People have long thought of various reforms to elections, mostly involving financial reforms. I have other ideas.
Financial
Financial reforms usually involve limiting the donations to some arbitrary maximum. I think organizations have vested interests in elections, and should be included in the process. But I do think they should only be allowed to donate the same amount per individual as I can donate myself to any campaign. An organization with 100 members can donate 100X the limit imposed on any one of them individually. However, the members being counted must be registered voters in order to be counted among those.
Voter ID
Voter fraud is real. Pretending it is not is detrimental to the process. 'One man one vote' is a principle we have had in this country from its inception, and this should be maintained. Requiring a voter to present identification is neither racist, nor disenfranchising. In this day and age when a proper ID is needed for so many daily activities, and obtaining an ID is a simple process, it is reasonable to ask voters to obtain such an ID.
Allowing early voting 30 days or more in advance of election day is even more reason for controlling the single vote per voter rule. The availability of US Mail, internet and drop in voting makes it more difficult to prevent fraud.
Media Bias
The media are supposed to be the nations watch dog. They are the people tasked with learning the truth about the government, events and people. Investigating the people running for office, asking proper questions of them, and following up on the answers, is their job. They need to do it. People are consumers of what the media publishes. Investigating the investigators is how we ensure the accuracy and efficacy of that news. Voters must relay on the information about candidates in order to make the best possible choice of placing their votes.
Regardless of your political affiliation or position on any issue before us, we must make informed decisions. Allowing the rules of elections and campaigning to influence that process poisons the process. We cannot allow politicians, who have much to gain or lose from our votes, to have undue influence in how the votes are collected and counted.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Thursday, February 20, 2014
If Obama Gets His Way, Who Will Pay?
So, President Obama is currently demanding two things of Americans. If he gets his way on both, the poor in America will suffer more than middle and upper class Americans. But don't misunderstand, we will all suffer. Here is why.
Minimum Wage:
The president is asking for a 39% increase in minimum wage, from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour. Businesses would need to either raise prices, lay people off, restrict hours worked, or some combination of these, in order to cover the increase in wages payable.
EPA 'Coal Fired Power Plants' Regulations:
Mr. Obama wants all coal fired power plants built from this day forward to include technology, which has yet to be developed, to capture and contain carbon emissions. Experts in the field say the additional regulations would raise the cost of household utilities by 70%.
Even if the technology goes undeveloped, the lack of new plants coming online will have a price raising effect as well. More regulations always raise the cost of doing business. Business costs are always passed on to someone, employees or customers.
Now the Payback:
Assuming President Obama gets both his wishes, would the increased electric bill at home cost more then the increase in wages? The president, his party, and many on the political left, claim it is unacceptable to work fro $7.25/hour while supporting a family of 4. They are correct.
But the answer is not to raise the cost of living so high as to make the increase meaningless. The answer is that jobs paying minimum wages are not intended for supporting a family. Mostly they are jobs intended for young, inexperienced, unskilled workers to get a job, develop skills and habits that will support more meaningful, higher wage jobs.
Minimum Wage:
The president is asking for a 39% increase in minimum wage, from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour. Businesses would need to either raise prices, lay people off, restrict hours worked, or some combination of these, in order to cover the increase in wages payable.
EPA 'Coal Fired Power Plants' Regulations:
Mr. Obama wants all coal fired power plants built from this day forward to include technology, which has yet to be developed, to capture and contain carbon emissions. Experts in the field say the additional regulations would raise the cost of household utilities by 70%.
Even if the technology goes undeveloped, the lack of new plants coming online will have a price raising effect as well. More regulations always raise the cost of doing business. Business costs are always passed on to someone, employees or customers.
Now the Payback:
Assuming President Obama gets both his wishes, would the increased electric bill at home cost more then the increase in wages? The president, his party, and many on the political left, claim it is unacceptable to work fro $7.25/hour while supporting a family of 4. They are correct.
But the answer is not to raise the cost of living so high as to make the increase meaningless. The answer is that jobs paying minimum wages are not intended for supporting a family. Mostly they are jobs intended for young, inexperienced, unskilled workers to get a job, develop skills and habits that will support more meaningful, higher wage jobs.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Obamacare: Arbitrarily Changing Law
Obama's Arbitrary Healthcare Flexibility
This law, the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA), was written exclusively by Democrats, voted on exclusively by Democrats, and singed into law by a Democrat. The single worst enemy to Obamacare is Obama himself, according to Major Garrett.
"To those who must live with and live under the law, the arbitrary is the norm. The only pattern is chaos. Obamacare’s worst enemy is Obama."
President Obama has issued 13 separate changes to the law in the last 12 months. Constitutional? Well, not really. But who will stop him? Republicans? No.
Each of the delays in individual pieces of the law ends shortly after an election date. The law was originally passed containing components that were not to occur until after the 2012 reelection campaign of the Campaigner in Chief. The parts of the law that most voters like, coverage for pre-existing conditions for example, were enacted immediately to gain the voters' favor. The less appreciated portions, such as taxes and mandates, were not enacted until after that election cycle. And it worked, President Obama was reelected.
Republicans have long argued this law should not be passed, then it should be repealed, and I agree with them on that. But will they stand by and allow Obama to make arbitrary changes to his signature law. Most likely, they will, for the implications that will have in the 2014 mid-term elections. Republicans are hoping to campaign on the chaos created by Obamacare to gain favor with voters in November 2014, and retake control of the Senate, while holding their huge margin in the House of Representatives.
The PPACA is, in my opinion, the single worst piece of law ever created in this country. We should repeal it, then work to implement new law that better deal with the real health care problems facing America.
Recently, House Speaker John Boehner stated he would not entertain comprehensive immigration reform legislation, because the President could not be trusted to enforce that new law, whatever form it took, based on how the PPACA has been handled by his administration. He is right about that.
President Obama cannot be trusted.
This law, the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA), was written exclusively by Democrats, voted on exclusively by Democrats, and singed into law by a Democrat. The single worst enemy to Obamacare is Obama himself, according to Major Garrett.
"To those who must live with and live under the law, the arbitrary is the norm. The only pattern is chaos. Obamacare’s worst enemy is Obama."
President Obama has issued 13 separate changes to the law in the last 12 months. Constitutional? Well, not really. But who will stop him? Republicans? No.
Each of the delays in individual pieces of the law ends shortly after an election date. The law was originally passed containing components that were not to occur until after the 2012 reelection campaign of the Campaigner in Chief. The parts of the law that most voters like, coverage for pre-existing conditions for example, were enacted immediately to gain the voters' favor. The less appreciated portions, such as taxes and mandates, were not enacted until after that election cycle. And it worked, President Obama was reelected.
Republicans have long argued this law should not be passed, then it should be repealed, and I agree with them on that. But will they stand by and allow Obama to make arbitrary changes to his signature law. Most likely, they will, for the implications that will have in the 2014 mid-term elections. Republicans are hoping to campaign on the chaos created by Obamacare to gain favor with voters in November 2014, and retake control of the Senate, while holding their huge margin in the House of Representatives.
The PPACA is, in my opinion, the single worst piece of law ever created in this country. We should repeal it, then work to implement new law that better deal with the real health care problems facing America.
Recently, House Speaker John Boehner stated he would not entertain comprehensive immigration reform legislation, because the President could not be trusted to enforce that new law, whatever form it took, based on how the PPACA has been handled by his administration. He is right about that.
President Obama cannot be trusted.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Liberal New York Taxation Confusion
NY State Website for Attracting Business
Start-Up-NY is a promotion to attract businesses to the state of New York, by offering 10 year tax exemptions. But the Mayor of the city of New York sees it differently, wanting to raise taxes on the wealthy.
CNS: Mayor DiBlasio Promises to Tackle NYCS Inequality Crisis
See a conflict here do you? In order to attract businesses to the state they must drop the taxes. But in order to fix the problems of lack of income for some people, they must raise taxes.
Conservatives have been arguing since the days of Ronald Reagan that lower taxes will improve the overall economy. Even JFK talked about this same thing during his term. Then subsequent lowered tax rates indeed boosted the economy.
Today there are many states which have taken this conservative economic education to heart, and their states are thriving. Florida is the best example of this. Florida has no income tax, no inheritance tax, no SSI tax, though it does have a sales tax and property tax.
If liberals insist on raising taxes and investing in our future, they have to prove it works, and they cannot. Conservatives can, however, prove lowering tax rates leads to increased tax revenue.
Time to get with the program.
Start-Up-NY is a promotion to attract businesses to the state of New York, by offering 10 year tax exemptions. But the Mayor of the city of New York sees it differently, wanting to raise taxes on the wealthy.
CNS: Mayor DiBlasio Promises to Tackle NYCS Inequality Crisis
See a conflict here do you? In order to attract businesses to the state they must drop the taxes. But in order to fix the problems of lack of income for some people, they must raise taxes.
Conservatives have been arguing since the days of Ronald Reagan that lower taxes will improve the overall economy. Even JFK talked about this same thing during his term. Then subsequent lowered tax rates indeed boosted the economy.
Today there are many states which have taken this conservative economic education to heart, and their states are thriving. Florida is the best example of this. Florida has no income tax, no inheritance tax, no SSI tax, though it does have a sales tax and property tax.
If liberals insist on raising taxes and investing in our future, they have to prove it works, and they cannot. Conservatives can, however, prove lowering tax rates leads to increased tax revenue.
Time to get with the program.
Monday, February 3, 2014
School Adminstrators Failing America with Snow Daze
This has been as harsh a winter in many parts of the country this year, but are we doing ourselves any favors by allowing kids to remain home when they could be going to school? I say no.
Today, for example, in northern Kentucky, there was an inch or less of snow on the ground at 6AM, and schools are closed. When I looked at the street in front of my house it was cleared of any snow. There is no reasonable person who went to school before the 1990's who thinks school should be called off today.
What logic could the decision makers have for closing school when it is such a small amount of snow and temperatures are not unbearably frigid? People with jobs are still driving past the house on their way to work.
What could we possibly be teaching our kids about life when we continually, and so easily, let them off the hook of going to school? It should not be a liability issue. If a parent would sue the school district for making them go to school in snow or cold weather, they always have the right to keep their child home, and not risk the weather outside. The parent should be responsible enough to deal with the weather by teaching the child how to dress and how to safely navigate the route to school.
If the parent is not that responsible, that is not the fault of the schools. It is time to toughen up, and stop making excuses for not doing the hard things. For allowing excuses when none should be accepted, is doing more harm than good to the future of society.
Today, for example, in northern Kentucky, there was an inch or less of snow on the ground at 6AM, and schools are closed. When I looked at the street in front of my house it was cleared of any snow. There is no reasonable person who went to school before the 1990's who thinks school should be called off today.
What logic could the decision makers have for closing school when it is such a small amount of snow and temperatures are not unbearably frigid? People with jobs are still driving past the house on their way to work.
What could we possibly be teaching our kids about life when we continually, and so easily, let them off the hook of going to school? It should not be a liability issue. If a parent would sue the school district for making them go to school in snow or cold weather, they always have the right to keep their child home, and not risk the weather outside. The parent should be responsible enough to deal with the weather by teaching the child how to dress and how to safely navigate the route to school.
If the parent is not that responsible, that is not the fault of the schools. It is time to toughen up, and stop making excuses for not doing the hard things. For allowing excuses when none should be accepted, is doing more harm than good to the future of society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)