Trumps First 100 Days

I know its been a long time since I have blogged. I figure we need to stop hyperventilating over Trump winning the Presidency of the United States. Let's take a good look at what he intends to attempt accomplish in the first 100 days:

There has been a lot of talk about Trump's first 100 days and all the freedoms that will be lost..here is what he said he plans to do - no keep in mind he will still need Congress to go along-
Source: http://www.npr.org/…/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-…

BTW, I put my comments in () after each point I felt to comment on......

What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. It is a contract between myself and the American voter — and begins with restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington

Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:

* FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress; (Term limits is part of the solution. The bigger swamp is the staffers that remain even after the official leaves office.)

* SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);

* THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated; (Think we need smart regulations, not just eliminating for the sake of eliminating)

* FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;

* FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;

* SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

On the same day, I will begin taking the following 7 actions to protect American workers:

* FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205 (It was a terrible deal and needs re-working)

* SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

* THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator (This one will be fun to watch, as I was just watching a Bloomberg program and one of the Executives for Alibababa was on and the lady doing the interviewed inquired to the toxic assets the banks are holding in China)

* FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately. (As long as we don't use protective tariffs - free trade is not a bad thing for American businesses)

* FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal. (This is the waive of our future, we can be a major player in the energy export field. Do it, create jobs, and raise the GDP thus raising tax revenue)

* SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward. (Yes, get oil off the tracks so other goods can flow more cheaply and we as consumer can pay a fair amount)

* SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure. (Agreed, take care of the homeland first, if the UN wants to study climate change then let them do it.)

Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:

* FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama. (No issues with that. Executive Orders ought to be very limited in scope or we lose the co-equal aspect of government)

* SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. (Agreed, we need more originalists on the bench as this will lead to greater freedoms for all people no matter your gender, race, creed or sexual orientation)

* THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities(Amen, this has choked the funding at the local level)

* FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back. (Yes, we are a country of laws, if you break them, then you need to be punished. There are many people that wait in line to come here. Just follow the law)

* FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.(No trouble here. This is not xenophobia...we have seen time and time again in Europe and even with the Minnesota Somalia population where the lack of a robust vetting process has lead to issues)

Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:

Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate. (Wait, did he just say Middle Class. I thought it was just the rich that will get relief)

End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.

American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.

School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable.(Amen, give education back to the local level as its not a one size fits all)

Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications. (Get rid of the mandate, get rid of kids staying on til 26, allow for broader selling of HSA's and Health Insurance is so far they meet State guidelines)

Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.

End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.(Secure borders will help American workers, families and communities)

Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.

Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values

Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.

On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.

This is my pledge to you.

And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people.

Fair Share Equals 18.4%

Yesterday the White House released the First Families tax return for this year. Ironically the Obama's paid a lower tax than Mitt Romney's Secretary! Harkening back to the campaign, the Democrats were all in on the fact that Romney's effective tax rate was lower than his secretaries nominal rate. The rate difference per the Democrats was not fair. Since that time we saw Congress raise the top nominal rate on the highest income earners and increase the capital gains rate as well all in the cloak of "paying  your fair share".

The release of the Obama's tax return illustrates the hypocrisy of Liberals. I do applaud the Obama's for donating over $150,000 to charity. Perhaps some of the charity can rub off on the Biden's who could only muster $7900 to give to charity. Then again the $150,000 in charitable givings by the Obama's is a tax deduction. Why didn't the Obama's give that $150,000 to the government since they firmly believe that government knows best!

It is tiring to hear the rhetoric of "paying your fair share" and then to see wealthy people that tout this mantra pay less tax rate than Mitt Romney's secretary.

Middle Class Unite!!!!

Middle Class of the United States it is time to unite against the tyranny of the political elite. Right now Congress, the GOP led US House of Representatives and the Democratic led US Senate, are using us as a ping pong ball in their debate on  the fiscal cliff. The "rich" are being asked to "pay their fair share" as our debt that rises above $16 trillion while our yearly budget adds another $1 trillion a year. Increasing the tax rate on the "rich" brings in another $80 billion if the Democrats get their way. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that $80 billion in tax revenue from the "rich" each year doesn't make up for the $1 trillion in extra spending taking place today. Without a balanced budget we will continue to add to the deficit. Without a budget that spend's less then it revenues we will never reduce the $16 trillion debt that has been amassed thus far. 

Where do Americans think the difference will be made up? That's right, the difference will be made up on the backs of the Middle Class. The political elite view the Middle Class as mindless drones; well it is time for that to stop. It is time for the Middle Class to rise up and make their voice heard. Today it is the "rich" paying their fair share and tomorrow it will be the Middle Class "sharing" in the struggle or it will be our "patriotic duty". The GOP and the Democrats play us to score political points knowing that we will do little to threaten their status as the political elite. That time has come to an end. 

Middle Class it is time to shed ourselves of our GOP, Democrat, Tea Party, Coffee Party, Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian and Progressive labels for the label of Middle Class. Other Third Parties have attempted to make headway into the Two Party system but they have too far Right or too far Left. Well, Middle Class America it is our time. The biggest fear of the political elite is that the Middle Class will wake up, step away from the bar stool and think with a clear head about their role in America.

Join me in the formation of a new political party; the Middle Class Party. We need to organize now before the "rich" are no longer around to buffer us from the tax code and the spending glutton of the political elite is extended to the point of no return. The political elite talk about the fiscal cliff and Thelma and Louise. Let's make the fiscal cliff debacle and the debt ceiling debate the two party system Waterloo.

What would you do?

Okay, I know I mentioned posting something this week on Sharia Law but I have not completed my research on the topic enough to post anything. That being said, I have a hypothetical situation that I struggling with and seek guidance from my devoted readers; and others of course. Let's say one was born into a family of four that had a household income of $30,000. While one grew up within that household things were tight and there was not a lot of extra's to be enjoyed. After successfully completed High School and avoided any pitfalls one is faced with two options:

1. To go onto college, earn a degree and obtain a career with unlimited upside potential.
   
2. To skip college, obtain a minimum wage position and look for public assistance at every opportunity.
   

 

Now, I'd like to think that everyone would chose option A. Here is the caveat though, as one earns more money and improves their lot in life one is expected to shoulder more and more of the burden of paying for entitlement programs and other public assistance to ensure those that did not go onto college, or a trade school, are taken care of. A friend of my on Facebook is always spouting, "Spread the Wealth". What type of society will exist if we "spread the wealth"? I understand that many of the richest people in America are pledging to donate 50% of their wealth to charity upon death. Well, imagine how much more they'd be able to give if the inheritance tax doesn't back up to 50%. Generational wealth is one thing but what incentive do we leave our youth if they are given two paths: work hard, keep less or work less, get more?

Wealthy Americans are not the enemy and will not bring down the United States; rather they will simply move out your state or our country if we continue to use them as ATM machines. Now, I am not a member of the wealthy class but I aspire to get there someday. When I do get there, I want to be in control of my money and to whom it is doled out to. I read the demonizing of Wall Street for the excessive bonuses. What people fail to see is that these people are paid on performance of the company and some of the decisions they make will not be popular. Other's rail against them because of the bailouts and that is one to bring up. Our Government should not be in the business of bailing companies, union pensions, or any other public or private institution out. If these groups cannot prosper and be held accountable then why on Earth would anyone want to choose option A above?

Entitlements need to go. Public employee Unions need to go. I am not advocating that those that in the system now be completely shut off from them; rather I am saying we need to phase them out. The bulk of the money that was given states for "Race to the Top" is being funneled into Union pension funds. The bailout of Detroit was to ensure Union pensions. Don't get me wrong Unions have their purpose but they also hold companies and America hostage. So I go back to my original question above. Which option would you choose?

Are Americans on the cusp of a Second American Revolution?

After getting back this morning from a business meeting and setting up quiet time for the kids, I started my daily task of clicking through my internet list of new outlets. I came across this link on the Drudge Report: Paper: Will Washington's Failures Lead to Second American Revolution? (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/542171/201007301830/Will-Washingtons-Failures-Lead-To-Second-American-Revolution-.aspx). The article is written by Ernest Christian and Gary Robbins and discussed if changes by the current regime are doing "more harm than good" and if "Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives." While the article does call out, briefly, President Clinton and G W Bush it evokes a warning that President George Washington had in his farewell address in regards to public credit and the revenue source from which it is paid back. So I looked up President Washington's farewell address to gain some context, especially after the recent dust up with words being said not in full context leading to knee jerk reactions, and read firsthand the thoughts of our first US Constitutional President.

Here is a link to the entire address: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html . The consideration made in the article, by Christian and Robbins, was if Obamcare through it's "insidiously powerful" new rules and regulations; the Dodd-Frank power grab that will allow the President to "control all credit and financial transactions, rewarding friends and punishing opponents, discriminating on the basis of race, gender and political affiliation"; or the attempts by the Obama administration and the EPA "to impose by "regulatory" fiats many parts of the cap-and-trade and other climate legislation…" will lead to a "Second American Revolution." While I believe armed insurrection is a thing of the past in the United States, a sentiment among the populous may be gaining strength. The catalyst of how strong the populous movements of the Coffee and Tea Parties become lie in the decision Congress makes in regards to the expiring Bush tax cuts.

In President Washington's farewell speech he warned:

    As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

A friend of mine on Facebook recently posted an article that was spurned from Governor Tim Pawlenty's statement, "I don't think the argument can be credibly made that the United States of America is undertaxed compared to our competitors" (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/29/tim-pawlenty/tim-pawlenty-says-us-not-undertaxed-compared-its-c/). To which the article posted pointed out that in a sample graph in 2007, established by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), compared the United States overall tax burden to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and ranked us with 30 other OECD countries. The results were, in 2007, the United States overall tax burden was 28% of GDP and the average of the 30 OECD countries is 36%. The authors of the article did talk to several experts to gain their take and they cautioned interpreting the results as it does not paint a complete picture without taking into consideration deficits of the countries. As William Ahern, the director of policy and communications at the Tax Foundation, cautioned about solely drawing a conclusion from the OECD chart that, "a country with a low tax-to-GDP ratio may have a substantial deficit, and in time, that deficit will put upward pressure on taxes."

Since Obama has taken office, and one can even go back to Bush's term, America has increased the deficit percentage in regards to GDP substantially. The Congressional Budget Office reports that, "Over the past few years, U.S. government debt held by the public has grown rapidly—to the point that, compared with the total output of the economy, it is now higher than it has ever been except during the period around World War II. The recent increase in debt has been the result of three sets of factors: an imbalance between federal revenues and spending that predates the recession and the recent turmoil in financial markets, sharply lower revenues and elevated spending that derive directly from those economic conditions, and the costs of various federal policies implemented in response to the conditions. (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=116590). This is precisely what President Washington was warning us about. Our elected officials need to "cherish public credit" and understand that "to have Revenue there must be taxes" to abuse these tenets, as we have seen over the past 10 years, is an "inconvenient and unpleasant" assault on our peace, prosperities and freedoms.

Could we see a Second American Revolution? Has the ruling class embedded themselves in far enough that the only method of removal is by force? Does the current oligarchy of political power preclude Americans from making transformative decisions at the ballot box?

Sen. Ortman’s Capitol Report – April 6, 2010

 

First budget bill passed

The Minnesota Senate passed its first major budget bill the week before Easter/Passover break. The bill contained some cost-cutting measures but no real reforms, and was concerning in its deep public safety cuts.

 

As an alternative, Governor Tim Pawlenty's complete budget was offered, including job creation initiatives. It did not pass. During the debate, there was an appeal to fellow senators to reconsider the proposed $39.2 million in cuts - more than twice the Governor's requests - and to support amendments to reinstate funding to the fire safety fund, restore the state portion of funding for Sentencing to Service and lessen deep cuts to the state's courts, nursing homes and home care.

 

Throughout the process of cutting Minnesota's budget and reprioritizing spending, the scare tactic of cutting police and firefighters is often held over the heads of taxpayers. This partial budget seems to also demonstrate a trend towards limiting the options the Governor and Legislature will have later to force K-12 cuts or tax increases.

 

This piecemeal approach also ignores a comprehensive solution to this year's billion-dollar deficit and, like the earlier passage of the $1 billion bonding bill, shows a lack of sensible priorities by the majority leadership. Other budget bills will follow after the Easter/Passover break.

An amendment to repeal the Green Acres property tax changes to pre- 2008 rates was defeated 32-34.

Senator Julianne Ortman lead a press conference of Republican legislators in asking Attorney General Lori Swanson to file a lawsuit against unconstitutional provisions in the federal health care legislation.

Mid-Session Issue Update

FEDERAL HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION

On behalf of constituents, Minnesota legislators called on the state's congressional delegation to reject the federal health care reform bill prior to its passage last week and sought protection from the state's attorney general to file a lawsuit against the unconstitutional measure and abuse of power by the federal government. A letter signed by all 68 Republican legislators (47 House & 21 Senate) requesting legal action against H.R. 3590 was delivered to the office of Attorney General Lori Swanson. Governor Pawlenty has also requested the same action. The mandate in the federal law that would force U.S. residents to buy health insurance is unconstitutional, and it imposes an unconstitutional tax on individuals who do not comply with the mandate. Other problems with the legislation include the elimination of individuals right to choose private health care plans, a questionable funding mechanism for a new entitlement called the CLASS Act, and overall long-term funding and national deficit questions. Recent polling shows that a majority of Americans oppose the health care legislation, think it will hurt the economy, and will drive up health care costs.

2010 MIDSESSION UPDATE

 

BONDING/CAPITAL INVESTMENT

The Legislature passed a second bonding bill at about $1 billion of borrowing. Once again the Governor performed the work of the Legislature by reducing the size of the billion dollar bill down to $680 million. Some improvements were made to the bill in the area of public safety provisions including $47.5 million of the $89 million Moose Lake phase II expansion, Department of Corrections radio system, security system and perimeter fence upgrade for the state prison at Oak Park Heights, and renovation for the Minneapolis Veteran Affairs Building 17.

GENERAL ASSISTANCE MEDICAL CARE

The General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC) fix has been passed and signed by the Governor. Effective June 1, 2010, the plan creates a new hospital-based coordinated care delivery system in partnership with county agencies. Coordinating Care Organizations (CCO) will manage health care and provide medically necessary services for GAMC eligible residents. Capped block grants to CCOs will be funded with $71 million from the state's General Fund. The agreement also includes a six month Uncompensated Care Pool (UCP) for hospitals that are not designated as CCOs. The temporary UCP will be funded with $20 million from the Health Care Access Fund. People eligible for the program continue to be low-income adults, ages 21-64, who have no dependent children, yet have the means available not to qualify for federally funded health care programs.

ENERGY OPTIONS

Again this year, lawmakers were denied the opportunity to vote on lifting the state's 16-year ban on new nuclear power plants, an issue that has become increasingly popular with Americans seeking clean, inexpensive energy. The measure was offered as an amendment to a solar energy bill in the full Senate, but no vote was taken after the bill's author pulled it from consideration. Recently, a bill that would have lifted the ban was denied by a few unsupportive members of a Senate energy committee. President Obama has recently announced federal government loan guarantees to build the first nuclear plants in the U.S. in three decades.

SIZE OF THE LEGISLATURE

A bill has been working its way through the committee process which would shrink the Minnesota Legislature from a total of 201 to 168 legislators. Currently, Minnesota has the 9th largest House of Representatives and the largest Senate of all legislatures in the 50 states.

ELECTIONS LAW

A new comprehensive elections reform law that had its genesis from the 2008 Coleman-Franken U.S. Senate recount has some good corrections such as ballot reconciliation measures to help ensure that all ballots are accounted for and tabulated according to the law by creating a chain of custody from election judges to municipal election officials. It also requires the Secretary of State to update the statewide voter registration system with the "challenged" status for convicted felons and illegal residents. The post-election sampling report will help legislators determine the number of illegal same-day voter registrations. The bill does not address election reforms such as provisional balloting or photo identification.

HAITI DEDUCTION NOW LAW

A bill designed to encourage donations to earthquake relief in Haiti has been signed into law. It allows those who contributed to relief efforts between January 11 and March 1 to deduct charitable donations on their 2009 state income taxes instead of waiting until next year. It also lets corporations deduct donations from corporate franchise taxes. The changes match state tax law with federal law.

RACINO

Talk of Racino – the proposed expansion of slot machine gambling to the state's two horseracing tracks – continues in light of the state's budget shortfall. Supporters say it could potentially supply $125 million annually for the state, money that could be used for a variety of needs, including education or to finance a new Vikings stadium, as well as provide jobs. There are also opponents who resist the expansion of gambling or feel promoters over promise its potential for return. It is unclear whether the proposal will see any further consideration during this session.

Mid-Session Issue Update

continued

Senators Julianne Ortman and Warren Limmer discuss legislation during a Senate floor session.

According to a Gallup Poll, 62 percent of Americans support nuclear power. (3/23/10)

Mauer signs huge contract: Who wins?

Two things happened yesterday that I'd thought would not take place – health care passing and the Twins organization giving out a contract of that size. Today, I am going to talk about the more amazing one. The fact that the Twins home office is stepping up to the plate to sign a player for more than $20M a year is amazing. The Twins will usher in a new era of baseball for Minnesotans in two ways. The first being a new outdoor stadium and the second, more importantly, is signing a ball player to a contract that only the Yankees, Red Sox or Rangers would consider. By offering Joe Mauer the 8 year $184 million contract is something baseball fans come to expect from other teams and not the Twins.

Joe Mauer is a hometown hero and for the Twins to put it out there like they did and make a statement that they understand Mauer's importance is huge. I think back to some of the better players the Twins have had and I do not see them sticking this kind of dough into one person. Baseball lost me as a fan during the last strike but the Twins organization signing of Mauer only makes me feel all the better for the reasons I stopped being a fan. Granted the Mauer contract is great news for Twins fans and the Mauer family, it just shows how our society values are skewed. Are Twins fans celebrating the fact that Mauer is still here or that the Twins front office finally shelled out some money? The no trade clause is critical to all this too, as it tells me anyway, that Mauer is serious about wanting to remain a Twin all his career.

It is just a sad state of affairs for professional sports though. Who will be the first player to reach a $1B contract? Who will be the first $30M a year guy in the Majors? How much will seats alongside the dugouts cost in a year or two? Then again, if these salaries continue northward we do have a great tax base to pay for "health care reform" and the bureaucracy it is creating.

Blue Print to Sustained Growth and Job Creation

At the Federal and State level we are hearing the phrases "job creation" and "job growth" being tossed around. Thus far the bills tied to either phrase are increasing the debt load of the Federal or State government to only create temporary work. My son was working on Social Studies the other night. The topics were the Soviet Union, Lenin, Stalin, Communism and the Cold War. The book noted how class warfare led to the fall of the Czar and the rise of Lenin. People of Russia embraced Communism because it took control of the farms and factories and gave the people (lower and upper class) an equal share of the output. In theory the ideals of Communism work in so far as people will be no better or worse than any other member of society. The trouble, as the Russians soon discovered, is that the focus is placed to heavily on durable goods while consumer goods are ignored. Plus, with output being evenly distributed the need for excessive output (growth) was not required.

A lot of discussion is taking place on how to get America back to work. President Obama is using the old adage of Big Government, increase spending, and the expansion of entitlement programs to accomplish this. The result has been an unemployment rate that rose above 10%. Even though the unemployment rate has trended down in recent months, do not be fooled by the trend as it is merely an illusion of facts. While the unemployment rate has dropped below 10% the number of part-time and/or disenfranchised (those no longer counted as unemployed) workers has increased to heights not seen before. A friend of mine reminded me that consumerism is the key to a robust economy and sustained recovery. To counter the lack of new job creation, President Obama wants to give small business tax-credits for hiring new workers.

On the surface that is great news for the small business owner but when we dive deeper bigger questions are raised for the small business owner. What will these new workers do? How do I pay their salary in the future if business doesn't pick up? How will additional workers increase traffic for my wares? All valid questions, ones those Ivy League educated politicians seem to not address. Many have touted Obama the most intelligent of all Presidents even if he cannot read from a teleprompter all the time. Remember the last Bush we had was from an Ivy League school too. Now I was not as highly educated, true I do have my MBA but it is not from Harvard or Yale, as the recent men to hold the office of President but I do have a solid education in business, economics, history, philosophy and ethics.

Now, if the catalyst to a robust economy is consumerism then who is it that should be spending money? You and I is who. How do we get more money to spend, legally? We need to have more of our money we earn available to use on discretionary spending. Outside of a raise or lowering our debt, how can we increase our discretionary spending? Rather, how can government help us increase our discretionary funds? Simple, they can lower our taxes.

The trouble is that in a few years when the economy gets going again, the government will want to collect more because they believe it will not harm the economy. That is where the logic falls short. To sustain our robust economy the consumer still has to be able to consume. To ensure we can consume we need to alter our view on taxation. Taxation is a necessary evil to run our government, to keep us safe, and to protect our freedoms. That being said, does it make sense to tax someone more because they have bettered themselves financially through whatever legal means they have, no! A person seeking the American dream ought not to be punished for being successful; rather they should be rewarded for their efforts. At the same time should someone be punished by a rough start to life or a raw deal along the way, no!

So how do we allow both parties pursue their dreams without hindering them or taking away from their efforts? Simple actually, we trash the current tax code and replace it with a flat tax and consumption tax. The consumption tax is simple. We tax every purchase of non-essential items 2%. Now to help with a little social engineering I am open to additional "sin" tax on non-essential items of 3%. That takes care of the consumption tax. The flat tax works like this.

On your first $60,000 you get taxed nothing. For every dollar you make past $60,000, Uncle Sam gets $0.12. So if you made $70,000 this year that would mean that Uncle Sam would get $1200. To make it even easier to monitor, track and control all tax credits would be eliminated. Meaning, that no more credits for mortgage interest, child care, child, education, etc… It would also eliminate a large portion of the IRS as tax returns would be a thing of the past. With no tax credits allowed and a flat tax in place, no one would have to file a tax return. The concept can be applied to Corporations as well. By allowing people to keep all of their first $60,000 we open up the consumer market for health care expense, investment activity, luxury consumption and other desires of consumerism too.

States then can do the same as well. The State, such as Minnesota, can follow suit by establishing a flat tax of 5%. To expand upon the example above, the person making $70,000 would now see their total tax liability to both Federal and State rise to $1700. With the elimination of tax credits so would we phase out Medicare and Medicaid. Those turning 55 or already older than 55 this year (or the year the tax change takes place) will continue along the Medicare and Medicaid process. The rest of us will see our contributions to these programs shift to a Medical Savings account (MSA) that will be tied to our Social Security Number. The amount currently taken out would not need to be changed. It simply will go into a private account that the individual taxpayer can use to offset any expense related to medical needs.

The taxpayer could use the funds for co-pays, medicines, clinic visits, hospital visits, etc. By moving toward a MSA it will allow for greater portability of health care "insurance" and allow the taxpayer to dictate when, where and to whom their medical dollars go to. Imagine the competition it would breed among clinics, hospitals, pharmacies, and other medical facilities if ever they knew every taxpayer determined where their dollars were spent. All of these locations would need to post their fee schedules and will allow doctors and nurses to get back to providing medical care and away from administrative work. Insurance companies will be able to offer tiered plans.

Granted many of those in their late 30's to earlier 50's will not see the greatest benefit but we will set up future generations with a better system for medical as well as taxation. The next phase of this plan is to apply the MSA model to Social Security. When Social Security was crafted the funds collected went into a separate account that Congress was unable to touch. At some point in our glorious history our Congress saw the war chest of dollars being amassed. The temptation was too great for them and a change was approved. The change brought the Social Security funds from a separate untouchable account to the general slush fund. To eliminate or mitigate future destruction and temptation of Social Security funds by our politicians it is time to move it back into a separate account. Just as with the MSA, our own Social Security contributions will be designated by an account with our SSN.

No longer will Congress or any government agency have access to those funds. Taxpayers will have access to those funds just as they have access to them now. All that will change will be the account in which the funds sit. I understand there will be growing pains with this notion but that is what the original intent of Social Security was to be anyway. All I am suggesting is to undo the harm that we have allowed Congress to do over the years. Some of you may be asking yourself, "How will this create jobs?" That is an excellent question to ponder.

The best part is the answer is short and simple. By allowing you, as a taxpayer, to keep more of your first $60,000 earned you will have more money to improve your home, go to the local restaurant, purchase new consumer items, take an trip, etc…Plus if you know that taxes will no longer change one can plan their money better. By fixing the taxation it will allow our members of Congress and State Legislatures to focus on items that a critical to keeping their oaths to the United Sates Constitution and State Constitution they serve under. The switch from Medicare and Medicaid to a MSA will bring down costs through increased competition thus making health coverage affordable to all taxpayers. Combine these: the flat tax, consumption tax, and the MSA with an accounting switch on Social Security and we have a financial core that will be the envy of the World while ensuring the safety, prosperity and advancement of those living in the United States now and in the future.

Senate Health Care Debate Gets Good News/Bad News from the CBO

"In the greatest country on Earth, no American should die simply because they don't have health insurance. We have a historic opportunity to enact meaningful health care reform that will work to stabilize the economy, provide quality for millions of Americans," stated Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) on the Senate floor Monday (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/senate-debate-begins-with-baitsmanship/). While one is hard pressed to locate a single America that does not feel reform is needed to control escalating insurance premiums and cost of health care. The trouble is that Congress is off the mark with either bill being discussed. The central tenet of the House bill is a public option while the Senate version has one with an opt-out clause. For the majority of the year thus far, Congress members have touted their take and pimped their vote all under the guise of health care reform.

I still, as of this post, not heard one signal argument that unequivocally demonstrates how adding only one option to the pool of options for health care is going to drive down costs and premiums so all can afford health care. In order for reform to have the desired affects – affordable choices and lower costs – Congress needs to scrap the public option and replace it with legislation that will open state borders for the purchase of health care insurance and remove the anti-trust exemption that health insurance companies currently enjoy. Open up competition will lead to lower premiums. The Congressional Budget Office(CBO) estimates that in the best-case scenario that premiums would go down for most Americans by 2016 due to government subsidies while a worst-case scenario results in a little more than 10 percent of policyholders will experience a decrease even after the subsidies. In fact the CBO estimates that, under the worst-case scenario, the majority of Americans will see no effect or an increase up to 13 percent. The assessment can be seen at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf.

Again, why are we allowing Congress to pass a bill that does not achieve the goals in all scenarios? Why not allow market forces to work through increase competition? Some may argue that free market forces are not enough. To that I agree slightly. To assist free market forces the government will need to repeal the anti-trust exemption. Let's demand true reform from Congress. If the CBO is correct and the best-case scenario does take place, we will be looking at higher taxes in order to fund government rule health care. It is the greatest Ponzi scheme every done if we allow our Congress to pass "reform" in its present state. Neither bill will start for at least three years after passage. In the meantime our "reform" does nothing but collect taxes; taxes that will have to be raised to cover the costs.

That being said, it is time for Congress to pass true reform that takes effect immediately and does not raise our taxes. As Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, states" This is not delivering huge premiums savings to the insured. But the flip side is that here's a bill that reduces the deficit, covers 30 million people and has the promise of lowering premiums in the long run" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113004391_2.html?hpid=topnews). I don't know about the rest of you but Government said that Social Security was going to be there for me when I retire and we all know that it will be insolvent in the near future. If the bill does nothing but establish more government in our lives then why are we sitting idly by and allow Congress to pass "reform" that reforms nothing and will raise our taxes?

Vikings success could raise your taxes

I know that Viking fans has longed for the day that their beloved team would be good enough to hoist the Lombardi Trophy at the end of the season but it may have come at the worst possible time for Minnesota taxpayers. With the economy still running near the cliff of insanity, unemployment high, and a mounting debt in Washington D.C., taxpayers – not just in Minnesota – ought to be worried. The 9-1 start by the Vikings is the best in recent memory and they do look like a team that can compete for the NFC title. Along with that is the fact that the lease the Viking has with the Metrodome runs out at the end of the 2011 season. Zigi Wilf and his associates have already made it clear that staying the Dome, as is, is not an option.

While Zigi may say he wants to keep the Vikings in Minnesota, let's face it, Zigi is a business man first. Right now there is a group in Los Angeles that is courting the NFL for a franchise. At last look the mock up the proposed stadium had Vikings colors. I am not saying; rather just saying. Anyone that has owned a business near a stadium will attest that having a professional sports team nearby boost the bottom line. In a time where people are struggling, I can see some Minnesota Legislators making that argument when proposing a new stadium for the Vikings. At the same time, Zigi will play the move card at some point during the discussion. Actually, I think he already has without even saying it by saying that a lease extension is a non-starter.

Are taxpayers ready for a Legislative session that discusses raising of taxes to provide funds for a new Vikings stadium? Let's face it Favre cannot play quarterback forever and soon the Vikings will be turned back over to T-Jack. What then? Will Viking fans continue to support the team with sellouts if the team stumbles in a couple of years? I doubt it. Don't get me wrong, the notion of the Vikings playing in any other state is insane. Then again I do identify more with the Los Angeles Lakers than their former home in Minnesota. Now if the Vikings go on to win the Super Bowl imagine the leverage it will give Zigi and the organization to strap the Minnesotan taxpayer over the barrel.

Or is there another way to fund a stadium? Does the State Legislature have the guts to take on a powerful lobby group and risk the loss of a key political donor to keep the Vikings in Minnesota? The donor and lobby group I refer to is the Native American lobby. The notion of a Racino has been floated around for several years and each year it gets voted down. Now, if the proceeds were to save the Vikings – what warm-blooded Minnesota State Legislature would vote against that? Especially if Favre delivers the Lombardi trophy. Or will the taxpayers of Minnesota be saddled with another heavy handed tax to provide another wealthy businessman a place to house his pet project?

Obesity: Americans become active before the Government Mandates it.

I walked out this morning to get my paper, Star Tribune, and read the headlines as I wondered back into the house. The headline that caught my eye was “More fit than fat: State’s kids No.1”. A report was released by Trust for America’s Health on Wednesday. Minnesota did score well in comparison to other states; adults are 31st while youth (10-17) is No. 1. The report suggests that in order to combat obesity is to provide “less junk food at schools, more home cooking and less eating out, more gym time for students, limits on children’s computer and television time, and more workplace wellness programs.”

As the President Obama pushes his “single payer” public option for health care, we will see more accountability stripped away from the general public and put on the government. A hint to this is a quote by former Medicare Administrator Mark McClellan made when talking about Medicare and the report findings that people in the 55-64 age range are “much heavier than today’s seniors”. McClellan said (New report warns obesity in America is still growing problem, http://www.ky3.com/news/local/49632427.html), “Add to that the fact that the latest evidence suggests that people with obesity have healthcare costs that are 20- to 30- percent higher than people who aren’t obese and you’ve got the markings for an even more severe financial challenge.”

I am disturbed by the list suggested to fight obesity. The first point is to provide less junk food in schools, while this makes sense but is that really where the fight of obesity should start? Right now the Senate is considering a federal tax on soda and other sugary drinks as a potential revenue stream to offset the cost of President Obama’s “single payer” public option for health insurance. The trouble with this approach is it will not dissuade people from drinking these drinks; rather it will just increase the cost of their consumption as companies, like Coke, will pass along the tax onto the consumer. As Susan Neely, president of the American Beverage Association appropriately points out, “Taxes are not going to teach our children how to have a healthy lifestyle” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html).

If we are to get the youth off the obese track, adult Americans need to be accountable and role models. Granted schools can assist by implementing the some of the suggestions as less junk food and more gym time the success of any obese combating program falls on the shoulders of those taking care of the youth. During last summer Olympics a lot was made of the number of calories Michael Phelps consumed on a daily basis; 8000 to 10000 calories a day. A lesson can be learned here that it does not matter how many calories are consumed; rather is how active one is during the day.

To consume more calories in the day that one will burn will lead to weight gain. Some argue that part of one’s body chemistry is genetic. Although that may be so, we all have the ability to influence it. Adult Americans themselves need to get off the couch, away from the blackberry, and get outside. Little things can be done. A walk after dinner, throwing the ball around with a child, participating in a recreational sport, or go for bike rides at the local park are all good ways to work off calories consumed. Incorporating these activities into family life will assist in raising kids that are more active and less likely to sit in front of the television or computer.

Taxing “unhealthy” food will not make our society to change their actions. It will only make it more expensive for those that do eat and drink the “unhealthy” foods. It is a personal choice on what you want to eat and if you want to exercise. Just as it’s one’s choice to be obese. The trouble is that as Government establishes a “single payer” public option that choice will be stripped away. As it was stated above by Mr. McClellan that obesity will increase health care costs, those that want a public option will not want to pay for your choice of consumption or lifestyle. So get out there and set the example before the Government mandates it.

Gaming Expansion: Win Win for all in Minnesota

Marge Anderson chief executive of the Millie Lacs Band of Ojibwe wrote a counterpoint in the Star Tribune today on the issue of adding slots to Canterbury Park and Running Aces horse tracks. The counterpoints were given in response to an article, Time for the state to look seriously at slot machines?, written by Neal St. Anthony that raised issue of Sen. Dick Day’s annual attempt of adding slot machines at Canterbury Park and Running Aces to help increase revenue for the state. Over 20 years ago the State entered into a gaming compact with Minnesota Tribes that gave them a virtual monopoly on gaming in Minnesota. The compact does not collect corporate taxes from any of the Minnesota Tribes.

The DFL and Marge Anderson make an argument that expanding gambling will harm Minnesotans and not raise the revenue it touts it will. Expansion of gambling goes on in the tribal casinos. While I worked at one of the local tribal casinos, the expansion of gambling took place. New slot machines popped up in every nook and cranny and remodeling was done to make more room as well.

Marge Anderson fears that adding slot machines to both horse tracks will automatically translate to a huge reduction of 2,900 people employed at Grand Casino locations in Minnesota. Anderson raised objection to the claim that horse tracks are “private operators who hire people and pay taxes” as that is what Grand Casino does as well. The claim is true, Grand Casino does pay employee payroll tax and makes the claim of paying property taxes as well. Meanwhile not one tribal casino pays corporate income tax, the tribal casino is a tax haven in that respect.

I also worked for one of the two horse tracks and understand the reasoning why many made the switch from tribal casino to non-tribal casino; respect. Tribal casinos do not observe, at least when I worked there, the equal employment act that other companies in the United States must do. If slot machines were added to Canterbury Park and Running Aces, the concern by Marge Anderson that employment would fall may be due to the employment practices of the tribal casino.

Las Vegas, although is impacted by recession, has done well with a competitive landscape of multiple casino options. Competition is better for the consumer. Marge Anderson asks at the end of her counterpoint, “How could opening the door to gaming expansion be right for Minnesota when it hurts so many Minnesotans?”

Simply put, it will improve the service level by increasing the competition. The service level will have to be elevated by all involved in the casino industry. The employee will benefit as well as the consumer. It is time to end the monopoly and increase revenue by adding full gaming options to Canterbury Park and Running Aces.

Mexican-American Drug War: Solution - Legalization

President Obama traveled to Mexico yesterday to meet with Mexican President Felipe Calderon. The discussion that ensued was about the drug war taking place along the American-Mexican border. A few weeks ago Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “We know very well that the drug traffickers are motivated by the demand for illegal drugs in the United States, that they are armed by the transport of weapons from the United States to Mexico.” As with many consumer goods, the United States is the largest consumer of illegal drugs. According to Drug Sense the U.S. Federal Government spent over $19B in 2003 and $15B year to date. The Merida Initiative established a pledge of $1.4B in security aid to Mexico over the next three years. Clinton is hoping to use $80M to send Black Hawk helicopters to Mexico which President Obama echoed yesterday.

President Obama talks about making tough choices. I applaud him for not pushing for legislation in banning assault rifles as it was a campaign promise to do so. The three major drugs in question are marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. President Obama said, “You can’t fight this war with just one hand” and “You can’t have Mexico making an effort and the United States not making an effort.” The United States has poured billions of dollars down the Drug War drain. What effort is President Obama saying the United States is not making? The drug problem has been around longer then assault rifles.

Did the United States not learn anything from prohibition?

In nearly every speech President Obama gives, he states that Americans are going to need to make tough choices. Here is a suggestion to that tough choice decision making. Legalize illegal drugs. Before you pass judgment apply some common sense here.

Terrorist and Cartels fuel their enterprises with money raised from the drug trade while America Government spends billions of dollars to stem the tide with little success. Mexico claim that the United States is the source of guns for the cartels is misguided. If the cartels did not get guns from America there is huge black market in Asia and the Middle East.

The tough choice is to remove the cash cow from the Terrorists and Cartels. In order to remove their cash cow is for the United States to legalize illicit drugs. President Obama’s administration is planning to spend trillions of dollars to get out the recession, improving health care, and creating energy sources that promotes the “Green” initiative. The short term funding plan is to borrow money from the Chinese and for the Federal Reserve to print more money.

The time will come that the Chinese will no longer want American debt and will want to collect. In order for the Chinese collect, America will need to raise funds. To raise the funds it will take revenue and the way Governments raise revenue is through taxes. Right now the anger is focused on the rich and the expectation that the rich need to pay more taxes. There will come a time when taxes will fall to the middle and lower class.

Right now the plan is tax the rich more but do not be fooled that everyone will be expected to pay more taxes as it your “patriotic duty” according to Vice President Biden. The excessive taxation and enormous growth of Government is why “Tea Parties” took place on April 15th. To help mitigate the increase in taxes for all and to take bold moves to stem the tide of violence on the American-Mexican border it is time to legalize drugs.

By legalizing illicit drugs the United States government will be able to tax and regulate the potency and purity of illicit drugs. Another aspect is the creation of jobs through transportation, production, and selling of illicit drugs. A byproduct of legalization is it will encourage addicts to seek treatment since the use of an illegal product is no longer demonized.

Personally I am not an illicit drug user nor will legalization drive me to use illicit drugs which are the fear of opponents to legalizing drugs. I agree with President Obama that Americans need to make tough choices and one of those tough choices ought to be to legalize illicit drug use.