Campaign Finance Reform

On January 21, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the matter of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Their ruling eliminated any limits on political spending by corporations.

I don't propose to get into the legal background of this case. I'm not a lawyer, and odds are neither are you. Instead I'm going to talk about democracy, and about what happens next.

Campaign finance reform is the one big issue that I've never published a position on. I had hoped to avoid the issue because, frankly, both sides made me uncomfortable, and I saw no obvious solution. One side of the debate advocated limiting free political speech, which, even if applied under the very limited circumstances of corporate ads, is still a very dangerous power for Congress to have. But the other side advocated unlimited, unregulated spending on campaigns, which is also anathema to me for a number of reasons. No solution I've ever heard proposed made me happy, because they all had one of these flaws. So I stayed out of it.

This was foolish. I apologize. It won't happen again. The SCOTUS ruling showed me that I had to take the matter back to first principles and find my own solution, as I have with so many other issues. And the first step, as always, is to identify the problem.

As I've posted before, a functioning democracy requires an informed populace. If the people don't know the facts, it's simply impossible for them to make good decisions; the voice of the people is not the voice of God. So for democracy to work, any democracy, the people need accurate information, even if that information is detrimental to those in power. This is why we have freedom of speech.

I'm not saying that's the only reason, of course. Freedom of speech is a natural human right, but when one's goal is to build a functioning democracy, it takes on additional significance. Without freedom of speech and the press, freedom to criticize the government without interference from it, democracy simply can not work.

But then, what do we do about the liars? The spread of disinformation, propaganda, and outright lies breaks the system. We know this goes on every day, from every side. People and groups who do so prefer the advancement of their own agenda to the very survival of democracy. It's sad, but such people seem to make up the majority of the political scene these days. I've made it my task to fight such people. Democracy is the best governmental system there is, and I won't stand by while it's destroyed in the name of beating the other guy.

So here we have our fundamental conflict. On one hand, we can not restrict criticism of the government, which means that the government can have no control over the content of political advertising. On the other hand, we need to make sure that lies do not drown out truth by sheer volume. Both of these are necessary, or democracy fails. And the only way to accomplish both is to, in some way, restrict the purchase of ads.

Believe it or not, Congress actually had the right idea in that regard. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS was also right; Congress just can't do that. Which means that to fix this once and for all, we need to pass an amendment to the Constitution, giving Congress very limited power to regulate the purchasing of political advertising. We need to modify the first amendment.

As I write this, I realize that this is why I was afraid to take up this issue. There was never any chance that I could end up anywhere else. For most of my life, the very concept of modifying the first amendment would have been unthinkable. But I've realized a very important truth: the US Constitution is not holy writ, and those who wrote it weren't gods.

The founders were politicians who hammered out a compromise that fit their circumstances. They didn't see the politics of today. They didn't see a country where the information reaching the voter is dominated by advertising, instead of by journalism. They didn't see a world with a 95% incumbency reelection rate despite 20% approval ratings, or where the winner is the candidate who can raise the most money. They didn't see a world where money could be used to break democracy.

This is our country, now, today. It's time we took responsibility for our fate.

As such, I am proposing an amendment which will define freedom of speech to specifically not include paid political advertising. Vocal, journalistic and editorial freedom will remain untouched. Parties, unions, and corporations will still be able to express their desires and opinions. But they will no longer be able to use their financial resources to give their opinions greater influence than the opinions held by others. In the true spirit of our republic, everyone's voice will be equal.

As always, the details are subject to discussion. There are distinct differences between issue ads and candidate ads, and when it comes to a corporation or other group, the line between an issue ad and general advertising is at times not terribly clear. As such, my immediate inclination is to eliminate candidate ads only, except when paid for by the candidate themselves. The vast majority individuals almost never buy candidate ads, so the practical change to the rights of the individual in this country is almost zero. And to maintain equality of voice, it should be required that when a candidate purchases an ad, they must also purchase an equivalent ad for all other candidates for the same position.

Everyone can still say what they want, they just can't buy a megaphone to shout down everyone else. There will no longer be limits on donations, the donations will simply be rendered far less relevant to the outcome. Money will have much less influence in determining the winner. Propaganda ads will be immediately countered, forcing the voter to find out for themselves what is true. Our officials will spend more time governing and less time fundraising.

Of course, this will obviously result in considerably less political advertising all around. I'm sure you all find that just as sad as I do.

Now, there are certain other details. The government would have to maintain a list of candidates, which is impossible with the electoral college. That would have to be eliminated, making the Presidency a true national election. That needed doing anyway.

We would also need to define a single set of ballot access criteria for that office, which should be low enough that one need not be rich simply to get on the ballot in the first place. We needed to do that too.

And if ballot access was easy enough, we could easily see dozens of candidates for the Presidency. Plurality voting just doesn't work for that many; it really doesn't work for any more than two candidates. We have yet another reason to switch to a system where one would rank the candidates in order of preference.

And so, in consideration of all these issues, I propose the following:

--------------------------

The Comprehensive Electoral Reform Amendment

1. The President shall be elected by popular vote; the electoral college is nullified.
2. All elections for the Presidency or US Congress shall be held via a ranked preference method, such as the Schulze method or Instant Runoff.
3. For all elections for federal office, there will be a master list of all candidates, maintained by the federal government for the Presidency, or by the state governments for the US Congress.
4. The requirements for being added to any list of candidates shall in no case exceed 1000 signatures of registered voters and $5000.
5. All candidates must be registered no fewer than 270 days before the general election.
6. There shall be no limit to the number of candidates.
7. At the discretion of Congress in the case of the Presidency, or of the state in Congressional offices, a series of primary elections may be held among registered candidates, to reduce their number. There must be at least thirty days between each primary election, and the final primary must be held no less than sixty days before the general election. Congress or the states, as appropriate, shall determine a maximum number of candidates to take part in the general election; in no case shall this limit be fewer than six.
8. No one but a registered candidate or group thereof may purchase an ad referencing a registered candidate; any media outlet selling or donating such an ad shall be penalized. This shall by no means be construed as a limit on the editorial or journalistic freedom of the media outlet.
9. Whenever a candidate purchases an ad, they must also purchase an equivalent ad for all other candidates.

--------------------------

The simple redefinition of "free speech" to not include paid ads leads naturally to many other needed reforms in our election system, while doing no damage to anything but our unjustified deification of the founders' wisdom. With one amendment, we can fix many issues that have plagued this country for decades. We can return to a true democracy, where all our voices are both free and equal.

I look forward to the discussion.

Weapons with Bible codes?

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9575794

I'm not going to comment on the church/state issues involved in these weapons. I simply want to register, in public and on the record, how offended I am that these weapons exist.

There may be times when you honestly believe that you, as an individual, should kill another individual. That's your moral decision, and I won't tell you you're wrong. I believe that there are cases in which killing is the lesser of bad choices. But that does not equate to it being a good choice.

Maybe there are times when killing is not a sin. But to kill in the name of Christ, to publicly declare that the death of another makes God happy, is a total contradiction to everything Christ taught.

We are to love our enemies. Sometimes circumstances make that impossible, and you have to play the hand you're dealt. But to revel in those circumstances, that is simply disgusting.

PBS NewsHour

Take a look at NewsHour's editorial guidelines:

• Do nothing I cannot defend.
• Cover, write, and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.
• Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.
• Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as I am.
• Assume the same about all people on whom I report.
• Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise.
• Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything.
• Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions.
• No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously.
• And finally, I am not in the entertainment business.

If you've gotten as sick of infotainment's fake news as I have, I suspect I now have your attention.

I want to bring PBS NewsHour to the attention of my readers. It may well be the last real news show I'm aware of. It first came to my attention during the 2008 presidential election, where they interviewed every candidate from both major parties, plus Bob Barr and Ralph Nader.

Now, I didn't see them all, but the interviews appeared to be, wonder of wonders, real interviews! We're not talking about the usual infotainment interviews, where two talking heads show up on the screen, talk over each other for three minutes, throw out as many slogans as possible, then vanish, having told us nothing. We're talking about substantive questions, which the candidate is given all the time they need to answer. It was so... refreshing! An actual news show! I don't know that I'd ever seen one before.

I don't get the chance to watch NewsHour as much as I'd like. It airs on PBS, Monday through Friday at 6:00. Recently, I found out that NewsHour offers podcasts. I'm sitting listening to them now, and I'm very pleased. Anyone interested in serious news, please, check this show out.

On Regulation of Air Pollution

When asked for our opinion on cap-and-trade and the Copenhagen convention:

There is no conceivable constitutional justification for a treaty which takes US tax funds and gives them to other countries as a matter of legal obligation. Gifts and loans are something we can reasonably discuss, but I do not and can not support any treaty which obligates the federal government to effectively tax us for the benefit of an entirely separate country, without any imagined or suggested benefit to the US in return.

Further, while I believe the federal government should play a role in limiting air pollution in much the same way it plays a role in regulating navigable waterways, I do not believe that this regulation should be for the express purpose of controlling global warming. While I am reasonably convinced that global warming is occurring, if only from the continually shrinking snowcover of various mountains across the world, I am not yet convinced as to the degree of human contribution to this warming, or as to the degree we can make any significant impact at this juncture. Until such answers are firm, any air pollution limitations should be for reasons that we all clearly benefit from: cleaner air makes everyone healthier.

As to whether the Cap and Trade bill, or a similar emissions trading system, is a reasonable way to put limits on air pollution, there are too many conflicting studies for me to have a firm conclusion as yet. I don't have any reason to believe one group of experts over another, meaning I'm just going to have to study the matter myself. That's going to take time. My instinct says that there may be better ways to control air pollution, but it's worth noting that other countries have implemented similar systems without the utter destruction of their economies some predict.

Now, there are other aspects of the bill as a whole, besides the cap-and-trade portion, which I quite like. I like that the bill apparently includes tariffs on Chinese goods. I like the emphasis on renewable energy, electric vehicles, and basic R&D, which has been greatly lacking in recent years. And I like that it at least tries to pay for those things, instead of spending more money we don't have. The questions I need answers to are, who ends up paying for all this? And what effects will cap-and-trade actually have? And at this point, I'm not sure I trust anyone to give me accurate answers to those questions.

On National Security

When asked about national security:

Unquestionably, the most important key to domestic security is securing the flow of people and material into the United States. It's important to remember that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by people who entered the United States legally, and then allowed their visas to expire. Legal visitors must be tracked and, if their documentation expires, expelled. Such visitors should not be allowed to simply vanish within the United States. This is a fundamental function of the federal government, and one at which it should never fail.

There are three basic ways that people can enter the United States illegally: by sea, from Mexico, or from Canada. We should work closely with Canada to maintain a strong common naval defense perimeter, as a tightening of the Canadian border is neither practical nor optimal. The Mexican border, however, must be far more closely controlled. We must build fences, use cameras, guard the border with military forces, whatever is necessary to prevent undocumented individuals and material from crossing the Mexican border into the United States.

This is not simply a matter of radical Islamic terrorism, which is not the only threat facing the United States, and quite possibly not even the greatest one. The Mexican drug war is one of the deadliest armed conflicts in the world today, with well over a thousand deaths this year alone. Drugs are smuggled here, and guns and money are taken back across the border to support the violence between the cartels and their resistance to the Mexican government. If things continue on their present course, Mexico will eventually fall into a full-scale civil war, which would almost certainly spill over into American cities. Our best, and arguably our only, chance at preventing this is to stop the traffic in both directions. This is just one of the many reasons the Mexican border must be secured.

We must always bear in mind that in the pursuit of security we must not sacrifice those things that make us American. Habeas corpus must not be forgotten, for without it, all our other rights are meaningless. Warrantless wiretapping of American citizens must never be allowed, under any circumstances, nor must any other sorts of warrantless searches of private records. These things have become accepted practice over the last several years. They must cease immediately.

Abroad, there are two primary direct threats to American security: radical pseudo-Islam, and North Korea. These are fundamentally different threats, and must be handled in different ways.

The war against radical Islamism is, at heart, an information war. There are certain men who seek to control everything they can, and destroy everything they can not. These men warp Islam, lying about its teachings and using it as a tool to gather followers. It's perfectly possible to follow Islam without being violent. Hundreds of millions of people do it every day, here and around the world. Yet these men tell others that to follow God, they must harm others. It is these lies that must be countered if we expect to ultimately win this fight.

We must form alliances with and among peaceful Muslim clerics who are willing to denounce the use of violence. We should take their teachings, and spread them as best we can to the regions where violent pseudo-Islam tends to take root. These teachings could be broadcast via radio from land- or sea-based radio towers, with hand-crank radios air-dropped to locals on a regular basis. To win this war we must turn their potential recruits, and ultimately Islam itself, against the liars who claim to speak for God.

North Korea is a potential wild card. Their rockets and nuclear weapons are primitive, but they have the potential of eventually reaching Alaska or Hawai'i. A greater threat is that of strikes against US military targets and Japanese or Korean civilian targets in the region. For these reasons, development and deployment of theater missile and artillery defense systems must be a high priority in this area. Only once this threat is contained can North Korea be dealt with from a position of strength.

Finally, we must address indirect threats, economic pressure points that would in theory allow other countries to harm the US or our interests. The three greatest of these are the federal debt, trade deficits, and foreign oil dependence. Deficit spending must cease immediately. Such spending is presently supported in large part by foreign investors, who could pull the plug at any time. Tarrifs should be put in place on the import of some foreign goods, especially Chinese goods, to bring our trade balance with that country back to a sane level, and bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States. Finally, we must eliminate our dependence on OPEC. Restrictions should be lifted on off-shore drilling in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources, but this is only a temporary measure. We must in short order develop the infrastructure necessary to transition away from an oil-based economy. A combination of electric vehicles, nuclear power plants, and biodiesel seems the most likely solution at this point.

In response to a further question regarding illegal immigrants, Islam, and Obama:

I certainly agree with your statement that politicians are trying to use illegal immigration to broaden their own support base. The fact that illegal immigrants have this much power is evidence in and of itself that illegal immigration must be stopped, immediately.

I can't really argue as to whether Islam is "fundamentally peaceful", not only because I don't know Islam well enough, but because I'm not sure it would even be a meaningful statement. I believe this is a subject where arguing theory gets nowhere. Islam is as Muslims do, so it's inarguable that Islam can be practiced peacefully. Convincing the entire Muslim world of that is the only way I see to end this war. We're at war with an ideology, and the only way of truly beating an ideology is to present a better one. Mind you, I feel a bit strange suggesting that the US government expend resources spreading any religion to another part of the world, especially one not my own. But if what we spread is a variant of what is already practiced, one which includes basic ideas like individual freedom, especially the right to freely and safely convert to other religions as individual conscience dictates, it's definitely a step in the right direction in all possible ways.

As for Obama supporting Islam, all I can say is that I stick only to confirmable facts from definite sources, and I don't think the facts support that statement. Like all people, Barack Obama is what he does, and what he does is consistent with a man who wants to do what's best for the United States, but believes differently than we do about what that is. Reasonable people can disagree about things like that. But honestly, since none of us are running against Obama, I don't see getting into that debate any further being beneficial to what we're trying to accomplish here.

On Health Care Reform

I've posted most of this before, but for the sake of completeness, here is my response when we were asked about health care reform.

The health care bill presently being discussed in Congress carefully avoids addressing the real problems with health care in the United States, and I would certainly do everything in my power to prevent its passage and to ensure the passage of a true reform bill. Yes, one out of six people in the country does not have health insurance, and this is a problem which needs to be fixed. However, Washington has shown that it has no interest in solving problems. If that was their goal, we would have had a real health care reform bill long ago. Congress is instead using this as an opportunity for advancement of ideological goals, primarily universal health care. And while universal health care is a noble goal, there are issues that must be addressed before even considering trying to implement such a thing.

The fundamental problem is not that many people don't have health insurance; this is a mere symptom. The problem that deserves our focus is instead that health care simply costs too much. With lower costs, more people would be able to afford coverage. There are a few simple laws congress could enact that would greatly lower the cost of health care in the United States. And, wonder of wonders, most of them are even within their constitutional purview! Most of my proposals are based on a report from McKinsey and Company comparing the cost of health care in the US to other industrialized nations. I go into more detail about these at my site, so I'll just give a general overview here.

The reasons for the US's high health care costs can be broken down into a few distinct categories. The major ones I intend to address include administrative overhead, prescription drug costs, physician compensation, and malpractice concerns.

First, administrative overhead. This term is vague and can mean a lot of different things, depending on who is doing the reporting. However, one clear and significant contributor is regulatory compliance. Any insurance company which does business in multiple states must expend a great deal of effort ensuring compliance with each state's insurance regulations, and these regulations vary significantly from state to state. A single federal regulatory body would greatly reduce the costs to the insurance companies, since companies doing business in multiple states would only have to keep track of a single set of rules instead of fifty. Costs to the taxpayers would be reduced as well, since the burden on each state regulatory body would be reduced to the realm of companies that operate only within that state. A federal insurance regulatory body would be justified under the interstate commerce clause, as it would only affect corporations doing business in multiple states.

Second, prescription drug costs. Prescription drugs in the United States cost significantly more than in other countries, and there are two simple tools at the government's disposal to lower these costs. First, barriers to the import of prescription drugs from other countries should be eliminated. This would bring market forces to bear on lowering costs here at home, and help end the subsidization of drugs in other countries at the expense of the American consumer. Second, prescription drug patent terms should be shortened, and the conditions of those patents altered. Patents are inherently a modification of the free market, which we accept because we recognize that society as a whole benefits from that temporary limitation. If the terms of patents do not benefit society, as is the case with prescription drugs, those terms should be altered such that they do. Patents should be on a year-by-year basis, with exponentially increasing annual renewal fees. There should be incentives to license drugs to generic competitors, thus allowing the market to lower prices further. And advertisements to the general public should once again be forbidden on patented prescription drugs, as part of the terms of the patent. The average consumer is not in a position to make informed choices about prescription drugs, or they would not require prescriptions in the first place. Advertising only distorts the market by increasing the pressure on physicians to prescribe things which may not be in their patients' best interest. Thus, advertising increases the cost of the drugs to no societal benefit.

Third, physician compensation. Physicians in the United States are frequently paid on a per-patient or per-procedure basis. Physicians also frequently share in the profits of out-patient facilities to which they may refer their own patients. Both of these situations present an inherent conflict of interest, and should not be allowed on ethical grounds. Doctors should never, ever be put in a position to profit from anything but giving their patients the best possible care, as their ethical obligations mandate. Doctors should only be paid on a salaried basis, determined by their experience and their history. I believe that this should be implemented and enforced by the AMA and state medical boards. Any doctors in the employ of the federal government should be paid in this manner as well, so as to lead the way on this issue.

Fourth, tort reform. Malpractice premiums are a relatively small driver of medical costs, but they do matter, and can be fixed. There should be time and damage limitations on malpractice suits. Some have proposed setting up malpractice courts, with judges who have the expertise necessary to understand medical concerns. This idea is worthy of further consideration. Lower risk of malpractice concerns would also reduce the practice of defensive medicine, which would further increase the savings to patients.

According to the M&C report, these laws have the potential to save every American an average of over $800 per year on health care costs, helping solve the actual problem instead of treating the symptoms. Everything I propose is within the constitutional bounds of the federal government, and none of it would increase the tax burden on anyone. No solution being proposed in Washington meets any of these criteria.

In defense of another candidate's suggestions:

I have to agree that we need to determine practical short-term solutions before focusing on the long game. If one of us was elected and proposed a bill that said, okay, no more federal government involvement in health care, just shut the whole thing down right now, absolutely nothing would come of the suggestion. Our term would be wasted. We need to suggest solutions that we can demonstrate will work, and that people at home and in congress will get behind. Otherwise it's just so much ideological posturing.

Further, not all federal involvement in health care is unconstitutional! Patent laws directly affect prescription drug prices, and tort laws affect malpractice premiums, both of which are the government's clear constitutional domain. And while the inter-state commerce clause has certainly been abused, it's easily arguable that selling the same insurance product in more than one state qualifies under the original interpretation, subjecting most insurance companies to direct federal regulation.

Yes, the federal government doesn't need to be involved in everything. Mandating that we all buy insurance is way over the line. But we have to get away from the kneejerk reaction that government involvement in solving problems is automatically a bad thing! The federal and state governments already have all the tools at their disposal to significantly improve the cost of health care in this country, it's just a question of using them properly.

Yes, there's some aspect of government regulation in that, and government regulation of the market usually makes things worse. However, there are edge cases where the unregulated market and the free market are not the same thing. The free market works because it's a feedback system; whoever provides the best service gets paid the most, and thus continues doing what they're doing. In a monopoly, quality of service doesn't matter because there's no competition. And in insurance, quality of service isn't even measured! Customers have no idea what they're paying for. In fact, an insurance company's financial incentive is to screw as many of their own customers as possible! That's not a free market at all! The government should mandate that, at a minimum, every insurance company publish how many claims they deny and the circumstances of those claims. Only then will customers be able to choose a provider based on quality of service, and only then will the market truly be free.

Government can be a place where people come together to find solutions to their problems. Unfortunately, right now it's a place where corporations come together to find solutions to their problems. But it can be more. Government is a tool, like any other. Just because it's dangerous doesn't mean you run away from it. It means you take control of it and learn to use it safely and effectively. I have to believe that's possible. If humans are somehow incapable of safe and effective governance under any circumstances, we may as well just give up now.

On FairTax

One member asked why I was opposed to FairTax. I responded as follows.

First, let's define what we're talking about. The word "fair" causes a lot of trouble, because people mean different things when they say it. Everyone wants "fairness", but the fact that it means different things to different people makes discussing things in those terms inherently problematic. We have to start by defining what exactly we're talking about, or we're going to argue in circles. Typically, "fair" means "treating everyone equally", but even if we go with that, it's not that simple.

What's fair, when it comes to taxation? Everyone paying for the services they use? Everyone paying a flat dollar amount? Everyone paying a flat percentage of their income? A flat percentage of the utility gained from their income? A flat percentage of their outlays? Everyone being left with the same dollar amount? All these things can be called "fair", because in one way or another every one of them treats everyone the same. But I know you'll agree with me when I say that things like "leave everyone with a flat dollar amount" is totally unacceptable, even though it clearly meets our definition of "fair". So what is fair can not be the only criterion for choosing a tax system; there has to be something more.

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization," said Oliver Wendell Holmes. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but they're certainly the price we pay for government. But what is the purpose of government? At its most basic level, the purpose of government is to defend the people. (Not protect, but defend.) A government's fundamental goal is to prevent its people from coming to harm from external sources, be they criminals, enemy nations, terrorists, natural disasters, or the government itself.

But taxation is by its nature damaging! We accept the damage caused by taxation, because we recognize that the defense gained from government is, or at least can be, greater than the cost. So the question should not be, "How can the government tax that is most fair?" The question instead should be, "How can the government tax that does the least damage?"

Which leads to my #1 priority: a balanced budget. Deficit spending does far more damage than progressive income taxes. I will not support any action which worsens the deficit, and replacing the national income tax with a 23% sales tax as FairTax proposes is simply not budget neutral. Wikipedia has a description of several analyses here. One consistent element of all those charts and graphs is that under FairTax the tax burden is lower for everyone, every segment of society. That sounds great on its own, but all other things being equal, that's simply not possible without also decreasing overall tax revenues. When you're running the insane deficits the federal government is now, the last thing you do is slash your income.

Now, the consequences of what I just said are obvious. Most candidates would dance around that, but I won't. The people of this district deserve someone who is forthright, so I'm going to come out and say it: I'm against tax cuts. We're spending hundreds of billions of dollars each year in interest payments on the debt, to make up for the spinelessness of politicans past and present. They placed, and continue to place, being popular over being responsible stewards of the peoples' money, and because of that we've sent two trillion dollars in interest to foreign investers in the last two decades. No more. Until we have a budget surplus, cutting tax revenue is unforgivably irresponsible, and I just won't do it.

So the most important answer to your quesiton is that to replace the income tax with FairTax now, on top of the last decade of Washington's wanton fiscal irresponsibility, would make the deficit worse, not better. I can't get behind that.

Now, there are also other issues. One is that under FairTax, each family in the country would receive a monthly "prebate", a check for what that family would pay in taxes up to the poverty line. Frankly, I'm surprised that so many conservatives are in favor of an idea that has us all receiving a government check every month to cover our basic survival needs. I'm far more interested in practical solutions than in ideology, but that idea makes even me squirm.

Further, I honestly believe that if individuals are to be taxed (which is something I'd prefer to avoid all together, naturally), some form of progressive income tax is the least damaging system I've seen so far. Yes, taxing higher income brackets more does have the effect of a reduced incentive to make more money, and a reduced ability to invest. That cumulative effect on the economy is certainly notable. But that effect must be compared against the negative effects of any proposed replacement system. I have to support the tax system that I believe does the least damage, and taking more from those who might have used that money to invest, in exchange for taking less from those who use that money for survival and education, meets that criterion in my estimation.

The FairTax is a tax cut for all, but isn't revenue neutral compared to the national income tax. I haven't seen a national sales tax proposal that was revenue neutral that didn't result in people in lower income brackets having significantly less money at the end of the day. If I'm wrong, and if someone has a proposal that meets both of these criteria, I'd be happy to consider it, but FairTax as it stands would be bad for all of us.

More questions resulted in this post:

Well, first, I want to say that I 100% agree that the first step is to cut spending to whatever level it properly should be at (that level being, of course, a matter for legitimate debate), then adjust taxation however necessary to make for a balanced budget from that point. Once that's done, I strongly believe that any new spending program, social, military, anything, needs to be supported by its own specific taxes. This would create a far more direct connection between government revenues and outlays, making deficits much easier to control. But we shouldn't consider cutting tax revenues at all until we have a definite, in-hand budget surplus.

Now, as for the revenue neutrality of FairTax, I should have linked to this article before. Many studies have been done, and the idea that a 23% inclusive/30% exclusive sales tax would be revenue neutral is only supported by some of them. I'll readily admit that I simply don't have the background to judge these analysis in anything resembling an authoritative fashion. But you can see it's absolutely not a clear-cut issue.

(As an aside, state income taxes are presented as an exclusive value, so 30% is the more informative and useful number. You end up paying 30% more than the pre-tax cost.)

Given that the experts disagree, I have to judge this from a perspective of risk. If FairTax would be everything some people claim it would, if the economy really expanded as quickly as they predict, it would be great, no doubt about that. But what if they're wrong? I think we all know from real world experience that nothing is ever as great as it sounds. We're all living with the consequences of the housing market betting the proverbial farm on the future expansion of the economy. So you have to ask, what then? What if FairTax doesn't turn out to be revenue neutral at 30%?

We all know what happens next. If we replace the income tax with FairTax and it's not revenue neutral, then the first year, the government runs a deficit. Exactly how big that deficit is is, once again, a matter for the analysts, but we're probably talking on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars. After that, the 30% tax rate would be increased to make up for the lost tax revenue. The end result is both increased debt and a tax increase on people making five-figure incomes.

So yes, the most optimistic predictions are that FairTax would be great for everyone. But the most optimistic predictions are almost never the correct ones. And almost anything but the most optimistic predictions result in situations I can't support. FairTax is fantastic until the first thing goes wrong, and there's a saying associated with a famous engineer: "If everything seems to be going perfectly, you've obviously overlooked something."

On another matter, the FairTax prebate system as presently designed is (I'm not going to pad this) absolutely inane. Putting aside my earlier issues about how the concept effectively makes us all dependent on a check from the government for our survival needs, there are fundamental flaws in the execution as well. The US government may define a national average poverty level, but it's just that: an average. What it takes a family of four to survive in Nashville is far less than what it would take for that same family to survive in New York. It makes no sense at all to send them both the same prebate up to the poverty level, because poverty means different things in different parts of the country! As a matter of fact, it's not fair at all!

We need to throw out the federal tax code, yes, but we need to replace it with something we can rely on. The FairTax has too many question marks, and throwing the entire weight of the federal budget onto an untested system would be irresponsible.

Now, all that having been said, I'd love to see experiments to eliminate these question marks. Predictions are great to have, but I want real-world data before making sweeping changes. I would like to see an experimental, dollar-for-dollar replacement of some relatively small sets of federal taxes with a national sales tax, so we can actually observe the effects instead of having to rely on predictions by disagreeing sets of experts. If the sales tax works as well as predicted, great, we can phase in replacement of other taxes, though preferably without the flawed and broken prebate system. If it doesn't work, we'll know it wasn't the right path to go down, and we can try something else.

The FairTax proposal as it stands is a massive risk without justification. If you don't know whether something new will work, you shouldn't throw everything into it. But you don't run away from it either. You test it, and then you make decisions based on the results.

On Obsession With Barack Obama

There has been a response of overwhelming fear of President Obama, resulting in accusations of his being a Muslim, planning to set himself up as a dictator, and even stranger things. Finally (for now), I have the following to say regarding this general response.

Religion is in how you live your life, not in how you were raised. The idea that having been to a mosque on occasion as a child makes him a Muslim is equivalent to saying that having been to church once or twice as a child makes one a Christian. Going to church every Sunday of your life wouldn't make you a Christian, so why would that apply to going to a mosque? Nor does having been educated in Islam does not make one a Muslim. If a man does nothing that resembles Muslim practice, calling him a Muslim is so much noise. Tell me when the man is actually acting like what any Muslim would call one of their own. Otherwise this is just another baseless accusation intended to stir up fear.

Maybe Obama's a socialist, maybe he's not. He who defines the word wins the argument. Whatever you care to call him, he's not terribly different than most other elected Democrats, so focusing on him is a waste of effort; he'll just be replaced if he's defeated. He's a well-spoken figurehead, and as long as we let him draw our fire, we're playing right into our opponents' hands. Just crying "Obama's a socialist!" accomplishes nothing. Even if it's true, that alone is just more name-calling.

We're not running against Obama! Barack Obama is one man. He's the President, but frankly, he's not a terribly good one. I don't say that because I disagree with his policies (though in many cases I do), I say that because he's showing almost no leadership on any issue! This health care bill, for example. It's not "Obamacare"; Obama has had almost no influence over it. The health care bill was worked out by Congress, with relatively little influence or leadership from the White House. This movement talks about Obama like he's not setting himself up to be some sort of dictator. He's not organized enough to be a dictator.

I believe that the Tea Party movement can be a significant factor for change in American politics. But the constant rejection of evidence, reason, and planning in favor of fear and insults is going to keep us from getting anywhere.

On Barack Obama's Place of Birth

Another conversation took place regarding Obama's citizenship. My first response was to quote the wikipedia article on the subject, which points out that independent observers have verified that the document released by the Obama campaign is, by all appearances, a genuine Hawaiian birth certificate. Again, there has been some editing of multiple posts into a coherent monologue.

I'm certainly aware of the issues involved in quoting a wiki of any sort. But the great thing about Wikipedia is that citations are encouraged, and frequently included on articles of importance. The end of almost every sentence of the article I linked includes a link to an external reference backing up the statement. I won't pretend I've checked them all, but the ones I've checked at least aren't obvious fakes. So is there no source to indicate that Obama has gone to effort to keep his records sealed, then? As far as I can tell, they're sealed by default, under Hawaii law and federal privacy law. I checked WND briefly, and found reports indicating that Obama had spent money on lawyers, some of which went to defending from eligibility suits. But that's not the same as working to keep his records sealed. Maybe I just missed it.

I've found documents indicating that the Obama campaign (or now, the DNC) is paying law firms. But direct quotes from involved attorneys indicate that at least some, if not all, of Obama's lawyers are working pro bono on this matter. The assumption that Obama personally, the Obama campaign/Democratic party, or the taxpayer, are actually paying anyone regarding this issue, I've yet to see any evidence. Until I do, I can only assume it's yet another assumption without justification. Worse, it's one that leads nowhere! What would it matter if they were paying through the nose? If it's taxpayer money, that's one thing, but there's even less evidence of that than there is of it being Obama Campaign money. If the Democratic party wants to use their own funds to fight frivolous lawsuits that have been conclusively shown to have nothing to do with Obama's eligibility to serve, that's their call. That's just less money they can use to spread fear about their opponents the else next election cycle.

With regards to whether the "Certification of Live Birth" qualifies as as birth certificate, that's a semantic issue. It's what the state of Hawaii issues to confirm someone was born there, and it's acceptable evidence in legal proceedings to that end. And while Hawaii could at that time issue such a certificate to babies not born in Hawaii, those certificates would state the original place of birth. Someone born in Kenya could get a Hawaiian COLB, but it would still say "Kenya" on it. Obama's says "Honolulu".

But we're getting lost in the details, and missing the original point. Here's my fundamental problem with the Tea Party movement treating this as a current issue: the only way that document could possibly exist if Obama was not born in Honolulu is if a significant fraction of the Hawaiian government had been going to great effort to make it look like he was, for a great many years. And if that's the case, how could any evidence ever be trustworthy? No matter what was produced, it could all be manufactured! We're not at that point yet, but if we get there, we all look like crazy conspiracy theorists. And for good reason!

You know, I used to read WND, Newsmax, a couple others. I used to argue politics on online message boards all the time, I spent my highschool years doing it. I'd start threads about all sorts of stuff. Then I started one based on an article that said that handguns had been outlawed in Australia and the crime rate had skyrocketed. That argument went on for a week or two, with me just saying "read the article!" Then I found out from an Australian friend that Australia hadn't outlawed handguns at all. It was a complete fabrication.

I'm not making accusations against anyone here. I'm just saying that if you make an accusation, especially one this serious, you should be able to back it up with more than a news article, or a wiki link. Just because it's a news source that agrees with your preconceptions doesn't make it trustworthy. I've learned to doubt everyone, short of what passes for a primary source online: direct quotes, and copies of documents.

Outside mathematics, proof is subjective. For the purposes of the law, he's proven his place of birth. The criteria for your personal satisfaction are entirely up to you. But if what he's released, combined with multiple statements from the Hawaiian government, are insufficient for you, Obama is put in a position where he could never definitely convince you of his place of birth, no matter what he released. Discussing the subject is not raising a legitimate question, at that point. It's just throwing an unprovable, unfalsifiable assertion out there to raise doubt. It's not about fact, it's about fear and manipulation. It's bad politics. And that's why the Tea Party needs to get away from it.

On Barack Obama, abortion, and Hitler

Someone suggested that the comparisons between President Obama and Hitler-as-mass-murderer are justified by Obama's support of abortion. I responded as follows, with some editing together of different posts to make a unified monologue.

You make a fair point about abortion. However, putting that much blame on Obama specifically for all abortions in the US since he was twelve, when in fact even as President he has relatively little influence over the law on the issue, is still a severe exaggeration of his actual responsibility. He may support legalized abortion, with all the moral consequences thereof, but that's not comparable to being the single individual who directly ordered every single instance of it.

Further, while I don't agree with abortions of convenience, which describe over 95% of the 800-900k abortions in the US each year, abortion is fundamentally different than state-sponsored genocide. Abortion involves an inherent conflict of rights between two individuals, the mother and the child, both of whom are recognized as having rights. Abortion law is, by nature, an attempt to compromise between the rights of those individuals. Mass murder by the state, however, is the declaration that certain classes of individuals have no rights at all. Of course, how much that distinction is worth to you will vary with the relative weights you place upon the child's right to live and the woman's right to control her body, so for many it may end up being no distinction at all.

I think we actually agree on abortion, in large part. If being responsible for a child is not acceptable to you, then don't have sex. Abortion should not be used to evade responsibility for one's willful actions. My point was more that the SCOTUS ruling allowing abortion of convenience is interpretable as a matter of conflicting rights, wherein the weight of a fetus's right to live, relative to the mother's rights, is directly proportional to the fetus's gestational age and viability. If an eight-week fetus could survive and develop outside the womb, via whatever medical means, I think we'd see a complete rewrite of abortion law. Eliminate the conflict of rights, and abortion loses all justification as anything but a tool of convenience. That's one reason I support funding of the development of artificial wombs. It sounds sci-fi, but early research indicates the concept really is viable.

On Barack Obama

As you might expect, President Obama's name comes up a lot, typically in a negative context. While I do not agree with many of Obama's policies or his leadership style, I do try to stop the spread of misinformation about any subject where possible. There are a superfluity of real issues to disagree with the President about. Making up false ones just reduces our own credibility.

As such, I have defended Obama from a number of false claims and comparisons, both for the sake of the Tea Party Movement, and for the sake of functional democracy as a concept. The next few posts will contain these defenses.

On the Future of the Tea Party Movement

Those of you who know me know that I consider myself a part of the Tea Party Movement, but that I am concerned about its direction. When asked how the Tea Party could maintain relevancy, growth and viability, this was my response:

The Tea Party movement has gotten a lot of bad press since its inception. I strongly believe that most of the participants have been average people genuinely concerned about the direction the country is headed, especially with regards to deficit spending. However, the perception most people have comes from certain minority elements of the movement, which work to radicalize the whole. Not coincidentally, this is the same problem both major parties have.

To differentiate itself, and recover its good name with the populace at large, the Tea Party movement needs to avoid radicalization. By this I mean that we need to focus on confirmable facts, reasonable discussion, and attainable goals, and vocally reject anti-democratic activities like lies, manipulation, irrationality, or threats of violence. Examples of this include:

No more "Obama = Hitler" signs. Obama is nothing like Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, or any other mass murderer. Saying so cheapens real atrocities wherein millions were brutally killed, and, frankly, makes us all look stupid and insensitive. All for, what, the sake of making people afraid, so you can use that fear? Seeing signs like that has almost made me stop coming to the rallies. In a related note...
Stop exaggerating. The present health care bill will not lead to people dying in the streets, any more than they already are. Socialized health care isn't perfect, but neither is it the death trap many make it out to be. Nor will cap and trade destroy the economy; it will probably do more harm than good, but destroy the economy? If statements like that were true, Europe would have been depopulated decades ago. And people know this. Anyone informed on the matter who hears such statements will reject this movement out of hand. Making things sound worse than they are may gain the support of the uninformed, but is that really how you want to win? By manipulating those who don't know? Better to win by informing people who don't know!
No more "Obama conspiracy". Propose laws that all requirements for office be checked, that's only reasonable and should have been done long ago. But Barack Obama is, by all evidence, a Hawaii-born Christian. Making theories lacking any hard evidence a significant part of your platform makes the entire movement look irrational, and encourages irrational thinking in others. Without rational decision-making, democracy fails.
Vocally state that violence is not acceptable. The minute the threat of violence enters the picture, democracy ceases to function. We need to avoid any talk which sounds like secessionism. Further, many fully expect there to eventually be a serious assassination attempt against Barack Obama, by someone who believes the "Obama conspiracy". That's obviously not a goal of this organization, but you're sure not working against it with talk like I've heard. If you want to participate in democracy, you must avoid any encouragement of such individuals.
Propose real, detailed solutions. "Cut taxes and balance the budget" is not a detailed solution. If this movement wants to be taken seriously, we need to provide a real alternative. I wouldn't vote for someone whose platform was "cut taxes and balance the budget", without knowing exactly where they were going to cut the extra trillion dollars or so necessary to make that work. What, are we going to sell the US Navy? Also, "Let the market handle it" is not a solution to health care.

If this movement wants to be and remain relevant, this movement needs to act like people that we would actually want to see running a country. That means deciding based on evidence, planning based on facts and goals, and truthfully informing the populace.

Some took objection to my comments, leading to the following clarification:

I'm not saying the Tea Party is a radical movement. I'm saying it's perceived as a radical movement, and that it has the potential to become one if we don't consciously avoid that possibility. Both are concerns we need to address. I'm not saying these are things the Tea Party is necessarily engaged in, I'm saying these are things we need to be careful of if we want to make it a long-term viable movement. That was, after all, the original question.

The Tea Party does not engage in or encourage violence. I never said or implied that it did. If that was the case, I wouldn't be anywhere near it, nor I hope would the rest of you. But there are people who believe in violence as a long-term solution to political problems, and those people do tend to have beliefs similar to those espoused by the Tea Party: that Barack Obama is (purposefully) trying to destroy the United States. We need to actively distance ourselves from those people, or we'll be associated with what they do, whether we want to be or not.

Now, as to this "Marxist" thing, that's exactly what I'm talking about when I say that the Tea Party needs to focus on fact. The Tea Party is considered an outright joke in many circles for misusing terminology like "Marxist", "fascist", "nazi", "communist", and "czar". I'm not talking about "the left". I'm talking about independents that would definitely agree with the principles of reducing waste and holding representatives accountable, but can't do anything but laugh because, from all they can see, we have no idea what we're talking about! Some of the signs people bring to the rallies are the worst press this movement can get!

If someone called us a bunch of... oh, "capitalist socialist democratic totalitarian human-rights-loving genocidal maniacs", just to pick a random string of terms, would you take them seriously? Of course not, because what they said makes no sense at all. If this movement wants to be taken seriously enough to have a long term future (which, again, is the question we were asked to answer), phrasing our complaints in a coherent fashion is of vital importance. One can not both be fascist and communist. One can not both be a nazi and a socialist, even though "nazi" was originally a contraction of "national socialism". The Russian communists KILLED THE CZARS, so the phrase "communist czar" is hysterical even to me. As long as stuff like that goes on, this movement is self-defeating. You can't run a successful political movement while simultaneously alienating everyone that knows how absurd these things are.

And then there are the signs comparing Obama to the nazis. Maybe you've forgotten that this is freaking ADOLPH HITLER we're talking about, arguably the single man who had the greatest influence on the course of the 20th century. He's remembered for invading most of Europe, killing about ten million people, trying to exterminate the Jews, and a number of other atrocities. I defy you to find me one person who sees a swastika and immediately jumps to thinking of his economic policies. The purpose of those signs is not to draw a valid comparison; it is to make people afraid. As long as the Tea Party does that, it's going to be marginalized. I don't care if "the left" is calling us inappropriate names. We need to be better than that if we expect to displace them.

Yes, all these may be talking points from "the left". That's exactly why we need to address them! I'm not at all saying that what they're saying is in all cases true, though I maintain that nothing damages this movement more than pictures of bad signs. I'm saying that because these points are where we're being hit, we need to eliminate them as weaknesses. We should take their talking points away, and force them to engage us on the issues.

On Education

Candidates were asked to provide their perspective and intention for education in Tennessee and the United States. One candidate, Art Rhodes of TN-3, said everything that was of basic importance to me at least as well as I could have. I recommend anyone in that district visit his site and learn more about his campaign. I had this to add:

I strongly believe that placement in every subject taught in a school should be entirely independent of age, and should instead be based exclusively on ability. If a nine year old can handle algebra, he should take it. If that same child can only read at a second-grade level, he should be taught reading with everyone else at that level. There is no excuse for a child being bored because the material does not push them hard enough, nor for a child being lost because they were promoted faster than they should have been. Students, like teachers, should be advanced based on their accomplishments, not based on time served.

The key word is feedback. It's true in engineering, but it's also true in any system: to reach a desired goal, incentive must be related to results quickly, accurately, and proportionally. Right now, there is no feedback, and that's the reason our schools are failing. Students and teachers are both rewarded with little regard to their performance. Performance must be accurately measured, and good performance quickly and appropriately rewarded. Otherwise we have no hope of a working system.

Teachers' incentive is, primarily, pay, benefits, and recognition. Students' incentive is a bit trickier; advancement can be based on performance, but even if that were perfectly accurate and instantaneous, you still have to make the students themselves care. To that end, I suggest this: you give them numbers, at least once a semester, preferably more often, indicating the expected life for someone with their academic performance upon entering the workforce. You show their average expected income, average expected lifespan, odds of getting into college, of going to jail, of certain careers, anything else that's going to matter to them. And you show them how the various paths they could take would affect those numbers, what happens if they graduate or not, go to college or not, have children before graduating. You make it real to them.

It's all about feedback. Without it, you have no hope of controlling the outcome.

On the Necessity of Respecting the Voters

Posted in response to this article:

And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with politics today. What was just described is emotional manipulation of the people in order to win. Yes, it's the way things are usually done. But if anyone here is suggesting that's how things should be, I am against you, for one simple reason. Let me say this without equivocation: if the public is not well-informed and does not behave rationally, democracy fails. There is no chance of its functioning under those circumstances. None.

That is the fundamental internal conflict faced by America today. It's not liberal vs. conservative, rich vs. poor, or DC vs. everyone else. It's rational vs. irrational. No people can survive without good decision-making skills, yet those skills are being destroyed every day by liars and manipulators from all sides. Encouraging irrational choices, or decisions based on incorrect information, for any reason, is utterly unacceptable to me. I would rather lose in an election that turns on legitimate debate than win in one like was just described. At least then I'd be participating in democracy, instead of in a farce.

If you honestly believe that victory or defeat can only be determined by how well we can appeal to voters' hopes or fears in thirty seconds, if you honestly believe that that's the only way politics can ever be, then I am unable to comprehend why you would run for office in the first place. There would be no point in winning, no point in representing people who behave in such a manner. We, the people, would already be lost.

The people of this country are treated like idiots by their elected leaders, and it's because of philosophies like what was posted above. But the people are not idiots, and they deserve more respect from those that serve them. I refuse to believe that the American people are so ruled by their emotions, so incapable of thoughtful decisions. Believing that would mean giving up on America, and I'm not ready to do that.

I agree that we must know what Horiwitz speaks of, not so that we can emulate it, but so that we can defeat it. You don't beat irrational shouting by more irrational shouting. You don't become what your enemy is, because then victory is meaningless. You beat irrationality by presenting a well-reasoned argument. Yes, many won't listen, but many will. It will take time, but eventually we can convince people that a well-reasoned argument should always win over shouting.

If we can never get to that point, then what's the point? If there is no hope that people can ever make good decisions, with their minds, then what difference does it make who gets elected? Whoever it is will be a tyrant. And I refuse to accept that our only choice is between one tyranny and another, with the only difference being variations in economic beliefs.

TPC Interactive discussions

I haven't posted here in a while, because most of my discussions and thoughts are ending up on TPC Interactive. Unfortunately, that site is visible to members only. I've decided to repost my comments here, so the general public will have better access to my thoughts and comments. Look for new posts shortly.