Posted on by jfrusch

Take the profit out of war!

Yes – I mean it.  Let’s take the profit out of war.
I believe that making war pay is the worst policy we have ever adopted.
Instead, war should cost more than lives- it should hurt people’s pocket book – especially the wealthy.
Infrastructure investment #1 – Le’ts Re-patriotize all weaponry and soldiering and military roles for offense or defense and the research that goes along with it.
If you are building weapons for the government, you must do so with government employees
If you are relying on people to fight wars or hold military roles, they nust be government employees
If you sell any weapons to any other country, you add a 30% margin that is contributed directly to funding for military and veteran health care
If you are conducting research for new military options – defense or offense, you must do so with government employees. And if you invent anything as a result of this action, the patents are issued to an entity that is not-for-profit and that has all revenue go toward funding disaster relief.
When not at war, government workers who are trained to hold roles required by the military are available to support other infrastructure projects – especially those that build out interstate capabilities.
Because our defense is based on our ability to effective, safely and rapidly communicate to all citizens, the government workers who provide military support will also build out broadband for all and deed the management of this to United States Post Office to enable secure trustworthy digital identities. Theft of your government ID is a federal crime and holds harsh penalties both criminal and financial. Funds earned from prosecuting identity theft of government IDs are used to help fund the infrastructure and services that support them.
All cyber security defense and offense is done by government employees. Again, any inventions that come from these activities are owned by a not-for–profit entity that is committed to allocate all fees earned to pay for additoinal research.

Read more

Posted on by jfrusch

This is no victory

Dear News Media,
This is not a ‘victory’ for the Republicans. They passed a bill and they have majorities in both the House and Senate. This should be routine.
 
To get this passed, they had to vote before reading the bill, rush it through, avoid hearings, add a bunch of special-interest provisions and systemically vote down any amendment proposed by the democrats [while claiming the act of rejecting everyone without discussion and without hearings was including them] is not ‘normal order’ for passing major legislation. So are you celebrating the victory because they abolished all best practices of governing?
 
Or a victory would have been to do what they promised to do – produce a bill that would cut taxes for the middle class. But this bill does anything but that – hurting many and helping only those who do not need more help.
 
Or a victory would have been to finally tackle the debt that they care so much about and was why you can’t let democrats be involved in governing at all [preferring accused child molesters]. But it adds $1.4 trillion to the debt – $600 million of that from one provision that helps hedgefund managers who live in the Virgin Islands avoid even more taxes.
 
Or they could have tackled the growing income inequality – but this bill makes it worse.
 
Or they could have provided more breaks to those that are in retirement and facing challenging economic times living off retirement, social security and medicare. But this bill will trigger reductions in Medicare [with some cancer doctors coming forward and indicating that this bill will trigger cuts that will remove care from current patients.
 
Or they could have restored funding for children’s health – cut previously – but they left that out and declared how they just ‘can’t afford that’.
 
No this is a victory for the rich donors and for the wealthy – and the incumbents who hope to avoid a primary challenge.
It is a defeat for decency, ethics, and democracy.
So, Dear New Media, do not reward them by calling this a ‘victory’.  Successful thieves are not ‘victorious’ – they only managed to complete another theft.  They hurt their victims and eventually – hopefully – will be held accountable.
And did you forget all your reporting on how bad this will be for most people?  And you call this a victory?  Please!  Resist the BS.  You know better.
We know better.
Go back and do your job and read the details of this bill and explain just how many people will have their lives hurt right away and how many will be hurt by the cuts this bill requires and how many will be hurt in a few years.
And then do your job and start tallying the PERSONAL gain of these elected / appointed officials …. and make it clear that the president LIED when he said this would hurt HIM.  It won’t hurt most republican leaders either.
Posted on by jfrusch

Why take a pay cut?

Ever been in debt?
 
Ever want something you cannot afford?
 
Ever worry about how to cover your current bills – like mortgages – from your paycheck?
 
Is the first thing you think of to reduce how much money you make?
 
Do you go out and get a job that pays less?
 
Do you cut back on the number of hours you work and make less money?
 
Well, our country does not need to take in less money because it is currently in debt, has trouble meeting its current obligations and has many things it would like to spend money on.
 
And yet there is always talk about reducing taxes….
 
Which will reduce the amount of money our country has to do what it needs to do, to do what it wants to do, to do what it must do and to pay off its already existing debt.
 
Making the way it takes in revenue fairer? Especially in a way that might drive demand for goods and services made in the USA.
 
Now when people hear ‘tax reform’ or ‘tax cut’, they THINK ‘More for me – YEA. I think I can do better things with it than the government.’
 
But each of us can’t build a road, or fix a bridge, or fund the military, or run elections or keep our National Parks open, or a million things we rly on the government to do. The things it should be doing according to the Constitution.
 
And the powerful corporations already keep extra money [that is why they have overseas accounts] ore return profits to investors and they haven’t felt like increasing pay and benefits for workers [in fact they keep looking for ways to reduce expense related to workers] or producing jobs.
 
And the top 1% already have had their wealth increased at a faster rate than any other part of our economy and they haven’t been creating jobs.  And most haven’t used their money to help others or to make the world a better place.  They have used their money to get richer.
So why cut taxes at all?  Fundamentally it makes our country even less able to function for most of us.
Simplify the process of filing taxes?  Good idea – but that isn’t what they are doing.
Close loopholes that allow powerful people and corporations and have them pay into funding our country at the same % of their income or profits that average people do?  Good idea.
Put incentives that reduce taxes when wages are increased or good-paying jobs are created?  Good idea.
But the country does not need to reduce its income and hope good things will happen.
You KNOW it doesn’t work for your home economy.  It won’t work for our country.
Posted on by jfrusch

Thank you for proving why ‘trickle down’ doesn’t work!

The news is full of reports on the abuse of taxpayer trust as administration officials follow the example of the president and opt for extravagant travel options at the expense of the taxpayers and/or to personally benefit their own interests for comfort, luxury and, in the case of the president, personal business gain.

Why now?  Because the checks and balances that were in place in previous administrations where such requests would have been challenged before the expenses were incurred are no longer in place.  The people in this administration, starting with the president, simply have no issue with making taxpayers foot the bill for their luxurious habits.  They don’t seen any issues with this behavior.

What better example could be produced for the consequences of the proposed tax cuts for powerful corporations and the already well off?

The proposed tax cuts promise to help the overall economy and benefit those with less.

But there are no regulations / obligations in the law that require the behaviors that will benefit the country or will produce economic benefits for those who need it most.

We are relying on individual choices to do the right thing.

And we just saw what happens when rich, powerful men are given the option of unregulated access to money – they use it for personal comfort and benefit with no thought for the impact on others.

Remove the estate tax and the wealthy can take care of their own without being ‘troubled’ with paying taxes into the country that enabled their good fortune.  No jobs created, nothing given back, no sense of doing what is best for the country – only what would be best for the family.  This benefits no one but the family that avoids taxes and feels entitled to benefit from  the country has to offer without paying anything close to their fair share.

The same is true of any tax cuts on their income – or the removal of that pesky ACA  Additional Medicare Tax that required the wealthy to pay into Medicare at a rate close to that paid by the least of us.

And corporations, led by the wealthy and powerful, will be allowed to keep more of their revenue.  There is a possibility that jobs could be created – but why when they could opt to keep the profits for themselves?   Corporations already have much wealth and are not creating jobs because they don’t have to – most people can’t purchase enough to drive demand.  The tax breaks have no requirement to produce jobs – so they won’t.

And that small business tax relief includes reducing tax rates for the ‘small businesses’ that will never create jobs because they are merely legal entities to protect individuals from risk.  No matter what the level of income – no jobs will be created.  These companies are identified separately so they could be exempted from the breaks but are not – because the wealthy use this status to minimize their tax rates.  The tax reductions have no requirement to produce jobs and no regulations to avoid letting the wealthy pay a lower rate of taxes overall without giving anything back to help others.

Unless we force the already well off to do ‘the right thing’ and contribute back to the country and the people that enable their wealth, we have seen proof that they will take every advantage they are given to enrichen themselves.

And the president who claims that his tax changes will not help him personally is willing to lie to get the benefits that help only himself and his family.

This is what trickle down looks like – and it has produced the income inequality and wage stagnation that the current economy is threatened by.

We have the proof in real visible examples of what happens when you give the wealthy and powerful the option to take advantage of others while enriching themselves.

And too many choose to help themselves.

So the tax cuts that will be used to then reduce public services that help all of us are a double whammy.  They help the rich AND create a situation that will be used to take services AWAY from the majority of people who need the help.

We don’t need to be economists – we can see this play out right before our eyes.

So Thank you for demonstrating the case against your policies better than we could.

And now excuse us as we fight like hell to stop you from doing this harm to our country and our fellow Americans – you know, that ‘We, the People’ you are SUPPOSED to be representing?

 

 

Posted on by jfrusch

Rational Gun Policies, Please!

As folks think about rational controls on guns, I would suggest that we need to set a threshold of the capacity of a gun that is appropriate for citizen ownership in terms of firepower capacity within a period of time.
This is instead of banning a specific type of gun or add-on – leaving the loophole for an equivalent to be produced with a different name.
We should be able to agree on a certain level of firepower for a specific duration of time and put that into the regulations.  Personal ownership does not include military-grade weapons and ammunition.
Putting the focus on the capabilities of the weapon is more sustainable and purposeful.
It can also be used to address the emergence of Lego-like guns which can be deconstructed into parts and combined with other parts to form weapons that would not be legal if they were sold in their modified configuration.  If the part has the capacity to be turned into an ‘illegal’ weapon, then they part is not legal.
I also propose that if we want to retain the freedom to arm citizens it comes with the right of the government to track all gun ownership and ammunition purchases.
Have manufacturers be obligated to mark all guns and ammo with a mark that can be traced back to the manufacturer and use this to track all sales. Unaccounted for weapons and ammunition remain registered to the manufacturer. Therefore untracked / registered sales place some liability back on the manufacturers who enable unchecked channels of sales.
The tracking of the ammo and weaponry will be enabled by a background check for all purchases regardless of purchase channel. Again if the purchase does not follow the background check procedure, the previous owner remains accountable for the subsequent actions of the weapons and ammo.
There was a lot of questions as to why no one knew the Vega shooter had all those weapons – well we don’t allow them to be tracked centrally and not all purchases are tracked.
And we should have each gun owner hold the responsibility to have previously completed some level of formal gun safety training. This can be completed and registered with the entity that is completing background checks. If there hasn’t been any safety training, the sale transaction waits until it has been completed.
The above gets to the heart of the issue – owning guns carries a responsibility.
If I have to provide all of the information it would take to complete the above to buy over-the-counter medicine because it could be used to produce different drugs, there should be NO issue with collecting this type of registry for guns and weapons.
And if there is so much interest in interfering with a women’s access to legal health procedures, there should be no issue with introducing checks and balances for the purchase of legal weapon and ammo.
Posted on by jfrusch

Tax Reform – what to watch for

#1 – Does it remove / reduce the Estate Tax?

If it does, it is a bad deal.  The purpose of the Estate Tax is to prevent the wealthy from sheltering their wealth, passing it on from generation to generation free from taxes.  Free market best practices approve of this type of tax because the ability of the powerful to produce generations of family wealth thwarts competition.

#2 – Does it reduce taxes on ‘small businesses’ that either have only 1 employee or that by their nature will never create more jobs?

The vast majority of small businesses are set up for professionals to avoid taxes.  If their taxes are reduced, no jobs will ever be created.  If this deal reduces the taxes on this type of business, that break largely goes to the wealthy and won’t create one single new job.

#3 – Does it remove the additional Medicare tax that was part of the ACA?

If it does, passing the bill will cripple Medicare.  Part of the ACA had those that earned income outside of payroll or self-employed income pay into Medicare often for the 1st time.  This loophole being closed not only strengthened Medicare it removed the entitlement that the top 1% received by getting Medicare benefits without paying a % of their income as the rest of us do.

#4 – Does it mess with the deductions for Health Care Insurance, claiming this is a major ‘loophole’?

If it does, it will dramatically increase the cost of employer-supplied health care insurance – impacting the bottom 99% the most.  It increases the cost of providing health care because it subjects the money used to pay health premiums to social security and
Medicare taxes.  This means you will have to spend more to get the SAME health insurance you have now.

#5 – Does it lower / reduce the tax rate on the top income level?

If it does, it will reduce the ability of our government to fund government services and pay its bills – including any current debt.  It also will NOT create jobs or increase consumer demand in any way that will produce jobs.  Once you earn a certain level of income, you are already buying each year what you need.  If you get more money, you are not likely to spend it.

#6 – Does it leave the lowest tax rate unchanged?

IF it does, it misses the largest opportunity to stimulate economic growth. Any tax applied to people who make below the poverty level reduces their capacity to fund their survival.  If there is no tax relief for those at the bottom of the tax rates, then the opportunity to really impact economic growth is lost.  So is the opportunity to reduce demand for government programs.

Posted on by jfrusch

This is about all of us – not one man

There has been so much talk about Trump this week.

But that isn’t the issue for America – and deep inside we know it.

Trump defended the indefensible – he produced a space where those that believe some humans are better than others are ‘fine’ people and are aligned with the values required to  ‘be a real American’.

But that was one man’s opinion.

The challenge isn’t that he holds this position – but that he was elected to be president holding that position.  And that he still has the backing of much of his party even though many of them are willing to declare that ‘Nazis are bad’.

And now it is time for America to choose who it really is.

Did we mean it when we said liberty and justice for all?  Did we mean it when we said all humans are created equal?

Or did we mean that only white men are created equal – the rest aren’t quite entitled to all those rights.  We aren’t quite as equal….

When we commit to Human Rights as equal rights, then there will be losers.

Because right now America does not act from the foundation of Equal means Equal for all humans.

White Christians have an advantage – and men have an advantage over women.

So as we move from where we are to where we say we want to be, white men will lose at some level.  For they have more rights than others right now.

When you have rights, they can seem invisible because they are just the way things are.  Those who benefit from the rights have no idea what it is like to not have them – and they can only make up stories about what it might be like, because they haven’t experienced it.  And they can’t because they are inherently part of the group that has rights.

In shifting to a place where all humans are equal, white men will lose.

Before President Obama, only white men became president.  But for 8 years, that job was held by a black man.  And then the next choice could have put a women in as president.  That meant that for 12 years no white man would be president.  That ‘job’ that was previously available to only white men now became available to anyone.  So it could be possible that a white man would never become president again.  And that is a loss for white men who didn’t have to compete with 51% of the citizens who were female and another % of the population that are male minorities.  The field of competition just got a lot larger and that means a white man has to be a lot better to out compete all of the others….

And if this is extended to all opportunities, white men could lose out on all of the really good opportunities – the ones humans want.  Is that fair?

There is no way for us as a country to move from white men being created equal and others not so much to where all humans being created equal without white men losing out a bit.

And that means this will only happen if white men decide that this change is right and will not only support it but fight for it.

But what are you watching?  Have  you seen any white male leaders standing up and proposing any action that would change the status quo?  Has any leader even acknowledged that we do not currently live in a country where all humans have the same rights?

In our heart of hearts, we all knew that “Make America Great Again” for many meant “Make America White Again”.  I listened to many who denied it and voted against their declared beliefs.  And the party that supported that slogan and what it really meant it now controls all branches of government.

And the elected officials that set and enforce laws will change how they govern if, and only if, all of us – including white males – stand up and declare that this is not who we are and it is not who we will be and that we will only support [vote for] those that take a stand and commit to being in action to put equality back as a foundation of our country.

The Resistance is about this issue – Human rights with liberty and justice for all.  I believe that this principle is what makes us great.  It is that promise that gave us standing in the world.

It is time for all of us to step up.

Because if we are quiet on this one – we are saying that it is ok for people to believe that some humans are more equal than others and that America never really meant all people are equal.

What will YOU choose?

Because that is where we are as a country….  we can lose it all in what happens next.

Or maybe we will forever lose the dream that we were founded on because we just never really meant it – not if that required us to personally give up anything.

As a country, we never quite finished removing all those exceptions from equality for all.  We couldn’t even pass the Equal Rights Amendment.

Now it is past time to either commit to equality for all or admit we didn’t mean it and make that list of which humans are equal and which are no quite as equal.

If you sit this one out, like so many did last November, then you are on the side of being ok that not all humans are equal.   And you need to own it.