Monday, November 20, 2017

DKW Tax Reform Proposal

TAX REFORM
THOUGHTS AND IDEAS
I don’t like to complain without offering solutions or ideas.  So, with that said, let me try to put something forth for you to consider on Tax Reform.  First, however, please bear with me for a short bit as I explain some of my rationale.  If you would rather just check out my proposed solution, you can skip to the bottom.
"It's going to make life very simple" and "This is a complete redesign of the code, so we can simplify it so much that 9 out of 10 Americans can file using a postcard-style system".  These are statements from the President and GOP Rep Brady talking about their new tax reform proposal.  Somehow, this administration seems to equate ‘simple’ with ‘better’.  They tried to do it with healthcare and continue that line of reasoning with tax reform.  Can these complicated issues be simplified and condensed?  Sure.  To a point.  But, much of the bulk is in place in an effort to help clarify, protect, and create fairness and we’ll run into the same problems that caused those to be written again if they are simply cut out.  Ironically, having said that, I have to make this fairly short since it is a blog and no one will read it if it gets too long!
Nobody really likes having to pay taxes.  On the other hand, most people realize that taxes are an essential part of a well-functioning society, and it’s not a bad thing assuming that the government handles their financial responsibilities fairly and efficiently.  Ah, there’s the crux of the problem! 
I’m a fan of capitalism.  Sure, it has its issues and creates a certain culture of greed, but it also allows for individual growth, encourages a working society, and rewards innovation and ingenuity.  I’ve seen a lot of people say that it’s unfair that the wealthy have to pay more in taxes, that the bulk of tax money comes from the richest among us, and so on.  On the other hand, way too many people have obviously never been in a situation where you don’t visit the doctor for serious issues, even with insurance, because you can’t even afford the copay or when paying a little more in taxes means making tough choices on essential living items or working more overtime.  A small amount of tax difference among the lower earners is relative pocket change to the government, but can make a tremendous impact to the individuals themselves.  Taking 35% of a millionaire’s income still leaves her with more than enough money to survive in luxury.  On the other hand, taking 15% of someone making $25,000 a year already makes substantial impacts.  In a Utopian society and an ideal situation, I’d love to see our government be in a position to be able to offer a low enough and sustainable tax rate that could be equal for everyone that wouldn’t hamper those in the lower and lower-middle class while encouraging financial growth for everyone.  But, that’s not where we are.  Not even close.  With out-of-control national debt and deficit, we absolutely must be smart and efficient and the amount of money needed to be raised from taxes is far too much to be able to tax evenly across the board.  In addition, on a good note, while perhaps not ideal, we are in a good situation right now in terms of jobs, low unemployment rates, and steady growth.  Simply put, it is irresponsible to create cuts that add substantial amounts to the deficit while at the same time leaving very little wiggle room to help the economy when we face a strong downturn. 
While I understand the general idea being pushed that increasing the standard deduction will cover the proposed cuts of some popular and more specific deductions, that mentality overlooks significant issues.  One big issue is that many of those deductions help incentivize specific important segments of the economy and society.  That would include higher education, home ownership, adoption, and charitable contributions, among others.  There has been a lot of detail already published concerning these, so I won’t go into detail here.  But, one that really gets me is the proposal on education and student loans.  While it’s not necessary, it is a fact that a large majority of millionaires are college educated and have advanced degrees.7  Education is important.  To make matters worse, tuition has increased so much over the past 20 years that middle class families are already struggling to justify getting advanced degrees while those in the top 10%, and especially the top 1%, are spending more on education1.  The obvious implications being that the wealthy will continue to pull away from those in the lower and middle class as they have easier access to basic opportunities, as has been building over the past several decades.  There are some simple explanations as to why the gap between classes continue to widen.  By taxing waved tuition and stipends while eliminating the deductions, a bigger burden will be created on many just starting out, a barrier placed on entry for many who would decide the cost isn’t worth it, and it would hobble future research and academic advancements.  Another issue  is that many give to charities because of the tax incentives in place for doing so.  Of course, I would hope that many would still donate but I also realistically know that there would be a sharp reduction in charitable giving under the provisions of the proposed plans2.  In addition, including the provision that the individual tax cuts expire and including the cut to the individual mandate as part of tax reform is a cheap and irresponsible play.
I have one more issue with the proposed tax plans that hasn’t been discussed much.  Having fewer tax brackets sounds nice and simple.  But, it seems that those that write these have never been on the lower end of the spectrum because it’s common as one grows in many careers that their income will go from, let’s say, $45,000 one year to $45,500 the next (or $38,500 to $39,000 for the senate plan).  This would result in a large jump in tax rate from 10% to 20% or 12% to 22% depending on the plan, which makes a substantial difference for this group.  This is also the case with the current tax brackets as it jumps from 15% to 25%.  While some people will see lower taxes at a certain income level under the new proposals, they don't solve the issue of some having to pay much more in taxes after being rewarded with a raise at work.
I haven’t even brought up corporate taxes yet.  The misleading statement that the US has the highest taxes in the world just isn’t true.  Plus, there are so many incentives, loopholes, and breaks that the effective rate is more around the 20% range as proven by our own US Department of Treasury.3  Again, I’m all for business succeeding and given fair opportunities to do so.  However, large tax cuts right now are not the way to go.  The money would go to large investors and the idea of most of it ‘trickling down’ just doesn’t happen.  Even so, I’d perhaps be willing to give some components of it a shot if we were in a different situation, but adding to the deficit in such a manner in the situation we are in is reckless, if not immoral.  We can do better.  Obviously, there is a lot more to the bill, both good and bad, than listed here.  But, I’ll trust you to look those up if you’re interested.
* So, here is my proposal (caveat:  I've focused on single payers below, but the concept would be the same for other filings.  Also, I don’t have a CBO score and haven’t run the numbers to see exactly how it affects the deficit, so I would need to see how those come out when I have the time, money, and people 😉.  ):
THE DAVID K. WILLIAMS PROPOSED TAX PLAN
·         Continually increasing tax ‘brackets’
o   The highest income in each current bracket would see no change.
o   The rates would increase steadily between the current brackets on a percentage of income basis
o   Rates would increase from 5% to 40%
o   It is very SIMPLE with no large jump in rates
o   No one would see a tax increase, with the exception of a mere 0.4% increase for those making over $450,000, and most would see at least a little bit of a reduction.  (I could be persuaded to possibly make the top level $500,000 depending on how the deficit numbers work out)
o    My proposed rates for single filers can be found below
·         Reduce corporate tax rates from 35% to 30%
o   This would give a bump to corporations to help further stimulate growth
o   This is much more realistic than the reduction to 20% that has been proposed
·         Keep the deductions common among the lower and middle classes and which help important segments of society. 
·         Allow a $4,000 personal exemption (down slightly from $4,050) with a slight increase in standard deduction to $6,500 (from $6,350).
·         Make long term capital gains tax rates 15% up until the top bracket, which would continue to be at 20% (wealthy investors often record little, if any, ‘income’ and thus pay 0% in the current system.)
·         Adjust the second-home mortgage interest deduction to debt as high as $250,000 (currently at $1 million)
·         Reduce or severely limit other ‘special interest’ deductions such as the Carried Interest Loophole and golf course tax while leaving others, like the estate tax, as is5. 
o   The 0.4% increase on the upper levels along with these changes would help pay for the other tax cuts without hampering any individual’s way of life. 
**   This plan allows for easy manipulation, as required, due to changes in the economy.  Simply adjust the rates evenly either up or down, lower the top rate and adjust the others accordingly, adjust the income levels more fairly or evenly throughout the scale, etc.
***  Much more would obviously go into it, but this would be the general backbone and starting point.
CURRENT LAW COMPARED TO THE HOUSE AND SENATE TAX PLANS:

THE DAVID K. WILLIAMS PROPOSED PLAN
TAX BRACKETS FOR SINGLE FILERS
5%
 $             -  
 $  1,865
21%
 $    70,321
 $ 75,715
6%
 $      1,866
 $  3,730
22%
 $    75,716
 $ 81,110
7%
 $      3,731
 $  5,595
23%
 $    81,111
 $ 86,505
8%
 $      5,596
 $  7,460
24%
 $    86,506
 $ 91,900
9%
 $      7,461
 $  9,325
25%
 $    91,901
 $ 125,150
10%
 $      9,326
 $  15,050
26%
 $  125,151
 $ 158,400
11%
 $    15,051
 $  20,775
27%
 $  158,401
 $ 191,650
12%
 $    20,776
 $  26,500
28%
 $  191,651
 $ 236,660
13%
 $    26,501
 $  32,225
29%
 $  236,661
 $ 281,670
14%
 $    32,226
 $  37,950
30%
 $  281,671
 $ 326,680
15%
 $    37,951
 $  43,345
31%
 $  326,681
 $ 371,690
16%
 $    43,346
 $  48,740
32%
 $  371,691
 $ 416,700
17%
 $    48,741
 $  54,135
33%
 $  416,701
 $ 417,550
18%
 $    54,136
 $  59,530
34%
 $  417,551
 $ 418,400
19%
 $    59,531
 $  64,925
35%
 $  418,401
 $ 424,720
20%
 $    64,926
 $  70,320
36%
 $  424,721
 $ 431,040

37%
 $  431,041
 $ 437,360

38%
 $  437,361
 $ 443,680

39%
 $  443,681
 $ 450,000

40%
 $  450,001
 $ 450,001 + 







Standard deduction:       $6,500
Personal exemption:      $4,000

Think it could possibly work?





Posted by at No comments:

Friday, November 17, 2017

Be the Change


BE THE CHANGE

We, the people of the United States, need a serious reboot of how our government is run and of those who run it.  I realize that this is stating the obvious and has been the case for a good while, but I believe things are getting close to a tipping point.  Most rational people know it is vital to listen to differing viewpoints and work toward policies that yield the best combination of building this country’s economy while offering opportunities and protections for its citizens, citizens of all persuasions, in a way that looks to secure a good future by encompassing such things as improving the environment and securing global partnerships to ensure long-term health, wealth, and success.  Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be what we have right now.

The concept of having political parties is essential so that there can be productive debate, ideas can be hashed out, and compromises made as warranted.  As most of us have learned, history is ripe with examples of how countries fail when one party dominates.  It’s an unfortunate but common human trait that too many of us are power hungry and will sacrifice the common good in favor of retaining perceived positions of strength, and this is exaggerated when large groups are involved and ‘group think’ takes over.  Sadly, this is the direction in which we have been heading of late, except with two factions competing instead of one dominant one.  Worse yet, it’s devolved to the point where it’s not even masked by those in power and a large swath of society seemingly simply falls in line.  Politicians have used this to deepen the divide and stay in power.  Foreign governments have even taken notice and have attempted to use it against us.  In addition, money continues to play a bigger and more substantial role in elections with wealthy donors, super pacs, and now even churches able to play a factor in candidates’ campaigns.  So, what has happened is that politicians are even more swayed by special interest groups in the effort to remain elected.  We’re seeing more policy changes, or lack thereof, that are blatantly the result of this, often very thinly-veiled as being for the public good.  Also, because there are only two major political parties and division is so great, there winds up being a mentality that we must choose one side over the other and if your party wins your positions get to dominate rather than trying to work with the other side as our government was intended. 

As evidence of this, I recently saw part of a press conference in which Mitch McConnell literally said “the goal here is to win elections in November…My goal as the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate is to keep us in the majority. The way you do that is not complicated. You have to nominate people who can actually win, because winners make policy and losers go home.”  It opened my eyes that he boldly stated out loud that his job is to win elections, but even more so that no one even flinched.  It didn’t even result in a single comment.  But, it’s disgusting in its implications.  Your job as a politician is to represent the people and do what’s right for them and the country.  While you may believe your party has the better ideas, your job IS NOT to win elections.  I understand that many will argue that this is one and the same, but it isn’t and shouldn’t be.  That just puts you in position to be swayed and make bad deals.  Of course, this is not at all restricted to republicans, it just so happens that it was McConnell speaking in this instance.  Both sides are prone to over the top demonization of those on the other side of the aisle.  This goes hand-in-hand with another pet peeve; where people keep saying things like the president MUST pass a tax reform bill, or congress HAS to overhaul healthcare, etc.  NO, if a better solution comes around, then great.  But, passing legislation just to say you passed something is ridiculous.  Knowing it’s a subpar option or, as seems to have been the case recently, not even understanding the bill yourself, is even worse.  As a politician, what you SHOULD do is pass the best possible bill when it is ready and has undergone full scrutiny.  If that means taking more time than originally suggested, that makes you more reliable in my opinion than if you just force something through to claim an empty and meaningless ‘victory’.

If you’ve seen any news at all lately, you’ve heard about the sexual misconduct and assault allegations levied against many famous people in positions of power, including politicians.  I have found it very disturbing how many friends pointed to the Roy Moore allegations as some kind of example of republican mentality or the Al Franken actions as showing democrat hypocrisy.  They almost seem gleeful that the ‘other side’ must deal with severe wrongdoings.  Of course, when the President of the United States in among these people, we have an even bigger problem.  Wrong is wrong, and consequences should be levied equally based upon severity no matter position or political affiliation, or whether we voted for him/her or not.  We have devolved into reveling misfortunes instead of supporting successes.  There is real danger, moral and otherwise, in having your base chanting to lock up your opponent.  Again, this goes for both sides.  If charges are warranted, let investigators do their part and rise above the hyperbole of riling up public anger and leveraging that for your own personal gains and satisfactions.  I’m not saying that it’s not right to call out possible illegal activities, but doing so in a civil way that doesn’t create possible public disturbances is essential.  On a similar note, politicians seem to be more afraid of the other side looking good than admitting they may have good points that should be negotiated.

Along those lines, when there are obvious displays of favoritism or policies that have the potential to cause harm it is important to speak out.  It’s great that we have that opportunity in America and the formidable mass behind the dominant political parties helps get those messages out for us.  But, we’ve gone too far.  Instead of utilizing the power to stand up and get something accomplished in these instances, the sides now seem to choose to disagree on almost every single issue creating a situation where nothing gets done.  It’s become us versus them, I’m right and you’re wrong.  To make matters worse, way too many votes are solely along party lines, no matter the pros or cons, who gets hurt or rewarded.  People are afraid to go against their party, thus as is typical in group think, people vote for bills they otherwise never would.  Issues from one bill that won’t pass are forced into another that they think will pass.  Bills that affect millions of people are voted on before the public has any real idea what is included.  The list goes on and on. 

I think you get my drift and I know that countless people think along the same lines, and I don’t want this to get too long.  Thus, rather than list changes that can be made, as they’re probably obvious to most people anyway, let me just say this:  Let’s work to get people in power who are willing to work for US and with EACH OTHER, who realize that negotiations are about the greater good of the outcome, which is sometimes what is kept from happening and not always about ‘what’s in it for me,’ and who aren’t tied into anything that would cause conflicts of interest.  Let’s work to get people who understand our frustrations with a malfunctioning government and is willing to buck the trends and stand up for what’s right and not just for what any particular party says is right.  If our president and our politicians can’t do it, then let’s find new ones that can.  It’s up to us.  That’s the most incredibly wonderful thing about our great country.  But, enough of us must become involved and think a little bit outside the box in order for real changes to be made.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

EPA and the CPP


Analyzing the EPA's decision to cut the Clean Power Plan
OUR MISSION:  The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment.

Look at the Environmental Protection Agency website and that sentence stands by itself at the top of the mission page.  Now, note the comments made by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt upon the rescinding of the Clean Power Plan: “The war on coal is over”, he said, and he focused on jobs when pressed about the consequences of his decision.  This alone shows how the dismissal of the Clean Power Plan this past week is yet another example of unethical politics as this administration ignores their moral obligation to the country, but let’s delve further into the situation to explain why this is so.
First, though, let’s put this in perspective with a strikingly similar example that we’ve seen in our recent past.  When research started to come out about the dangers of cigarettes, many people didn’t want to believe it.  The tobacco industry and their supporters paid for their own ‘research’ that supposedly disputed these findings and confused much of the public for a while.  ‘Big Tobacco’ spent large amounts of money on lobbying efforts and, thus, had some politicians in their corner.  Besides, it would ‘harm jobs and local economies to regulate tobacco’, they argued.  Does any of this sound familiar?  Luckily, smarter and more ethical heads prevailed and we’re much healthier for it.  And, of course, cigarettes and tobacco are still around, just as coal would be, but they are regulated and the dangers are muted as the health implications are now well accepted and undeniable.  Can you imagine that, if instead, we had our president and head of an organization tasked with improving the health of American citizens saying that the ‘war on cigarettes is over’, disputing the science, and encouraging the opening of more cigarette manufacturing companies to bring about job growth?  Hopefully, that sounds as asinine to you as it should.  Some will say that it's not the same thing, and it's not.  But, hopefully, you can see the direct parallels to Trump and Pruitt’s actions.   

·         EPA - Their title is the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Agency.  Their mission is to protect the human HEALTH and the ENVIRONMENT.  Yes, other factors of course play a role, but Pruitt makes no secret that he is favoring the coal industry and his close ties to the oil and gas industry are well known.  Obviously, though, helping the coal industry is NOT HIS JOB!  I can understand saying that there is a possibility that the regulations may have been too stringent, but then tell us what your suggestion or plan is before disbanding the regulations all together.  His goal clearly appears to be helping the polluters over any improvement to health and environment.

·         Okay, he has made it clear that he wants to take into account how businesses are affected, so let’s think like a successful business for a second.  First of all, a target is typically set to stretch the company’s or employee’s ingenuity and resources and is not something that you already know you can meet.  Most of us learn that at a young age.  Perhaps more importantly, though, if the target is found to be too difficult, maybe you adjust it a bit to make the target a little more reasonable.  You don’t just do away with the target altogether without a replacement, and you most definitely don’t go in the complete opposite direction, as promoting coal companies would do in this case.

·         Most complaints about the efficacy of the CPP focus on the CO2 information, but that is just part of the issue.  Remember that the mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment.  Well, there is a scientific consensus that there is NO SAFE LEVEL of coal-fired power plant pollution that is healthy to breathe.  They have literally found NO threshold, says George Thurston, professor of environmental medicine at NYU, and saying otherwise is ‘completely in conflict with scientific knowledge’.  Therefore, doing away with the CPP without any kind of replacement in place while promoting coal burning plants goes directly against their mission.  Harmful effects of climate related changes are widely accepted and most serious to children.  Specifically related to CO2 emissions, here is just one study, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3196488/.  You can easily look up data on asthma, illnesses, and deaths related to pollution.  Just make sure to use common sense.  Look at data comparing more polluted vs. less polluted areas and direct relations to diseases with pollution.  Many will confuse the issue by showing such things as asthma rates rising even as air quality improves, but this is obviously because of dramatic rises in other asthma contributing factors such as obesity.

·         You may be arguing that the EPA is working on a replacement based on a few statements and stories put out there.  First, it’s a requirement that the EPA accept public comment on the repeal and a discussion on a replacement and that, obviously, should have been done in advance of repealing the CPP.  But, believe it or not, it’s right in their proposal to cut the CPP that the EPA has yet to determine whether or not they will create an additional rule on the regulation of greenhouse gasses!

·         Those who focus their argument on scientific factors say that the CPP was useless because the calculations show it potentially would only have resulted in a 2% reduction in atmospheric CO2 and 0.01 degree C drop in temperature.  On the face of it, this sounds like a fair and cogent argument.  The problem is that it is such a short-sighted, biased, and morally lacking argument as to be scary in its implications.  As mentioned previously, the CPP also improved breathing conditions from coal-fired plants, and it also addressed SO2 and NOx emissions (remember acid rain and smog?), both of which have significant health effects.  But, to specifically address the CO2 and temperature data, we knew when the plan was put into place that it was possible that those changes by the US alone may be small, especially in the short term, which is why it’s vital to educate yourself on why the plan was implemented.  For one, CO2 effects on climate extend potentially thousands of years after emissions cease as it lingers in the atmosphere1.  We were the first, and worst, at putting these pollutants into the air and the rest of the world followed.  The US is (was?) looked upon as a world leader.  Now, seeing the damage and extreme danger, we attempted to do the opposite; to do our part to clean up the environment and set an example that would be the impetus for the rest of the world to follow.  This was essential because the data shows that it’s going to take a world-wide effort to possibly make the needed changes to meet the necessary differences in levels.  And, it worked.  China, another historically large CO2 polluter, submitted a plan to the U.N. to reduce fossil fuel emissions, and almost every other country  across the globe has pledged to address the issue.   So, what does the US do now?  We not only decide the plan is not worth it for us, but we go even further and plan to go back to putting MORE pollutants into the air!  I guess, for this administration, the wealth of the rich is more important than the health of the people.  Luckily, at this point, it looks like we’ve lost our role as a leader and we’re looked upon as fools, in this area at least, and other countries are sticking to their plans, probably because they also see an economic and political power benefit from it as well as environmental and recognize the shifting tides in energy.  Hopefully, our lack of foresight doesn’t result in other countries deciding to follow in our footsteps.

·         Finally, the EPA has both a LEGAL and MORAL obligation to limit carbon pollution.  The ‘endangerment finding’ was issued in 2009 after the US Supreme Court ruled in 2007 (and upheld in 2012) that the ‘EPA not only had the authority to regulate climate gases as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act, but was obligated to do so. The court directed the EPA to examine the scientific evidence and determine if greenhouse gases posed a threat to the public.  The EPA did that — examining everything from the potential for more damaging hurricanes, to death rates due to ozone and heat exposure, to deadly exposure to pathogens — and concluded in unambiguous terms that there was “compelling” reason to believe the gases threaten the health of Americans, and that the threat would get worse.  The agency’s conclusion rested on thousands of pages of peer-reviewed research, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, from the U.S. Global Climate Research Program, and from the National Research Council. The agency wrote its rules and subjected them to public criticism. The public submitted voluminous comments, all of which were reviewed by the EPA before it issued a final rule.’ (https://www.propublica.org/article/is-the-epa-landmark-endangerment-finding-now-itself-imperiled).  So, no matter what the head of the agency or the president thinks they believe, they are legally required to act on carbon emissions unless they have the facts to the contrary to prove their case.

What’s right for the greater good and long-lasting benefits to human beings?  Let’s put our focus on making the world the best possible place for both us and our future generations so they can continue to thrive.  That SHOULD be the priority, especially when that’s your job!






Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Better, Richer, and Stronger Together

Better Together, Richer Together, Stronger Together

It’s ingenious, really.  Disgusting and infuriating, but genius nonetheless.  The Russians played a clever game to fan the flames of discourse, expose and exaggerate tensions that have been festering for some time, and deepen mistrust in the the American political system.  However, while they may have gotten the upper hand and won the first battle, there’s a clear path to victory in this war:  unity.  Luckily for us, historically, this is what Americans do best in times of crisis; put our differences aside and come together as one.  Right now is the perfect opportunity to recognize that our fears, prejudices, and pride have been exposed as a major weakness, perhaps our greatest weakness, and exploited by a major foreign power so effectively as to almost render us blind.  Right now it is imperative that we acknowledge our preconceptions so that we can move past and learn from them in order to render future such attacks useless.  Having a foreign power engaging in such massive efforts to sway and divide public opinion is and should be of great concern to every American citizen, irregardless of political persuasion.

For example, it is known that the Russians bought an ad on Facebook ‘supporting’ Black Lives Matter, which exaggerated the extreme responses to Ferguson and Baltimore to play on people’s fear.  They did this for just about every hot-button and controversial topic: promoting gun-rights and the second amendment, propagating false warnings about illegal immigrants, targeting LGBT issues, and so on.  They also, then, put up sham websites so that those that clicked on the posts would be directed to more misleading claims.  They harped on issues that caused any kind of strife among different segments of our society.  In the meantime, others in our very own country were (and still are) also explicitly involved with spreading, if not initiating, false narratives based solely on hate and fear and with the intent to further drive mistrust in certain groups of people.  Predictably, many fell in step with this because of deep-rooted preconceived notions and years of ill-conceived discriminatory teachings fed off of the smallest of kernels of truth, often taken out of context and exaggerated massively.  These diabolical people who organized these attacks also know that it’s human psychology that people will engrain a notion even if the initial story that formed it has been proven to be false.  

I’m not putting all of this on any one side either for, while I personally stand for equality and justice for all, I realize that this has occurred on every side of the aisle.  BLM, Confederates, LGBT, women’s rights, you name it, these issues have been targets and are usually complicated by the fact that people are unwilling to listen to concerns and communicate effectively, which means the issues can’t be properly addressed.  This results in those with said concerns further digging in their heels instead of finding common ground or recognizing their misconceptions.  Of course, I realize that some people aren’t going to listen or adapt no matter what you say.  But, those are also the ones that will lose out in the end.  Once people come together, once people start talking and working to understand one another, the more likely we’ll see true equality and justice.  Then, and only then, will we be able to fight off future attacks on our way of life such as those the Russians have pulled off.

Sadly, it’s going to be more difficult than it should be.  Ideally, we should have leadership that stands against foreign interference, understands underlying issues and tensions, initiates peaceful dialog, and strives for equality.  We don’t have that at the highest level in our government currently.  That doesn’t make things impossible, though. However, it does require those supporting this administration to open their eyes and see the problem and for those on the other side to not assume every republican is like the President and some of his cronies.  When the President is the only one calling the Russian interference fake, it’s a problem.  Whether it helped him win or not is of no consequence, it’s a big deal.  When the President enacts executive orders based on fear perpetrated by these stories, it’s a problem.  Then, you have the issue of Breitbart News, who is notorious for publishing inflammatory and false stories.  For example, they, along with Info Wars, Fox News, and others, purposely spread misinformation about a supposed knife-point rape by immigrants in Iowa that caused a massive amount of anger and mistrust of government and immigrants.  These are exactly the kind of stories that Russia would exploit and some of our own biased media helped them right along.  So, to then have Breitbart’s executive chair, Steve Bannon, become White House Chief Strategist, is a problem.  If these stories were about a particular person it would be slander or libel.  Yet, a man that makes a living doing this was tapped to one of the most influential positions in our government.  To further demonstrate how successful these campaigns have been, just this past week the state of Alabama elected a man as their senate GOP candidate who had no clue what DACA was but cited blatantly false stories about sharia law being declared in ‘Indiana and/or Illinois’.  There are many more issues, the list is disturbingly long, but there shouldn’t be a need to go on for people to realize the obstacles we face. I’d rather focus on the positives and solutions.

It’s up to us.  If we want to win this war and stop letting a foreign power put wedges between sectors in our society, it’s up to us.  Before you get too fired up about any particular article or news story, validate it.  Before accepting the veracity of headlines and clips, try to find the full clip or story to make sure it wasn’t purposely taken out of context.  If you’ve fallen for fake stories in the past, whether they be about muslims, immigrants, blacks, supremacists, etc., realize it, own it, and try your best to recognize any underlying bias that remains.  

There is no single great race.  There is no dominant sex.  Freedom of religion along with the separation of church and state are fundamental to a well-functioning and long-lasting democracy or republic.  White, black, gay, trans, muslim, catholic, male, female, rich, poor, doctor, janitor, democrat, or republican, we all have an important part to play and contribute to what makes this country great.  As long as we’re striving for equality, we’ll succeed.  As long as we’re accepting of our differences and recognize that as a strength, we’ll succeed.  As long as we accept that immigrants and refugees make essential improvements to our economy and society, we’ll succeed.  As long as we lend a hand and talk with all walks of life instead of making judgments based on those that want us divided, we will succeed.  We win by loving, playing, praying, working, and when needed, fighting, alongside our diverse citizenry.

We are better when we all come together.  We are richer when we all come together.  And, when we unite and show the world our acceptance and faith in humanity, no one is stronger.  We do this and Russia or anyone else’s push to divide us and cause mistrust in our government blows up in their faces.
Posted by at No comments:

Shooting response - learn and adapt

My parents were both great teachers, by profession and with my siblings and I.  Whenever a major event happened, they made sure to use it as a teaching moment knowing that is when the lessons would be internalized and changes would be made.  Sadly, our current administration doesn't seem to abide by that smart teaching, learning, and adapting philosophy.  After the hurricane season resulted in the predicted strong storms, their response was that it wasn't the time to talk about climate change.  And it worked in their favor, people moved on and nothing has come of it.  Now, after the next predictable mass shooting, the deadliest in modern history, their response is that now isn't time to talk about gun legislation!  If you truly mourn for the victims, instead of ignoring the obvious and hoping the feelings pass, let's take the time to do what we should; learn and try to come up with and attempt some solutions.  

 Let's not forget.  Stop politicking and start doing.  All of us.

 Part II - response to a comment:

 477 days, 521 mass shootings.  Before anyone gets up in arms about the semantics, I think it's more than fair to define an incident involving 4 or more injuries or deaths as a mass shooting.  And, that doesn't take into account the thousands of other homicides and accidents.  Do seat belts prevent all car deaths? Of course not, but they drastically reduce them.  Why can't we put some kind of safety device (pin, bracelet, etc.) on guns to make them safer and less vulnerable to theft?  We can't have tint that is too dark or do certain things to soup up our vehicles.  Why can't we make it illegal to buy aftermarket accessories such as the bump stock that essentially turns a gun into an automatic weapon?  We have to show a license and have a limit on certain OTC medicines.  Why can't we limit a person's number of gun purchases?  There is a 21 year old age limit on alcohol, why not guns?  Regular inspections are required on cars.  Why not for guns?  We can microstamp guns and bullets more effectively to make it easier to identify perpetrators, which would discourage their use in crimes.  And, of course, there's the issue of universal background checks.  This is just the tip of the iceberg.  But, NOTHING can be done?!  Bad people are just going to do bad things from time to time?!  Disturbingly, sickeningly, it is illegal to do gun violence research!  This can be absolutely vital to find out which measures or combination of measures would work best.  Now these next few delve into the second amendment debate, but it's insane to allow someone on a terror watch list be able to easily buy a gun.  Many shootings occur because of mental illness and depression leading to suicidal tendencies.  The same goes for domestic violence and we know that it's not uncommon that alcohol is involved in gun violence.  If we know this, we should be able to do something about it.  This administration has banned immigrants from several countries because of a FEAR that someone may get through our already thorough screening.  But NOTHING can be done about gun violence?!  Bad people are just going to do bad things from time to time?!  No, much CAN and SHOULD be done about it.  No solution is perfect and we can't stop every shooting from happening, but we can make it a lot more difficult and save many lives in the process.  Our leaders need to stop being biased and swayed by money and the perception of power and start doing what's right, moral, and ethical.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)