a year? His payoff works out to 64 months if he or she retires at age 62. Interestingly enough, Joe or Jill Executive contributes a bit less per dollar than the others because they occasionally bump into the top end of the tax scale, and it’s even moreso for the out years in the SSA formulas. Thus the payback for retiring at age 70 drops a full year to 52 months. But in any case, living past retirement and drawing Social Security for more than 5 years or so fully exhausts all of the resources placed into it by a worker. After that they are on the backs of those working right now.

As far as that goes, I found my personal Social Security report that runs through 2005. (In a month I’ll get my 2006 one.) Over 20 years of working, I’ve paid into the system $34,764. I don’t know about you, but I would’ve liked to have that extra 35 grand during the time.

In his first term President Bush introduced a measure that sort of took my idea halfway with the concept of personal accounts. Of course, the Democrats and AARP (not that there’s much difference between the two) accused President Bush of wanting to destroy Social Security. Well, go ahead and accuse me because I want to as well. The government had no business in the first place getting into retirement accounts, and much of the entitlement mentality that plagues America today can be traced back to the creation of the Social Security program.

On the other hand, there are millions upon million of Americans who put their trust into this program paying them their promised benefits upon retirement so they went on their merry free-spending way and didn’t put anything away for their future. Thus, the program has to “wither on the vine” as Newt Gingrich was accused of saying about Medicare.

The other issue with sunsetting Social Security is that the federal government takes the money that is withdrawn from your paycheck and spends it on things not associated with Social Security – and has since the late 1960’s. Part of the impending problems with the program have to do with this incessant raiding of the (so-called) “Social Security Trust Fund.” To the feds, it’s free money and I don’t believe it’s on-budget either.

So something needs to be done. I have one possible approach; granted it’s a little arbitrary but at least I’m placing an idea in the hopper that I think merits study.

Anyone who collects Social Security now or in the fairly short-term future will get full promised benefits. People of a certain age were suckered into the thought that they would have their retirement supplemented by Social Security and it wouldn’t be right to pull that rug out from under them. So I’d say those born prior to 1950 come into this group.

If you were born between 1950 and 1960, you still have several prime earning years remaining and it gives you time to sock money away in a retirement account. So at that point benefits would be lessened on a sliding scale depending on date of birth, I’d say 75% to 85% of full benefits. People in my age bracket (I was born in 1964) would have benefits decline at an accelerating rate, so eventually those born around 1980 or so would be left with zero – however, as they age and fewer and fewer receive benefits their tax rates to pay for the survivors would go down. However, they probably wouldn’t pay zero taxes for their working life as more people reach a riper old age. Someone who’s 100 years old right now has been collecting benefits for 35 years or so and more people than ever reach the century mark.

There will also have to be some sort of cutoff for survivors’ benefits, perhaps on a similar sliding scale. Obviously the insurance industry would reap some benefits from my idea, but as I said the government should’ve never gotten into the insurance business anyway.

It took over 70 years to build this behemoth we know as Social Security, so it’ll take at least two generations to restore sanity to the system. I’m counting on the next two generations to have guts and foresight in order to move the government out of a role it didn’t belong in initially.

A 50 year plan: Crime and justice system

Note: if you read this Sunday afternoon, I added a little to the end.

This weekend I’m going to shift gears a bit and continue my series on the 50 year plan. In this installment it’s my views on where the justice system needs to shift focus to in the next five decades.

In our justice system there are two separate types of cases – those on the criminal side and those on the civil side. There’s problems with each but both have led to overcrowded court dockets.

Unfortunately, our legislative bodies continue to enact more and more regulations and ordinances, so the chances of you running afoul of a law increase. As an example, effective June 1st a person may not catch oysters for sale in Maryland without certifying they received information from the state about where oysters may not be harvested. So if you forget to send in this piece of paper you’re in violation of the revised law. And obviously with more laws come more court cases.

I think the best way to solve this issue is to take a series of steps involving how we write laws and what we regulate. First of all, let’s stop passing laws and regulations at the federal level mandating the states write some particular law or regulation on their part, otherwise they lose federal funding. The Tenth Amendment is there for a reason, so stop violating it.

The next step is for the states to junk many of the laws that I consider “nanny state” laws. These cover areas that properly fall under personal responsibility. Is it a crime that one doesn’t wear a seat belt while driving? I don’t think so. I’ll be the first to admit I do buckle up but to me that’s common sense and I’d do it even if the law didn’t say I had to. On a more controversial note, I’m not sure that many of our drug laws are necessary. Having a couple ounces of marijuana or a few pot plants for personal use really shouldn’t be a crime (however, the sale of it or driving under its influence should remain in the criminal realm.) In this case, I’ve not tried marijuana myself but have been in situations where it was smoked and offered to me. (That would be pretty much any concert I attended in my formative years, the 1980’s.) So I guess I’m the anti-Clinton in that I didn’t try it but I did inhale the second-hand smoke. To me growing marijuana for personal use equates with home brewing or winemaking, both of which are legal in most locales.

All in all, my libertarian side is most pronounced when I discuss these sorts of issues. While I do agree that there should be guard rails, it should be the force of society that shames people into compliance rather than the force of law fattening government coffers and crowding our jails and prisons with drug offenders who were (in many cases) otherwise nonviolent.

The other side of the legal system coin is the civil side. If you watch TV, drive down the road, or even look at your phone book, chances are sooner or later you’ll see some lawyer advertising his or her services because you’ll be screwed by the insurance company after your auto accident if you don’t hire them, or else you should get what’s “yours” because you took Vioxx, was exposed to asbestos many years ago, or some other common real or imagined affliction (in other words, the class-action lawsuit.) And what has all this legal action gotten us? Mostly it’s resulted in some extremely rich trial lawyers (think John Edwards or Orioles owner Peter Angelos) and some extremely stupid warning labels placed on products because some idiot didn’t use any common sense. However, he or she probably won life’s lottery via class action suit and made a trial lawyer quite wealthy in the process.

My thought is that just one measure is necessary to rid the system of a whole lot of junk lawsuits. It’s called “loser pays.” And while the article I cite is now almost 12 years old, the idea is just as valid and probably more pressing. Of course, trial lawyers hate the idea, and so do the Democrats. They whine that “if you do ‘loser pays’, it will discourage the average citizen from filing a lawsuit.” Not if their case has merit.

Further, in many civil cases lawsuits get settled long before they get to the courtroom because a company decides that it’s better just to settle and make the problem go away than risk the prospect of John Edwards “channeling” an unborn child who ended up with cerebral palsy and swaying a jury with emotion rather than the facts behind the case. That doesn’t necessarily go away with “loser pays” but trial lawyers will have to build up their cases better. (Hopefully the juries of tomorrow will be better in critical thinking thanks to my ideas for education reform too.)

One idea that I’ve heard regarding trial by jury that I don’t care much for is the idea of paid professional jurors. Back in the day, people seemed to take jury duty more seriously than they do now – now it’s something to be avoided. You end up taking a day (or more) off work for the pittance that you’re paid, which is essentially paid to make up for the parking fee you’re charged to keep your car at the courthouse all day.

So somebody came up with an idea about juror as occupation. This writer is among those arguing for it. But I have to disagree because what you’re doing in this case would be appointing more unelected judges – a panel of 12 professional arbitrators, if you will. Instead, being called for jury duty needs to be more mandatory (fewer excuses for avoidance) but also more lucrative, with at least a minimum wage placed on it. With fewer trials clogging the courts, the need for a jury pool is lessened and the savings could be placed on making jury duty less of a financial hit.

Our system of justice has worked pretty well for over 200 years. But the courtroom should not be a place where a trial lawyer strikes gold by playing to the emotions of twelve jurors in order to convince them that, hey, this company won’t miss the $30 million I’m seeking to have awarded to my client (never mind I’ll get half); nor should it be the place where one who is growing marijuana solely for personal use end up risking a jail term.

You know, I reread this after I posted and it occurred to me that I had one more point. Quite simply, I think regulations and many laws should have a sunset date. As one example, the PATRIOT Act was set up originally to expire in four years; however, many thought that it should become permanent. But where a lessening of civil rights is concerned, any measure curtailing them should be temporary. I think ten years is a good timeframe – first, it allows a turned over legislative body to revisit the law and its consequences; and secondly, if they’re looking at existing laws it’s less likely they’ll think of new ones!

So with that addition, there’s another piece of my 50 year plan. I have four more installments I’m going to do and then a summary. All of these will be written over the next month or two because I want to wrap it up in time to do a Presidential candidate focus featuring these particular issues near and dear to my heart.

A 50 year plan: Education

From the earliest days of our nation, the federal government has taken an interest in education. The Northwest Ordinance (1787) expressed it thusly:

Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

In today’s schools though one is led to wonder if the goal is to educate children or to maintain reasonably cushy administrative positions. Test scores in general have either declined or held steady over the last few decades, while the testing isn’t considered as rigorous as it once was. The forces of political correctness have determined that testing is unfair to poor and minority students and demand changes regularly. And some parents consider the school a babysitting and restaurant service (since most serve free or reduced-price breakfast and lunch), not caring much about how their children progress or behave at school.

Some of these complaints were addressed under President Bush as the No Child Left Behind Act was sheparded through Congress early in his first term and signed in January 2002. While Bush asked for this act to combat what he termed “the soft bigotry of low expectations”, it also added more federal regulations to the multitude that already exist, and became a target for Democrats to constantly claim that NCLB was underfunded.

While I appreciate a set of measurable standards for school performance, in reality this law hasn’t done a whole lot to improve the learning status of America’s children. In my opinion, the law to its full extent wasn’t necessary and it encourages education in exactly the opposite way from what it should be.

I was educated in public schools for the 13 years of my primary and secondary schooling (as well as a state university.) There was a time in elementary school I was in a special class because I have what’s now known as ADHD, and I finished my high school years by taking vocational classes for my junior and senior years (drafting and related courses.) So I experienced a lot of different classroom situations, probably moreso than the average child.

What the schools taught me was all of the factual knowledge I needed to get through and get a good grade point average. History and math classes were pretty much a piece of cake for me and I did reasonably well in English. Science was pretty easy as well. One disadvantage I had was spending my middle school and high school years at a small rural district that didn’t have a whole lot of advanced classes. (Though to be fair, I went to vocational school so I didn’t opt to stay and take some of the AP classes that may have been available to me in 11th and 12th grade.) My older daughter did have a chance to participate in a gifted/talented program because she went to school in a large city district and took advantage of several of these classes to get her high school language credits in junior high.

But there were two things I learned in college that I never did in high school. One was how to study and manage time because I didn’t have to do that for most of my academic career prior to college. The other was something I’m still learning to some extent as most of us do, and that’s critical thinking.

Teaching to the test as most schools are geared simply teaches a child to regurgitate the facts that they’re taught without giving them a context to work from. This particularly affects kids when they’re taught history and current events. For example, if children are taught American history, they brush through the saga of the Pilgrims coming to America. If anything, they’re taught about all of the help the Indians gave the settlers and how they thanked the Indians by holding a Thanksgiving feast. They learn nothing about the reason they came (religious persecution in England) or the failure of their early efforts at communal living. Their bountiful harvests came after they abandoned that socialism and allowed each settler to keep and trade their own land and labor. Unfortunately, this and many other important parts of early American history are barely covered in schools today.

There’s also the question of ever-spiraling educational budgets that seem to take more and more of a bite of our wallets. Well over 2/3 of the money a school district spends is in the form of salaries and benefits. True, a good teacher is worth every penny he/she is paid, but too many teachers simply go there to collect a paycheck – and in extreme cases, due to union contracts, are paid despite not teaching at all as they’ve been proven to be a danger to children but can’t easily be let go by the school district.

I’m going to address the money issue first with my solutions. I strongly believe that since it’s us taxpayers who provide the money to educate the majority of our children, any money spent on education at the state or local level should follow the child. Whether it’s through vouchers or some other sort of mechanism, giving this power of the purse to parents will encourage schools to become better or lag behind the market. Also on the financial front is a message to the federal government: there’s no amendment in our Constitution that mandates the federal government either pays for education or hangs the sword of Damocles over local school districts by forcing them to do what the feds want (including NCLB.) So butt out of the education business. There’s already way too much bureaucracy at the local and state levels for the system’s own good, and having a federal layer tossed on top just creates a lot of make-work positions for pencil-pushers who are about as far removed from educating a child as we are from the moon.

Now to the curriculum. Obviously there should be more local input, however as a parent who’s had children in school not too many years ago I’ve seen some of the strange items that were taught to them. But there’s a lot they don’t have a chance to cover, particularly in the areas of American history, geography, and (at the high school level) economics. And given the writing and speaking skills I see out of a lot of today’s youth, English needs to be brushed up on as well.

If we can get money to follow the child as I wish it would, that would solve another issue that bedevils the educational world. Teachers who are really good at their craft would have more demand placed for their services, and actually it could be possible for them to create their own cottage industry and blend the best aspects of homeschooling and school-based education by becoming independent contractors. In fact, with this concept it’s likely a private or charter school could attract the best area teachers and lease them space in their school building. (And it’s why the NEA fights this idea tooth and nail.)

I also want to extol the virtues of vocational education while I have an opportunity. As I stated, I attended vocational school for my last two years and it taught me a lot about drafting in general and a bit about architecture. This was the Stone Age when we actually learned board drafting with pencil and straightedge.

But not all kids are college material and unfortunately our nation also suffers from a shortage of skilled tradesmen. To me, there’s nothing wrong with learning to be a CAD operator, plumber, carpenter, or machinist. Given how I did in shop class I’m certainly on the right end of the building industry as far as my skills are concerned, but we simply have too few people who are interested in these sorts of occupations. On the other hand we have way too many who drift through college not knowing what they want to be, or worse, get through school with aspirations to be a bureaucrat.

Education should be about what’s best for the children and I believe that the more options they have in their education, the better they’ll succeed in life. Instead of filling these “skulls full of mush” with just enough facts to pass a standardized test and not the context with which these facts fit, we need to teach kids how to think for themselves. Currently in our nation, those environments for learning that show the most success (private schools and homeschooling) generally have the least to do with governmental regulations and the most to do with the children through more rigid discipline, a course of study that emphasizes classical subjects, and a greater sense of morality through faith-based studies. I think it will be easier to get to a better educational model if those who dictate the rules in education are based as closely as possible to those they educate – not in some DC office.

A 50 year plan: Second Amendment

It’s 4:00 Friday afternoon as I write this for a Saturday posting. I actually started writing this earlier this week (Monday night) and had planned on writing this particular “50 year plan” chapter well before this week’s events ensued. (This is the 9th of 15 planned chapters, give or take.)

But after calling in to John Robinson’s radio show today, incensed that he felt the Constitution was a “living document”, I figured I better place a little bit of background in front of the actual article. Despite his protestation, the Second Amendment is not “dead”; however, layer upon layer of federal gun laws need to be stripped in order to bring it back to health. This is the point of my post today, and I think it serves to revise and extend my remarks from Friday.

It’s only judges that make the Constitution “living and breathing”, regardless of what history professors might say. Now, I had some ideas on how I’d improve the Constitution way back at the start of monoblogue, that post is here. Repealing the Second Amendment wasn’t among them.

Here’s what I originally wrote this week.

I’m writing this chapter of the 50 year plan after the terrible events in Virginia, as a gunman snuffed out over 30 lives before his was taken on the Virginia Tech campus.

Predictably, the knee-jerk reaction from the left is, “we need more gun laws!” The sad fact is that no gun law would have prevented what happened. The gunman decided that his was the way to solve those personal problems he had. People in that mindset to do damage to society will use whatever means they deem necessary. Not only that, the gunman bought his gun legally. It turned out to be the last legal thing he did insofar as gun ownership was concerned, as the serial numbers on both his guns were filed down. Moreover, Virginia Tech’s campus was declared a “gun-free zone” so the moment he entered campus with his weapon he violated another of many laws.

The way I see it, the Second Amendment was placed in the Constitution because people having weapons would be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Having broken away from a monarchy to establish what they hoped would be a truly republican government, they worried about the reestablishment of oppression by a future society – thus, they decided that people should have the right to bear arms. It was “necessary to the security of a free state.”

Some say that the Second Amendment only covers people in a “well regulated militia”, which they interpret as being in the National Guard or a like organization. However, National Guards didn’t come into being until the twentieth century. And that’s not the important part of the sentence. The Second Amendment is sort of unique in that the militia language is descriptive rather than prohibitive. It could have been just as effective without the sentence, just reading “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Let’s go back to Virginia for another example. As states go, Virginia is one of the least restrictive as far as acquiring a weapon which is their perfect right under the Tenth Amendment. Other states make citizens jump through hoops to get a gun, and that’s also acceptable in the eyes of the Constitution.

The main objection I have to the current situation, and the change that should guide policy in the next fifty years, is working to eliminate the federal gun laws. Just as the Constitution says, Congress shall make no law restricting the right we have to bear arms. However, pages and pages of the federal code deal with guns of all sorts.

I’m certain some read this and think I’m trying to resurrect the wild, wild west. But my point is simple – laws that deal with guns (and a lot of other subjects too, guns just being the subject of this short tome) should be established by the individual states. If a state wants to disarm their populace and leave the weapons to the hands of the criminal element, well, that’s their right. It would also be the surviving public’s right to throw those fools out of office who encouraged the situation by being a legislature full of gun grabbers.

On the other hand, states that show respect to their citizens by allowing them concealed carry and fewer restrictions on the number and type of guns they can possess are generally rewarded by lower crime rates. Imagine if even just 1 out of 100 students or faculty at Virginia Tech carried a weapon – there may still have been a number of deaths, but it may have been limited to the number Cho Seung-Hui could kill before someone else with a gun could have struck him down. (The guy was pretty clever, though, chaining the classroom doors closed before mowing down his victims.)

One final note – while I’m a supporter of people being able to keep whichever weapon they choose, they also should be properly trained in how to use them. Just like people have to take training to drive an automobile (which can also be a lethal weapon in the wrong hands), people should be trained on using and given an opportunity to gain respect for this powerful weapon.

Perhaps this respect for a possible tool for ending a life could carry over into respect for life in general.