In the state where I live currently (Washington) we have a process whereby citizens can directly offer up legislation to be voted on by the population at large. A number of signatures are required to get said measures on the ballot, and my limited understanding of the process seems to indicate that it isn't just a walk in the park - so we only see a handful of such 'initiatives' up for voting each election. Some in the past, and even this season, are ones I supported - requiring 2/3rd majorities of our legislature in order to pass new taxes, for example. However, there are a few which I just voted on today which were so convoluted that I'm not sure what will happen if they are passed into law.
Of these, a couple in particular were complicated enough that there were parts I agreed with and others which I very much did not. For example, two - yes, two similar initiatives are up at the same time - were focused on reforming the way our state handles 'hard liquor'. I like that they both wanted to do away with having the State Liquor Board directly warehouse and sell such drinks, which seems like something the government has no business being involved in. However, they then both also would have gotten rid of various laws about the sales of liquor which seemed pretty complex. Some, like those affecting where sales could happen, didn't really bother me - but then others removed taxes, and some seemed to open up changes which would allow bigger beer companies to come in and push out smaller, local breweries.
I'm not into drinking, so that doesn't hit me directly like some of my friends and co-workers, but I do like small and local companies over national conglomerates in a lot of other areas. This dichotomy makes me wish there were actually several smaller initiatives for each of these topics, so I could split my votes up based on how I think / feel. The more I think about it, I bet this problem extends far beyond just the initiative process: most laws these days are long and complex affairs, and likely even the best are saddled with clauses and add-ons which bring unwanted things. Kind of the opposite of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'; maybe one could say 'letting in the fleas with the dog'. I suppose those in power probably don't want changes made, but I would *love* to be able to restrict each law to a small amount of text or some other way of limiting scope to specific issues, rather than having to enact huge bundles of rules just to get one good law in place.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Burning the Qur'an
There is currently a bit of a controversy about a church in Florida that is going to hold "International Burn a Qur'an Day" on the ninth anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center - this coming Saturday, 9/11/10. A lot of folks are calling for the church to cancel their event, which they describe as a protest against radical Islam, so I wanted to weigh in with both my opinion and what I think is the more interesting story behind this controversy.
To start off, let me say that this sounds like a very un-Christian thing to do. The Bible tells us to "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44), and this does not sound like a good way to show love. However, with that said, they certainly have the right, under US law, to burn any book they want. Folks have burned the Bible in protests in the past, and while I don't like it they have the right to do so.
Most folks, at least here in the US, seem to agree that technically these folks have a right to do what they are doing. The argument I have heard voiced a lot is that it is in poor taste, with which I agree, and that it is going to put our troops overseas in danger of attack from Muslims who are angry over the burning of their holy book.
I agree that it is likely that if this goes forward some attacks will be carried out against Americans, both military and civilians, who are residing in Muslim countries... but that is *not* because these people are burning some books. It is because many Muslims, particularly the more radical among them, see murder as a fitting reaction to someone burning copies of a book that is important to them - even though it isn't their own property or even happening in their region, and the folks they will likely target are no more responsible for the burning than I am responsible for folks who have burned Bibles or crosses here in the US.
That is what I see as the principle problem here: the over-reaction of many Islamic people the world over. Do they have the right to voice their opinion, and protest against the Qur'an burning? Yes - and many are already doing so! In fact, many are burning US flags. That is their right, just as these folks have the right to burn some books. However, if they go a step further and start hurting or killing folks then it isn't the book-burning that has gone wrong, it is the folks doing the killing!
Why should we have to tell someone here in the US that they shouldn't do something which they have a legal right to do because someone else might react in an illegal, immoral, and murderous way? That sounds to me like cowering before terrorism. Do I think those supposed Christians in Florida should burn Qur'ans? No - again, it isn't a very Christ-like thing to do. However, I think they have the right to do as they want under the law and I will not hold them responsible in the least for any reactions by overzealous Muslims. If Muslims want the world to see that their religion is peaceful, as many of them claim, then they need to call on their own adherents to react in a non-violent manner to the Qur'an burning. I guess we'll see on Saturday, and in the days following, what the true nature of Islam is...
To start off, let me say that this sounds like a very un-Christian thing to do. The Bible tells us to "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44), and this does not sound like a good way to show love. However, with that said, they certainly have the right, under US law, to burn any book they want. Folks have burned the Bible in protests in the past, and while I don't like it they have the right to do so.
Most folks, at least here in the US, seem to agree that technically these folks have a right to do what they are doing. The argument I have heard voiced a lot is that it is in poor taste, with which I agree, and that it is going to put our troops overseas in danger of attack from Muslims who are angry over the burning of their holy book.
I agree that it is likely that if this goes forward some attacks will be carried out against Americans, both military and civilians, who are residing in Muslim countries... but that is *not* because these people are burning some books. It is because many Muslims, particularly the more radical among them, see murder as a fitting reaction to someone burning copies of a book that is important to them - even though it isn't their own property or even happening in their region, and the folks they will likely target are no more responsible for the burning than I am responsible for folks who have burned Bibles or crosses here in the US.
That is what I see as the principle problem here: the over-reaction of many Islamic people the world over. Do they have the right to voice their opinion, and protest against the Qur'an burning? Yes - and many are already doing so! In fact, many are burning US flags. That is their right, just as these folks have the right to burn some books. However, if they go a step further and start hurting or killing folks then it isn't the book-burning that has gone wrong, it is the folks doing the killing!
Why should we have to tell someone here in the US that they shouldn't do something which they have a legal right to do because someone else might react in an illegal, immoral, and murderous way? That sounds to me like cowering before terrorism. Do I think those supposed Christians in Florida should burn Qur'ans? No - again, it isn't a very Christ-like thing to do. However, I think they have the right to do as they want under the law and I will not hold them responsible in the least for any reactions by overzealous Muslims. If Muslims want the world to see that their religion is peaceful, as many of them claim, then they need to call on their own adherents to react in a non-violent manner to the Qur'an burning. I guess we'll see on Saturday, and in the days following, what the true nature of Islam is...
Monday, May 17, 2010
Five Steps to Fixing American Politics
In no particular order:
- Single Term Limits - If a politician has no hope of being re-elected then hopefully his attention will go toward fulfilling the needs / desires of those who elected him, rather than pandering to lobbyists or getting distracted by the next election. I could see going to a setup where politicians could return after a certain number of years off, or perhaps where they could work up through positions but never run for the same one again (representative -> senator -> governor, for example, but never able to have more than one term in each category).
- Instant Run-off Elections - Moving to a system where we could have multiple candidates without it being a detriment to any given group of people, and where recounts could be eliminated, would be a great improvement. Check out this website for more info.
- Transparent Voting - I know it is taboo to suggest this in the US, but I think all voting should be made public. This would allow independent verification of results, rather than needing to trust whoever is in power and in charge of the election process. Imagine each of us being able to visit a website and see that they did indeed record our votes correctly, rather than just assuming that there were no 'hanging chads' or not-quite-filled bubbles that got miscounted.
- Limited Number of Laws - Institute a limit to how many laws can be on the books, and require that for any new law passed after that number is reached an old one must be removed. Done properly this would help ensure that the lists of laws don't get out of hand, and would force clean-up of out-dated laws that otherwise just sit on the books.
- Legally Require a Balanced Budget - Make it a requirement that each year's budget cannot exceed the income of the previous year, in order to help avoid budget overruns and debt. Using a past year as the budget limit helps avoid over-estimation of the current year's expected intake. There could also be provision for exceeding the budget in time of war, but only contingent on an actual declaration of war (not simply a presidential action or other use of military forces).
I'm sure there are other good ideas out there too, and many of the best (including some on this list) would require a major overhaul of our existing laws and such. Given how far into the red we are going, though - both monetarily and socially - I think that is overdue. Revolution 2.0 anyone?
- Single Term Limits - If a politician has no hope of being re-elected then hopefully his attention will go toward fulfilling the needs / desires of those who elected him, rather than pandering to lobbyists or getting distracted by the next election. I could see going to a setup where politicians could return after a certain number of years off, or perhaps where they could work up through positions but never run for the same one again (representative -> senator -> governor, for example, but never able to have more than one term in each category).
- Instant Run-off Elections - Moving to a system where we could have multiple candidates without it being a detriment to any given group of people, and where recounts could be eliminated, would be a great improvement. Check out this website for more info.
- Transparent Voting - I know it is taboo to suggest this in the US, but I think all voting should be made public. This would allow independent verification of results, rather than needing to trust whoever is in power and in charge of the election process. Imagine each of us being able to visit a website and see that they did indeed record our votes correctly, rather than just assuming that there were no 'hanging chads' or not-quite-filled bubbles that got miscounted.
- Limited Number of Laws - Institute a limit to how many laws can be on the books, and require that for any new law passed after that number is reached an old one must be removed. Done properly this would help ensure that the lists of laws don't get out of hand, and would force clean-up of out-dated laws that otherwise just sit on the books.
- Legally Require a Balanced Budget - Make it a requirement that each year's budget cannot exceed the income of the previous year, in order to help avoid budget overruns and debt. Using a past year as the budget limit helps avoid over-estimation of the current year's expected intake. There could also be provision for exceeding the budget in time of war, but only contingent on an actual declaration of war (not simply a presidential action or other use of military forces).
I'm sure there are other good ideas out there too, and many of the best (including some on this list) would require a major overhaul of our existing laws and such. Given how far into the red we are going, though - both monetarily and socially - I think that is overdue. Revolution 2.0 anyone?
Friday, June 5, 2009
My Ideas for a Better Tax System
Can any tax system really be good? I'm not sure, but I know one could be made that is better than the current complex arrangement of sales, income, property, business, death, and just about every other imaginable form of tax.
What I would propose is an extremely simple set of two types of tax: sales tax and import tax (or tariffs). Everything else would be gone. This would, I'm sure, be insufficient to cover the needs of current US government spending - but alongside these I would put a requirement not that the government simply balance their budget, which leaves open the option to increase taxes, but that they actually must curb spending in order to fit within the projected income. Many government programs would have to be cut, I'm sure, but then I think that the government has its hands in too many pies already. That is another topic for another day, though, so I will try to limit myself to the subject at hand.
The reason I think a sales tax is 'fair' is that it hits everyone - not just the rich, nor just the poor. The rich would pay a substantial amount more over time, which I think makes sense, and as you will see would even pay at a 'higher rate' - not because it is forced upon them, but because of their natural choices.
There are two important things to point out about the sales tax I propose which are different from current implementations that I am aware of, or which at least take existing ideas a step further. One is to have different levels of taxation depending on the item being bought and its price. Essential items - raw foods, for example - would go untaxed (as they often do now); luxury items would be heavily taxed. I propose a range something like the following:
- Essential Items: 0% tax rate (basic foods, maybe a few other categories)
- Commonly Needed Items: 25% tax rate (simple clothes, rent of apartments or buildings under a certain value or value density [$/sq foot])
- Commonly Wanted Items: 50% tax rate (more expensive clothes, rent on more expensive things, computers, certain types of cars, basic entertainment services, gasoline, property purchases under a certain value)
- Luxury Items: 100% tax rate (more expensive property purchases, luxury entertainment services, airline travel, more expensive cars, junk foods)
- Completely Un-needed Items: 200% tax rate (alcohol, tobacco, porn, maybe soda - basically items that have no or little intrinsic value, and/or which are associated with problems in society that could be avoided by the lessened use of such products)
The kicker is that these would be nation-wide (I realize that violates current states-rights, but this is just a theoretical proposition for now), and so whenever a price for an item was displayed it would be required to include the appropriate tax. The tax percent could also be shown, but the main number would have to be the total that the customer would be paying.
Because this would be the major form of tax providing government funding, it would have to be split across the federal, state, and local governments. I propose the following breakdown:
25% of the taxes go to the federal government, 25% to the state, 25% to the county, and 25% to the city. If the item is purchased outside of a city/town, the numbers revert to 33.3% across the board. If the item is ordered from one place and shipped to another, the state/county/city amounts are split between the two locales. If the purchase is made in a retail location, the full amount is calculated based on that location.
The secondary tax form, which for convenience sake I'll call tariffs, would be in place less to generate revenue for the government and more to allow for US-based businesses to thrive and compete on an even footing with those from other countries. It would be variable, at the government's discretion, and would be intended to level the playing field between companies here in the US which might have higher overhead costs (because of paying reasonable wages, etc) than those from outside trying to import. The idea would not be to force the purchase of US products, or to price imports out of reach, but simply to make products compete on other merits like quality, features, etc. I know this runs against the current free-trade ideas out there, but in the long run they are not healthy for the US economy (in my opinion). I would expect other countries to adopt similar tariffs, and as long as they were used to make local competition better rather than to prevent importing I think that would be a good idea. Of course, we can't really trust the government to act in the 'right' way... but then what else is new?
This was a rather hurried overview of my ideas, but I'm curious to hear what others out there think.
What I would propose is an extremely simple set of two types of tax: sales tax and import tax (or tariffs). Everything else would be gone. This would, I'm sure, be insufficient to cover the needs of current US government spending - but alongside these I would put a requirement not that the government simply balance their budget, which leaves open the option to increase taxes, but that they actually must curb spending in order to fit within the projected income. Many government programs would have to be cut, I'm sure, but then I think that the government has its hands in too many pies already. That is another topic for another day, though, so I will try to limit myself to the subject at hand.
The reason I think a sales tax is 'fair' is that it hits everyone - not just the rich, nor just the poor. The rich would pay a substantial amount more over time, which I think makes sense, and as you will see would even pay at a 'higher rate' - not because it is forced upon them, but because of their natural choices.
There are two important things to point out about the sales tax I propose which are different from current implementations that I am aware of, or which at least take existing ideas a step further. One is to have different levels of taxation depending on the item being bought and its price. Essential items - raw foods, for example - would go untaxed (as they often do now); luxury items would be heavily taxed. I propose a range something like the following:
- Essential Items: 0% tax rate (basic foods, maybe a few other categories)
- Commonly Needed Items: 25% tax rate (simple clothes, rent of apartments or buildings under a certain value or value density [$/sq foot])
- Commonly Wanted Items: 50% tax rate (more expensive clothes, rent on more expensive things, computers, certain types of cars, basic entertainment services, gasoline, property purchases under a certain value)
- Luxury Items: 100% tax rate (more expensive property purchases, luxury entertainment services, airline travel, more expensive cars, junk foods)
- Completely Un-needed Items: 200% tax rate (alcohol, tobacco, porn, maybe soda - basically items that have no or little intrinsic value, and/or which are associated with problems in society that could be avoided by the lessened use of such products)
The kicker is that these would be nation-wide (I realize that violates current states-rights, but this is just a theoretical proposition for now), and so whenever a price for an item was displayed it would be required to include the appropriate tax. The tax percent could also be shown, but the main number would have to be the total that the customer would be paying.
Because this would be the major form of tax providing government funding, it would have to be split across the federal, state, and local governments. I propose the following breakdown:
25% of the taxes go to the federal government, 25% to the state, 25% to the county, and 25% to the city. If the item is purchased outside of a city/town, the numbers revert to 33.3% across the board. If the item is ordered from one place and shipped to another, the state/county/city amounts are split between the two locales. If the purchase is made in a retail location, the full amount is calculated based on that location.
The secondary tax form, which for convenience sake I'll call tariffs, would be in place less to generate revenue for the government and more to allow for US-based businesses to thrive and compete on an even footing with those from other countries. It would be variable, at the government's discretion, and would be intended to level the playing field between companies here in the US which might have higher overhead costs (because of paying reasonable wages, etc) than those from outside trying to import. The idea would not be to force the purchase of US products, or to price imports out of reach, but simply to make products compete on other merits like quality, features, etc. I know this runs against the current free-trade ideas out there, but in the long run they are not healthy for the US economy (in my opinion). I would expect other countries to adopt similar tariffs, and as long as they were used to make local competition better rather than to prevent importing I think that would be a good idea. Of course, we can't really trust the government to act in the 'right' way... but then what else is new?
This was a rather hurried overview of my ideas, but I'm curious to hear what others out there think.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Funny?
http://www.oaoa.com/articles/guy_22374___article.html/homeless_money.html
From Rose's hometown newspaper. Interesting, check it out.
From Rose's hometown newspaper. Interesting, check it out.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Guest Blog
I have a special feature to post today - a "guest blog", if you will, that my wife wrote. She normally blogs on her MySpace account, and sometimes on our family blog, but after reading what she wrote today I think it is exactly the sort of thing I like to have on Earth to William.
The first part won't make much sense if you haven't read what she posted last night, but the meat of it does not need any background info. Without further ado, here is Rose's "the negative blind people and the muffinless":
"I got up at 3:30am to feed Gus this morning and thought, wow, it smells great in here, like cinnamon and pumpkin.
Then in the dark I realized I sat next to the dog. He was emitting muffin smell still .
I am getting tired of hearing people on TV complain about voters who haven't decided who they are going to vote for. I keep hearing "If you haven't decided after 20 months blah blah blah" "How hard can it be one is black, one is white, one is old one is young, one wants socialized medicine, one wants to pay your mortgage"(I swear those are real quotes from at least 2 different tv shows). We haven't been undecided because we are less intelligent. We are not slow. We even aren't indecisive necessarily. Have you stopped to consider we don't want either candidate. One TV host even went so far as to say "If you haven't decided by now, you shouldn't show up".
Look, I know that we are the people they are aiming the ads at now. Yes I think it's annoying too. I would love to hear any candidate say anything positive. Besides Obama and McCain ads that dominate the screen, I am so sick of the Gregoire/Rossi campaigns and smear ads, and even worse are the Darcy Burner Dave Richert smear campaigns. Since when is anyone qualified because they can say negative things about someone else.
All I am saying is that I am unhappy with all choices I have been presented with, and I am still trying to figure out how I don't have to settle, especially since we are stuck with this stupid 2 party system. A vote for any independent, consitution, green, libertarian or any other smaller party is a vote thrown away, and I wish more people would vote in that direction so that they weren't wasted, because there are people out there that aren't offering the same old same old.
Indecision is not ignorance my friends. It is the opposite. It is quite thoughtful. It is the pause to consider how I can do my part and truly make a difference in the world. Even how to rebel against the negativity that has swallowed the airwaves recently. I am not easily and blindly led to trust someone, especially when the stakes are so high, not just for our economy and security in these weird time, but because I have to consider the world I want my son to live in. He can't speak, so I must for him. And quite frankly I don't see anybody I trust his future with.
Please don't send me messages telling me who I should vote for and why. Please don't bombard me with information about how I am crazy or irresponsible.
This is what I have decided. There is no good decision. Which is depressing when you don't have any muffins either. "
The first part won't make much sense if you haven't read what she posted last night, but the meat of it does not need any background info. Without further ado, here is Rose's "the negative blind people and the muffinless":
"I got up at 3:30am to feed Gus this morning and thought, wow, it smells great in here, like cinnamon and pumpkin.
Then in the dark I realized I sat next to the dog. He was emitting muffin smell still .
I am getting tired of hearing people on TV complain about voters who haven't decided who they are going to vote for. I keep hearing "If you haven't decided after 20 months blah blah blah" "How hard can it be one is black, one is white, one is old one is young, one wants socialized medicine, one wants to pay your mortgage"(I swear those are real quotes from at least 2 different tv shows). We haven't been undecided because we are less intelligent. We are not slow. We even aren't indecisive necessarily. Have you stopped to consider we don't want either candidate. One TV host even went so far as to say "If you haven't decided by now, you shouldn't show up".
Look, I know that we are the people they are aiming the ads at now. Yes I think it's annoying too. I would love to hear any candidate say anything positive. Besides Obama and McCain ads that dominate the screen, I am so sick of the Gregoire/Rossi campaigns and smear ads, and even worse are the Darcy Burner Dave Richert smear campaigns. Since when is anyone qualified because they can say negative things about someone else.
All I am saying is that I am unhappy with all choices I have been presented with, and I am still trying to figure out how I don't have to settle, especially since we are stuck with this stupid 2 party system. A vote for any independent, consitution, green, libertarian or any other smaller party is a vote thrown away, and I wish more people would vote in that direction so that they weren't wasted, because there are people out there that aren't offering the same old same old.
Indecision is not ignorance my friends. It is the opposite. It is quite thoughtful. It is the pause to consider how I can do my part and truly make a difference in the world. Even how to rebel against the negativity that has swallowed the airwaves recently. I am not easily and blindly led to trust someone, especially when the stakes are so high, not just for our economy and security in these weird time, but because I have to consider the world I want my son to live in. He can't speak, so I must for him. And quite frankly I don't see anybody I trust his future with.
Please don't send me messages telling me who I should vote for and why. Please don't bombard me with information about how I am crazy or irresponsible.
This is what I have decided. There is no good decision. Which is depressing when you don't have any muffins either. "
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
It amazes me how much we still don't know
Scientists these days seem to take so many things for granted - the big bang theory, Darwinian evolution, and even more mundane things - but it always amazes and amuses me when theories crop up that offer alternative reasons for some of the phenomena we observe and try to rationalize through complex theories (like those mentioned already). Here is one such example I ran into today while reading through the news: the Earth may exist inside a cosmic bubble, of sorts.
It isn't so much a bubble that they describe, just that some of the things we currently interpret as the universe expanding may actually be the result of Earth being in a relatively low-density section of space. Apparently this bucks traditional astronomical reasoning, which requires that things follow the Copernican principle. By suggesting that the Earth is in a unique region of space they seem to think that we are stepping beyond what we can demonstrate or presuppose - but I would also point out the opposite: by assuming that the Earth is in an average or 'normal' part of the universe, we are presupposing that such a norm exists. I don't think that with our limited knowledge of cosmology we can really be safe in that assumption; it is very possible that every part of the expanses out there is different and unique!
This is certainly a fun topic to discuss, and I look forward to more things that turn the scientific status-quo on its head. In the end, though, such things don't really matter all that much. As much as I like science and exploration, I sometimes do think that we should deal with some of the problems we have here on Earth before unleashing humanity on a poor, unsuspecting universe ;)
It isn't so much a bubble that they describe, just that some of the things we currently interpret as the universe expanding may actually be the result of Earth being in a relatively low-density section of space. Apparently this bucks traditional astronomical reasoning, which requires that things follow the Copernican principle. By suggesting that the Earth is in a unique region of space they seem to think that we are stepping beyond what we can demonstrate or presuppose - but I would also point out the opposite: by assuming that the Earth is in an average or 'normal' part of the universe, we are presupposing that such a norm exists. I don't think that with our limited knowledge of cosmology we can really be safe in that assumption; it is very possible that every part of the expanses out there is different and unique!
This is certainly a fun topic to discuss, and I look forward to more things that turn the scientific status-quo on its head. In the end, though, such things don't really matter all that much. As much as I like science and exploration, I sometimes do think that we should deal with some of the problems we have here on Earth before unleashing humanity on a poor, unsuspecting universe ;)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
