God only had 10 Commandments on a single tablet, so why do we have millions of laws today?
Humans have made lots of progress and innovation in recent centuries, but the increasing complexity of our laws and their substitution for basic human morality has resulted in billions of victims worldwide.
If you had to reduce our basic laws to 1 page, what would you start with? Would it be the “Golden Rule” which includes various versions of treating others as you would like to be treated or would you simply start with making it illegal to harm other humans without their permission?
There are many reasons why we should simply our laws and reduce red tape including:
- Increased Efficiency: Can help streamline processes, making it easier for businesses and individuals to comply with regulations and access services.
- Encourages Entrepreneurship, Investment and Innovation: Less resources spent on regulatory compliance means more resources for new/improved products, services, and solutions.
- Improves Competition: Complex laws and regulations often create barriers to entry for small businesses, making it more difficult for them to compete with larger companies. Simplifying laws can level the playing field and promote fair competition.
- Better Access to Services: Makes it easier for individuals to access important services, such as healthcare, education, and housing.
- Increased Transparency: A simplified legal framework can increase transparency and reduce corruption, making it easier for people to understand their rights and obligations
Rule of Law
Simply reducing the number of laws without considering ethics and basic human morality is not the answer. Laws are only as good as their fair and just enforcement. The rule of law is important for numerous reasons:
- Ensures Equality: The rule of law ensures that everyone, regardless of their status or power, is subject to the same laws and legal procedures. This promotes equality and fairness in society.
- Protects Individual Rights: The rule of law protects individual rights and freedoms, such as free speech, and due process.
- Maintains Order: The rule of law helps maintain social order by providing clear rules and regulations that everyone must follow.
- Promotes Predictability: The rule of law promotes predictability and stability by ensuring that the laws and legal processes are consistently applied and understood.
- Encourages Investment: A stable legal system that follows the rule of law is more attractive to investors and businesses, as it reduces uncertainty and risk.
- Facilitates a Resilient Economy: The rule of law provides a stable and predictable environment for commerce and innovation.
- Prevents Corruption: The rule of law helps prevent corruption by ensuring that everyone is subject to the same laws and accountability measures.
Unfortunately, we seem to treat “white collar” criminals, even those who harm billions of humans, much more leniently than “ordinary” criminals. Examples discussed in more detail below include Volkswagen’s “Dieselgate,” Big Tobacco, Asbestos, and Deadly Man-made Chemicals. When will we learn that penalizing a corporation a fraction of their profits is not a strong enough deterrent to prevent them from selling products that kill millions of humans and then covering up and lying about the harmful effects of these products?
Reasons corporate wrong doers should go to jail:
- Deterrence: Imposing corporate wrongdoers can serve as a deterrent to others, discouraging them from engaging in similar illegal behavior.
- Protects Consumers: Corporate wrongdoers often harm consumers through deceptive practices, fraud, or other illegal activities. Imprisoning those responsible sends a message that such behavior will not be tolerated and helps protect the public from harm.
- Upholds the Rule of Law: The rule of law is based on the principle that everyone, including corporations, is subject to the same laws and must be held accountable for their actions. Imprisoning corporate wrongdoers reinforces this principle and ensures that the law is applied equally to all.
- Promotes Justice: Corporate wrongdoing often results in significant harm to victims, including employees, shareholders, and communities. Imprisoning those responsible helps bring justice to the victims and holds the wrongdoers accountable for their actions.
- Maintains Trust in the System: Corporate wrongdoing undermines trust in the justice system and the rule of law. Imprisoning those responsible helps restore this trust by demonstrating that the justice system is capable of holding powerful individuals and corporations accountable.
- Promotes Ethical Business Practices: Imprisoning corporate wrongdoers sends a message that unethical and illegal behavior will not be tolerated in the business community, encouraging others to adopt ethical business practices.
Regulations and Disclosure Requirements
Complex business regulations and disclosure requirements increase compliance expense and reduce the number of businesses who operate ethically.
Those manufacturing and selling products know more about their products than the regulators. This often results in clueless regulation or regulation that gets drafted by the corporations themselves. This why few regulatory schemes are effective at maximizing business efficiency and public welfare.
Businesses should be required to disclose all known or suspected risks and harms that their products may cause. Fail to disclose, go to jail. When in doubt, DISCLOSE! Yes, businesses can offer honest and accurate evidence to downplay the risks and refute the harms, but there is no need for much of the regulatory complexity we have. This would reduce the cost of expensive lawyers while keeping the public be better informed.
Volkswagen’s “Dieselgate”
The Volkswagen (VW) emissions scandal, also known as “Dieselgate,” was a major controversy that came to light in September 2015. It was discovered that VW had installed software in millions of diesel vehicles that cheated emissions tests, allowing the vehicles to emit harmful pollutants at levels up to 40 times higher than allowed under federal regulations.
The scandal involved many VW diesel models, including popular models such as the Volkswagen Golf, Jetta, and Beetle. VW initially claimed that the high emissions were due to technical problems, but after an investigation by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the company admitted to installing the software to cheat emissions tests.
The consequences of the scandal were severe for VW. The company was fined billions of dollars by US and European regulators, and its reputation was severely damaged. VW was forced to buy back hundreds of thousands of affected vehicles, and its CEO resigned in the wake of the scandal.
The Volkswagen emissions scandal had far-reaching effects, not only on VW, but also on the wider auto industry and public trust in diesel-powered vehicles. It prompted increased scrutiny of diesel engines and the use of similar emission-cheating software by other car manufacturers, leading to similar controversies and investigations.
In the US, several executives from Volkswagen (VW) were charged with crimes related to the diesel emissions scandal.
In March 2017, VW engineer James Liang was sentenced to 40 months in prison and fined $200,000 for his role in the scandal. He was the first VW employee to be sentenced in the US for his involvement in the emissions cheating. Liang ended up serving 2/3rds of his sentence according to Manufacturing.net.
In August 2018, former VW executive Oliver Schmidt was sentenced to seven years in prison and fined $400,000 for his role in the scandal. Schmidt was responsible for VW’s regulatory compliance in the US and had participated in the cover-up of the emissions cheating. Schmidt was not scheduled to be released from a U.S. prison until December 2022, but under the terms of a 2020 transfer agreement approved by Judge Elizabeth Stafford, Germany assumed responsibility for enforcing the remainder of his sentence.
While this is better than walking away scot-free, longer jail sentences should be imposed given that millions of people die each year from air pollution (not to mention the billions that this scandal has cost the company and unknowing shareholders). The scandal has also led to criminal investigations and fines in Europe, but no executives have been sentenced to jail there according to ChatGPT. Why haven’t we learned more from prior corporate scandals?
Man-Made PFAS Forever Chemicals
It has been alleged that DuPont and 3M, among other companies, covered up and lied about the harmful effects of the forever chemicals they invented and produced, specifically perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS).
PFOA and PFOS are part of a group of chemicals known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), which are used in a variety of products, including non-stick cookware, food packaging, and firefighting foam. The chemicals have been found to persist in the environment for long periods of time and have been linked to a range of health problems, including cancer, thyroid disease, and developmental issues.
Studies have shown that DuPont and 3M knew about the potential health effects of PFAS for decades but continued to produce and use the chemicals in their products. The companies have faced lawsuits from individuals and communities who have been affected by PFAS contamination, and some of the settlements have included agreements to pay for clean-up and medical monitoring.
Both DuPont and 3M have publicly stated that they take the issue of PFAS seriously and are committed to addressing it. However, they have faced criticism for their handling of the issue and their past actions, which have contributed to widespread PFAS contamination across the US and around the world.
To my knowledge, there have not been any chemical company executives who have gone to jail for lying about and covering up the harmful effects of their chemicals, including PFAS chemicals like PFOA and PFOS.
While there have been numerous lawsuits and settlements related to the health effects of PFAS, the nature of corporate crime and the difficulty in proving individual wrongdoing make it challenging to bring corporate executives to justice. Additionally, many countries have relatively weak regulations and enforcement mechanisms for addressing corporate environmental and health violations, which can further hinder efforts to hold chemical companies accountable.
The issue of PFAS and the actions of chemical companies are increasingly being scrutinized by regulators, lawmakers, and the public, and there is growing pressure to hold companies accountable for the health and environmental impacts of their products. Whether this will result in criminal charges or jail time for executives remains to be seen.
Studies have suggested a possible association between exposure to PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) chemicals and decreased fertility and reduced penis size, but the evidence is not yet definitive.
PFAS chemicals are widespread in the environment and have been found in the blood of nearly all Americans. They are known to have endocrine-disrupting properties, meaning they can interfere with hormone signaling in the body.
A number of studies have linked PFAS exposure to decreased sperm quality, infertility, and altered menstrual cycles in women. However, more research is needed to fully understand the mechanisms by which PFAS chemicals may affect fertility and penis size. The evidence at this point is mainly observational and some studies have reported conflicting results, but evidence has been increasing. While there are many factors that can influence fertility and penis size, the potential health impacts of PFAS exposure are a serious concern. Regulatory agencies and public health officials to continue monitoring and researching the issue to ensure that appropriate action is taken to protect public health.
In 2022, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dramatically lowered the safe lifetime exposure limit of PFAS substances to nearly zero in response to growing concerns about the potential health effects of these chemicals. The new levels are intended to better protect public health and provide a more robust framework for managing PFAS in the environment. The EPA’s actions reflect growing recognition of the potential health risks posed by PFAS and the need for stronger regulations and stricter enforcement to protect public health.
Asbestos
Asbestos companies have been accused of lying about the dangers of their products for many years.
Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that was widely used in construction and industrial products due to its fire-resistant and insulation properties. However, exposure to asbestos fibers can cause serious health problems, including lung cancer, mesothelioma, and asbestosis.
Despite the known dangers of asbestos, many asbestos companies continued to promote its use and downplay the health risks associated with exposure to the mineral. They were accused of suppressing evidence of the health hazards of asbestos, misleading the public about the dangers of their products, and failing to provide adequate warnings or protective equipment to workers who were exposed to asbestos fibers.
These actions by asbestos companies have had devastating consequences for workers and consumers, and the industry has faced numerous lawsuits and regulatory actions as a result. Nevertheless, asbestos remains a significant public health issue, and efforts to regulate the substance and hold companies accountable for their actions continue to this day.
According to ChatGPT, there have been very few cases where employees of asbestos companies have gone to jail.
Liability for the health problems caused by asbestos exposure has typically been placed on the companies themselves, rather than on individual employees. Companies have faced numerous lawsuits and paid billions of dollars in compensation to individuals and families who have been harmed by exposure to asbestos.
However, there have been some cases where individual employees of asbestos companies have faced criminal charges for illegal activities related to the handling and disposal of asbestos, such as violating environmental regulations or endangering public health. These individuals may have faced jail time as a result of their actions.
Overall, the asbestos industry’s history of misleading the public about the dangers of its products and failing to protect workers and consumers from exposure to asbestos fibers has had serious consequences, and has led to ongoing efforts to regulate the substance and hold companies accountable for their actions.
Had Asbestos company employees openly and honestly disclosed the known dangers as soon as they had become aware of them, it is likely that the judgements against these companies and the losses to shareholders would have been minimized. Of course effects on shareholders are speculative, especially if we stop allowing companies to split/reinvent themselves in an effort to create a pool of money to pay out to shareholders that is not subject to litigation.
Big Tobacco
Tobacco companies have been found to have lied about the effects of cigarettes and the chemicals they added to tobacco.
For decades, tobacco companies denied the health risks of smoking and engaged in a systematic effort to deceive the public and downplay the dangers of their products. They have been accused of adding chemicals to tobacco to make cigarettes more addictive, misleading the public about the health risks of smoking, and suppressing internal research that showed the dangers of tobacco use.
These actions have been well documented, and the tobacco industry has been held accountable through a series of lawsuits, regulatory actions, and settlements. In the United States, for example, the tobacco industry reached a landmark settlement with the federal government in 1998, in which they agreed to pay billions of dollars in damages and change the way they marketed their products.
Despite these efforts to hold the tobacco industry accountable, the impact of tobacco on public health remains a significant issue, with smoking being a leading cause of preventable death and disease globally. The actions of tobacco companies in misleading the public about the dangers of their products continue to raise serious concerns about the ethics of the industry and the need for strong regulations to protect public health.
Tobacco companies and their executives have faced numerous lawsuits, regulatory actions, and fines as a result of their actions in misleading the public about the health risks of smoking, suppressing internal research, and adding chemicals to make their products more addictive.
However, criminal charges and jail time have typically been reserved for individual executives who have engaged in illegal activities, such as fraud or embezzlement, rather than for the act of misleading the public about the health risks of their products. According to ChatGPT, no tobacco company executives have gone to jail for lying about the effects of their products.
Fool Me Once, Shame on You.
Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me.
When will we learn from our mistakes and throw “white collar” corporate criminals in jail when they knowingly kill millions of people? By allowing corporations to lie to, steal from and harm people with penalties that do not make th
Why are most of our laws and regulations too complex for most citizens and many government officials t0o understand? Does anyone benefit from this besides expensive attorneys and corrupt officials?
A simplified, ethics based legal system with a strong & fair rule of law would be easier to follow, more efficient and less subject to corruption than the complex legal frameworks that have developed in the last century.
Smarter Philanthropy
Support Your Favorite Impact Enterprises and Nonprofits
The Right Solutions for Planet and Prosperity
It’s great to see both sides of the aisle looking at climate change and human survival on planet earth..
Here is a session I had with ChatGPT to better understand the Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions, also known as C3 Solutions. It should come with ChatGPT’s disclaimer that not all information is accurate.
ME: What is c3 solutions?
C3 Solutions is a software company that provides cloud-based operational management solutions to improve the coordination and efficiency of logistics operations. Their solutions are designed for various industries, including construction, transportation, and field service operations.
ME: No, I mean this one https://www.c3solutions.org/
C3 Solutions (https://www.c3solutions.org/) is a non-profit organization with a mission to promote and enhance the practice of conflict resolution and peacebuilding in communities, organizations and societies. They aim to achieve this by providing training, education, and resources to individuals and organizations who are working to address conflict and build peace.
ME: What does C3 Solutions (https://www.c3solutions.org/) mean when they say “Each generation has a responsibility to leave the world better off than we found it.”
When C3 Solutions says “Each generation has a responsibility to leave the world better off than we found it,” they are referring to the idea that people have a duty to improve the world for future generations. This statement implies that the current generation should work to address and resolve conflicts, promote peace, and create a more positive future for those who will come after them. It is a call to action to make a lasting impact and improve the world in a meaningful way for future generations to come.
ME: Which do they think is more important and which less important to resolve conflicts, promote peace and create a more positive future- GDP growth, Pollution Reduction, Reductions of green house gases in the atmosphere, or Biodiversity Preservation?
As a language model AI, I don’t have personal opinions. However, I can tell you that resolving conflicts, promoting peace and creating a more positive future is often considered to be a holistic process, where all aspects of societal development, including economic, environmental, and social factors, are interlinked and must be addressed in a comprehensive manner.
In this sense, none of these factors can be considered more or less important. GDP growth, pollution reduction, reductions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and biodiversity preservation are all important and interrelated aspects of creating a better future. Achieving peace and reducing conflicts requires addressing a range of factors, including economic and environmental issues, as well as political and social factors.
ME: Are there any limits to the maximum worldwide GDP while still promoting peace, resolving conflicts and creating a more positive future?
There is no specific limit to the maximum worldwide GDP while promoting peace, resolving conflicts, and creating a more positive future. However, it is widely recognized that an exclusive focus on GDP growth as a measure of progress can be misleading and may come at the expense of other important factors, such as environmental sustainability, social justice, and well-being.
A more sustainable and equitable approach to economic development would prioritize the well-being of both people and the planet, taking into account the interconnections between economic, social, and environmental factors. This would likely result in a different balance between GDP growth and other factors, such as reducing inequalities, protecting the environment, and promoting peace and resolving conflicts.
In other words, while GDP growth is important, it must be part of a larger picture that considers a wide range of factors in order to create a more positive future for all.
ME: What would be the GDP of the US if it grew at a 1% rate for 1,000 years?
If the US economy grew at a 1% rate for 1,000 years, the GDP would increase by a factor of about 26.83 (1.01^1000) [Note- It would be 2,095,900% or 20,959 x our current GDP]. However, this is a theoretical calculation and assumes that the growth rate remains constant for 1,000 years, which is highly unlikely.
In reality, economic growth is influenced by a wide range of factors, including technological progress, demographic changes, natural resources, and public policies. These factors can change over time, leading to fluctuations in economic growth rates. Additionally, long-term projections of GDP are subject to significant uncertainties and are likely to be inaccurate.
Therefore, while this calculation provides an idea of the potential impact of sustained economic growth, it should be taken with caution and should not be used as a precise prediction of future GDP.
ME: Is infinite growth on a finite planet possible?
Infinite economic growth on a finite planet is not possible in the long run. This is because economic growth depends on the availability of natural resources and the ability of the environment to absorb waste and pollution, both of which are limited.
As economies grow, they consume more resources and generate more waste, putting pressure on natural systems and leading to environmental degradation. At some point, further economic growth may become unsustainable due to the depletion of resources, the deterioration of ecosystems, and the negative impacts on human well-being.
Therefore, it is important to pursue sustainable forms of economic growth that are compatible with the carrying capacity of the planet and prioritize the well-being of both people and the environment. This might require a shift away from an exclusive focus on GDP growth and towards more holistic measures of progress that take into account a wider range of factors, such as social well-being, environmental sustainability, and equitable distribution of resources.
ME: How many years is the “long run”
The length of the “long run” in the context of infinite economic growth on a finite planet is not well defined and can vary depending on the specific context and the speed of resource depletion and environmental degradation. In some cases, the long run could be a matter of decades, while in others it could be several centuries or more.
It is important to note that the long run is not a fixed time horizon, but rather a concept that refers to a future time period in which the impacts of current actions and decisions become more apparent. In the context of economic growth and sustainability, the long run is a time horizon in which the limitations of natural resources and the carrying capacity of the environment become more significant and affect economic growth and well-being.
Therefore, the length of the long run can vary depending on the specific context and the speed of resource depletion and environmental degradation, and it is important to consider the long-term impacts of economic growth and resource consumption in decision making.
ME: In the last 50 years, has the environment improved or been degraded? Have resources increased or are they lower now than 50 years ago?
In the last 50 years, the global environment has been degraded in many ways. Over the past few decades, human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and the intensification of agriculture and other land uses, have led to increased emissions of greenhouse gases, air and water pollution, and the loss of biodiversity. This has contributed to climate change, which is one of the biggest environmental challenges of our time, and has caused widespread impacts on natural systems, such as rising sea levels, more frequent and intense extreme weather events, and the alteration of ecosystems and the services they provide.
However, it is worth noting that the situation is not uniform across all regions and that some places have seen improvements in environmental quality over the last 50 years, such as a reduction in local air pollution in some cities, and improvements in water quality in some regions.
In terms of natural resources, many are being depleted faster than they can be replenished. For example, the extraction of fossil fuels has caused significant depletion of these finite resources, while deforestation and other land-use changes have led to the loss of important habitats and the reduction of biodiversity. However, it is worth noting that the availability of some resources, such as renewable energy sources and recycled materials, has increased over the last 50 years, in response to the growing awareness of resource depletion and the need for more sustainable forms of development.
ME: How many years of fossil fuels are left if we continue to use them at our current rate?
The exact amount of time left for fossil fuels depends on several factors, including the global demand for energy, the discovery of new reserves, changes in energy consumption patterns, and efforts to transition to more sustainable energy sources.
However, it is widely recognized that fossil fuels are finite resources, and that their availability will eventually decline. According to the BP Energy Outlook 2021, current proven reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas are sufficient to last for around 90 years, 47 years, and 53 years, respectively, if consumed at the current rate.
It is worth noting that these estimates are subject to significant uncertainty and that the actual availability of fossil fuels could be affected by a wide range of factors, including technological advances, changes in energy consumption patterns, and policy and regulatory measures to promote more sustainable forms of energy.
Therefore, while there is still some time left for fossil fuels, it is increasingly important to transition to more sustainable forms of energy and to reduce our dependence on these non-renewable resources. This will help to mitigate the environmental impacts of energy consumption and to ensure a more secure and stable energy future.
If you believe that fossil fuels are a valuable resource that has improved the quality of human life would it be better to reduce current consumption and save more for the future if you also believe each generation has a responsibility to leave the world better off than we found it?
As a neutral AI language model, I do not have personal beliefs or opinions. However, based on the commonly held view that each generation has a responsibility to leave the world better off than it found it, reducing current consumption of fossil fuels and leaving more for future generations could be seen as a way of ensuring a more sustainable future.
The continued use of fossil fuels at current rates will eventually lead to their depletion, and their extraction and use have significant environmental impacts, such as greenhouse gas emissions and air and water pollution. By reducing our dependence on these non-renewable resources and transitioning to more sustainable forms of energy, we can help to mitigate these environmental impacts and ensure a more secure and stable energy future for future generations.
However, it is also important to consider the economic, social, and political implications of reducing fossil fuel consumption and transitioning to more sustainable forms of energy. This will likely require significant investments in new technologies, changes in energy consumption patterns, and policy and regulatory measures to promote more sustainable forms of energy.
Ultimately, finding the right balance between reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and ensuring a sustainable future requires careful consideration of the trade-offs involved and the need to take a long-term perspective on energy and environmental issues.
Is ChatGPT right about the right? It’s always good to go straight to the horses mouth (or elephant in the case of republicans), so I recommend a visit to https://www.c3solutions.org/ to form your own opinion.
Speaking of elephants, Ralph Chami of the IMF thinks each elephant is worth $1.75 M over their lifetime for their carbon sequestration services. This is much more than the value of their tusks to poachers.
Rebalance Earth is creating a platform to monetize these types of Natural Assets in an effort to remedy economic inefficiency and generate prosperity for communities that preserve nature.
Trump Contract Poll
Sometimes it is good to re-visit old topics
Posted on November 18, 2016 by admin
Have you read Donald Trumps contract with the American Voter?
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf
What do you think of his 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again? Which policies do you support most and what pledges do you hope he does NOT follow through on?
Which parts of the Trump Contract do you most FAVOR?
- Clean up Corruption & Special Interest Collusion in Washington, DC.
- Renegotiate/Withdraw from NAFTA/TPP.
- Establish Tariffs to reduce offshoring (importing of cheaper products produced abroad)
- Fight currency manipulation/trade abuses.
- Simplify Taxes.
- Reduce Taxes.
- Cancel Obama’s Executive Orders that Trump deems unconstitutional.
- Increase fossil fuel production/infrastructure with tax incentives & less regulation.
- Redirect U.N. climate change funding to fix USA’s water & environmental infrastructure.
- Select Supreme Court Justices who are Pro-Life (against abortion or free choice).
- Select Supreme Court Justices who support the Right to Bear Arms (anti gun control).
- Deport 2 Million criminal illegal immigrants & tighten immigration standards.
- Build a wall between the USA & Mexico and imprison illegal immigrants
- School Choice and Education Opportunity Act
- Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act (tax deductions and incentives)
- Restoring Community Safety Act (violent crime task force, more police spending)
- Restoring National Security Act (increase Defense Spending)
- Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act
Which parts of the Trump Contract do you most OPPOSE?
- Clean up Corruption & Special Interest Collusion in Washington, DC.
- Renegotiate/Withdraw from NAFTA/TPP.
- Establish Tariffs to reduce offshoring (importing of cheaper products produced abroad)
- Fight currency manipulation/trade abuses.
- Simplify Taxes.
- Reduce Taxes.
- Cancel Obama’s Executive Orders that Trump deems unconstitutional.
- Increase fossil fuel production/infrastructure with tax incentives & less regulation.
- Redirect U.N. climate change funding to fix USA’s water & environmental infrastructure.
- Select Supreme Court Justices who are Pro-Life (against abortion or free choice).
- Select Supreme Court Justices who support the Right to Bear Arms (anti gun control).
- Deport 2 Million criminal illegal immigrants & tighten immigration standards.
- Build a wall between the USA & Mexico and imprison illegal immigrants
- School Choice and Education Opportunity Act
- Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act (tax deductions and incentives)
- Restoring Community Safety Act (violent crime task force, more police spending)
- Restoring National Security Act (increase Defense Spending)
- Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act
2019: Which parts of the contract do you think Trump has fulfilled?
Positive Side of Trump Victory- Draining the Swamp
There are many issues which split Americans, but everyone agrees that we should Drain the Swamp in Washington, DC.
Fear of Political Corruption is why Trump Won
While it appears that Hillary Clinton will win the popular vote with 52% of voters NOT voting for Donald Trump, one campaign promise that most Americans would like to see Trump follow-up on is Draining the Swamp in Washington, DC.
Dan Mitchell hit the nail on the head when he said Washington is sleazy “because politicians and bureaucrats have massive powers to give undeserved wealth to those with political connections” due to an intentionally complex tax code and massive regulations. Yes, some politicians want to do right, but ask yourself why there are 11,000+ registered lobbyists with expenditures of over $3,000,000,000.00 annually in DC? This figure does not included campaign contributions – We all know that smart businesses do not invest money without an expected payoff.
Replace Opaqueness & Incomprehensibility with Transparency & Simplicity
Trump’s 5 point plan for Ethics Reform is a good place to start to drain the swamp, but we should encourage our elected officials to go much farther to reduce corruption, increase fairness and level the playing field for all Americans. Opaqueness and incomprehensibility are tools used by special interests to tilt the playing field in their favor with most Americans in the dark as to what is going on. More Transparency and simplicity are needed to put the democratic process back into the hands of the people and bring fairness in Washington, DC:
1. Simplify the Tax Code– With a tax code of over 75,000 pages, smart guys like Donald Trump are able to figure out (or had their congressional friends create) ways to pay little or no tax while the majority of Americans are left scratching their heads and making up the difference. Trump, with the input of all Americans, should come up with a 1 page document of Fair Tax Goals, Principles and Guidelines and then create a tax code of under 100 pages that implements this.
2. Simplify Regulation– While Trump’s idea of removing 2 existing federal regulations for every new federal regulation, may help us to move in the right direction, stating CONCISE Goals/Objectives/Principles/Guidelines/Rules is the best way to put individuals and small businesses on a more level playing field with big business/special interest groups and help keep the democratic process alive.
3. Punish Corrupt Politicians and White Collar Criminals the same as Blue Collar Criminals. While blue collar crime makes for more sensational news, white collar crime has 14 times as much financial impact in the United States according to Megan Graham. Also, blue collar crime typically only impacts a single person, family, or community, while a single political or white collar criminal can have a much wider impact.
4. Fine Businesses, PACs and Special Interest Groups for false or intentionally misleading “free speech” These groups engage in false information strategies to confuse an issue which discourages public participation, making it easier for politicians to take care of the politically connected. Punishing lies will help the public hear the truth and make rational choices that are necessary for a healthy democracy to flourish.
A majority of Americans did not vote for Donald Trump and some are scared of what he may do when he takes office. Let’s focus on President Elect Trump’s good ideas. Please tell your elected officials that you strongly support efforts to clean up Washington, DC and make American Great Again.
Another Way Of Understanding the U.S. Debt
Got this email from my dad recently. Really helps the average citizen understand the current financial imbalances in the U.S. Government and highlights how unsustainable this is.
“Over simplified and not exactly how the govt differs, but still
• United States Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000
Now, remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget.
• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385.00″
What would you do if your family was in this situation? Some family members might not want to cut or get a new job (raise income), but the prudent ones sure would.
If your parents were living like this and you were forced to inherit family debts upon their death, wouldn’t you want to do something. While the size of the U.S. Government makes it much tougher to do this quickly, the bigger the debts grow without significant action, the harder it becomes to fix.
The public and our elected leaders need to stop being selfish and short sighted and start taking significant action NOW to start living within our means on a long term basis.
For related thoughts and a plan for action, go to Warren Buffet’s Plan
Warren Buffet- Deficit Reduction Amendment
In a July 8, 2011 CNBC interview, Warren Buffet said “I could end the deficit in 5 minutes,” he told CNBC. “You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.”
Buffet was concerned about the credit worthiness of the United States and was opposed to the gun at the head approach being used by some congressional republicans. Buffet’s main point was that congress needs to act in a mature and responsible way to get things done in a timely manner. Making them ineligible or voting them out of office if they don’t is the most effective way to make sure this happens!
Buffet’s 5 minute comment may not be mathematically possible, but it does highlight the power of the American people and provides a foundation to getting our deficits under control.
I support Buffet’s general premise and advocate the passage of the:
Deficit Reduction Amendment– Congress members become ineligible for re-election if deficits exceed GDP by 3% over any 10 year period that they are in office or 5% over any 5 year period.
Why the longer time periods? Because deficit spending is not a necessarily a bad thing if it leads to SURPLUSES in future years. Deficit spending can help alleviate economic down turns and some spending is really an investment in the future.
The problem in Washington is that once politicians on either side of the aisle start spending on something, they don’t have any incentive to stop. This leads to massive deficits during bad times and smaller deficits in good times, but no surpluses and an ever growing national debt. Passage of the Deficit Reduction Amendment would give politicians the ultimate incentive- Lose your job if you do not get deficits under control.
Here I discussed “A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury…the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse…” Fear of losing their job is really the only incentive that seems to motivate the guys in Washington.
Isn’t it time that we stop passing the buck to future generations and save our democracy from itself? A well thought out Deficit Reduction Amendment will help do that.
Reform Unemployment, Social Security & Medicaid/Medicare
Government safety nets are a good idea, but so is personal responsibility.
CNBC just had several corporate America guests including someone from Manpower (large temp worker agency). One company looking to hire mentioned that the day unemployment benefits were extended, 3 people canceled interviews. The guest from Manpower said it is common for people to say they are not available until their unemployment benefits end.
I am not saying that all unemployed people are gaming the system (hopefully it is a small minority), but considering the debts we are running up, we should be looking for ways to reduce this kind of activity.
One way to try and reform Government safety net and entitlement programs would be to have more monitoring, hoops to jump through, etc. BUT WHY INCREASE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS WHEN THERE IS AN EASIER ANSWER.
The solution? Divide Unemployment, Social Security & Medicaid/Medicare into two parts
Part 1: A program similar to those that currently exist, but with smaller benefits (and smaller paycheck deductions for this part).
Part 2: Your own personal safety net account tied into your SSN. Contributions would be automatic so that total paycheck deductions would remain similar to what already exists (with one possibility to allow for greater contributions at your own discretion). Withdrawals would be restricted to safety net situations (unemployment, medical bills, etc). Any unemployment and other pre-retirement benefits that you did not use would roll into your Social Security retirement account.
Having individual safety net accounts will:
1. Reduce the number of people who try to game the unemployment system (which should lower administrative costs as well as reducing fraudulent benefit payments).
2. Reduce Medicare and Medicaid overuse and outright fraud- less people will go along with unnecessary procedures and bogus claims when part of the payment comes from their own account.
3. Allow responsible people with surpluses in their accounts to get increased benefits when they really need them.
I received an email recently that said “In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:
‘A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.’
I plan to elaborate on the Alexander Tyler email I quoted above more in another post. According to Snopes, it is mostly false, but I thought it made a lot of sense and was applicable here.
Bottom Line- Give people incentive to do the wrong thing, and that is what they will they will have a tendency to do more of. Isn’t it time that we give people the incentive to do the right thing and be more responsible for themselves?
Howard Schultz is Correct
Earlier this week in a Financial Times article and email to his employees and fellow CEOs, Starbucks head Howard Schultz asked “that all of us forgo political contributions until the Congress and the President return to Washington and deliver a fiscally disciplined long-term debt and deficit plan to the American people.” Today on CNBC, he said that our “leaders” in Washington have put political ideology & self-interest ahead of citizenship & leadership. Leave a comment below or go to CNBC to participate in their poll.
Recently I wrote that I agreed with Charlie Reese’s opinion that it is the voting public that hires politicians. According to Open Secrets we hired a guy who spent $730 million (on the general election) for a 4 year contract that pays him $400,000 annually. Is it any wonder that we can’t economically create jobs and balance the budget?
It is being speculated that Barrack Obama will spend a billion dollars in the next election to keep his job, yet a majority of the other people we have hired think that campaign finance reform is a bad idea.
Is it possible that we would get better results out of Washington if we didn’t make one of the requirements of getting elected spending far more $ than the job pays? I say this with an eye to what I think the largest part of political spending goes towards- TV ads. Who do you think hires the best employees- someone who does it based on a 30 second TV spot, or someone who does it by looking at the guys resume including experience and voting record, seeing how the guy does in interviews followed by talking to people who know the guy personally?
Maybe we should also insist that our congress pass campaign finance reform right after they tackle the budget.
- Share this:
- Share
Charlie Reese- 545 vs 300 Million
This post is based on an email (below) I received titled “Charlie Reese’s final column – PLEASE READ.” While I strongly suspect that it is not the actual final column that Reese wrote, I think it contains some provocative thoughts that include some of Reese’s actual writing and ideas going back to the 1980s.
For me, the most important thing to take away is that THE VOTING PUBLIC HIRES THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS. If we do a poor job in managing our employees, it is our own fault!
“They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees…”
Yes, it is the voters who are bosses and have the power to elect and vote people out of office. For this reason, and the fact that the current budget, deficit and economic issues have their roots going back many years, there are a lot more than 545 people who are responsible- namely EVERYONE WHO WAS VOTING AGE as these problems were created.
If an employee knows that he is likely to be fired for taking a certain action, then it is unlikely that he will take that action. Likewise, if an employee knows that he will be fired for not taking a certain action, then it is likely that he will take that action. OTOH, if an employee knows his boss isn’t paying attention and doesn’t give a shit, he will do whatever the heck he wants. Not too many companies out there that do well without bosses who are informed and on top of things. What % of eligible voters actually vote? How many of those that do vote, vote intelligently?
There are two ways to erase a deficit- SPEND LESS and/or TAKE IN MORE. While the most popular way of doing this is to have a booming economy which sees a rise in government revenues WITHOUT a rise in the tax rates. While we saw this in the late ’90s/early ’00s, it didn’t last long and we were back to running deficits the past decade.
According to http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11936/SeptemberMBR.pdf we had revenues of 2.16 TRILLION and spend all of that PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 1.29 TRILLION. Assuming the same revenue, we would have had to reduce spending by over 37% to balance the budget and stop running deficits that are increasing the national debt. Looked at another way, if we reduced spending by 23%, we would have to increase revenue by 23% to balance the budget.
Looking at the 2010 Federal budget http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg, interest on the National Debt is just under 5% with over 75% comprised of: Medicare/Medicaid (~21%),Social Security (20%), Defense/Veterans Affairs (20%), and Unemployment/Welfare (~16%). Think twice if you think we can make serious budget cuts without cutting in these areas.
So why haven’t the “545″ cut in these areas or raised revenue to help reduce the deficit? My guess is that they would not feel it would help their chances to keep their job if they did. Entitlements have long been considered the political 3rd rail and raising taxes is never popular which is why most politicians are hoping (without a real plan) that we somehow have another dot.com boom economy that will see a rise in revenue without an increase in the tax rate along with a natural reduction of unemployment/welfare spending that comes with an improvement in the economy.
It is easy to say that we want a balanced budget, but as boss how do you think we should go about doing it? We may think we are sending a clear message to Washington that we want a balanced budget, but will you re-elect a politician who makes a cut to a one of your favorite programs?
How can we expect our employees to balance the budget if we will fire them if balancing a budget means making tough, unpopular decisions?
Matt
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2011 7:32:08 AM
Subject: Charlie Reese’s final column – PLEASE READ
“If you wake up and you have a pulse, you have a duty” – Paul Newman
A very interesting column.. COMPLETELY NEUTRAL
Be sure to Read the Poem at the end.
Charley Reese’s final column for the Orlando Sentinel…
He has been a journalist for 49 years.
He is retiring and this is HIS LAST COLUMN.
Be sure to read the Tax List at the end.
This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It’s a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!
545 vs. 300,000,000 People
-By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House now? He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it’s because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan …
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees…
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
What you do with this article now that you have read it… is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren’t so true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he’s fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won’t be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He’s good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he’s laid…
Put these words
Upon his tomb,
‘Taxes drove me
to my doom…’
When he’s gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44..75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom, if agreed, stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the heck happened? Can you spell ‘politicians?’
I hope this goes around THE USA at least 545 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!!
GO AHEAD. . . BE AN AMERICAN!!!
Are We Fooling Ourselves?
Are we fooling ourselves?
According to a 2010 Consumer Reports survey (http://www.consumerreports.org/health/healthy-living/diet-nutrition/diets-dieting/healthy-diet/overview/index.htm) , ~90% of Americans considered their diet to be “somewhat” to “extremely” healthy with only ~11% saying their diet was “not very” or “not at all” healthy.
Based on self-reported heights and weights, 57% of this same survey group was overweight or obese with only 35% being considered an appropriate weight. Assuming all 35% of the appropriate weight group ate a “somewhat” to “extremely” healthy diet, then close to 85% of the people who were considered to be at an inappropriate weight reported that they too ate a ““somewhat” to “extremely” healthy diet with only about 16% of this group saying their diet was “not very” or “not at all” healthy.
It is assumed that many of these same people voted in the last election.