It occurs to me as I'm writing about US domestic policies that to this point I'm coming off pretty liberal-democrat.  Well, in some cases that's true, but in others, it's not.  I'm a strong supporter of capitalism who recognizes that there are real and significant areas where this system either fails or doesn't provide any solution.  In these situations, I think it's entirely appropriate for the government to step in.

I do believe the government has a strong role to play in individual welfare, for example 

• Providing equal opportunity to individuals through a high quality education and protection from discrimination.
• Providing universal access to quality healthcare . 
• Ensuring that those who are truly incapable of taking care of themselves are cared for.

On the other hand, I don't think it's the role of the government to

• Provide unconditional welfare or support to those who are able bodied
• Pitt the working class against businesses 
• Punish those who have seized their opportunities and done well for themselves through unreasonably high taxes  

In my view, this is where individual responsibilty kicks in.  And that's where the democratic party often get it wrong.  Once a society has provided an individual access to opportunity - through education, a fair legal system, etc - it is up to that individual to make the most of it.  If the individual seizes the opportunity, society benefits as does the individual.  If the individual doesn't seize the opportunity... well, we need uneducated workers too.  It's just that, statistically speaking, their wages are going to be far lower than a college graduate.  Don't want to work?  Too bad.  Neither do I.

Our government, particularly under democratic party leadership, has spent decades trying to establish a system where individuals were no longer accountable for their actions.  Don't have a job?  Don't worry, the government will provide for you.  The problem is, by destroying individual responsibility and de-linking individual performance from individual reward, you undermine societal and individual productivity.  That's why communism doesn't work.  Every communist state except North Korea (impoverished) and Cuba (impoverished) has failed.  China and Vietnam are no longer communist.  They are capitalist with a totalitarian political system.  The reason they failed was the destruction of individual incentives and individual responsibility.  Work hard on the farm today?  Great, here's your 20 ruppies.  Didn't work so hard today?  Great, here's your 20 ruppies.  Time after time we have seen this system fail. 

Let's dissect a couple social issues that I think can be significantly clarified.   

Take the role of society in supporting unwed mothers, a favorite beneficiary of the traditional liberal establishment.  For too many years the societal answer was to put them on welfare and support the family.  This had the perverse effect of creating a cycle of welfare and decaying morals among those we were trying to help.  Here is just one example of how this could play out:

• Unfortunate woman got pregnant out of wedlock.
• If the father is around, the mother gets no child support or medical coverage for her children if she marries him.  So she stays unwed.  The father, if he's around, feels a reduced sense of responsibility.
• If the father isn't around, the mother really has almost no choice but to go on welfare, but is forced into living in slums/impoverished neighborhoods because of the low level of support.
• The children grow up without a strong father figure, in a poor neighborhood, never knowing anyone in the family that works, and therefore lacking the strong role model that will help them get educated, break the cycle and get out of poverty.  They also grow up with a sense that the government owes them something.
• The children repeat the cycle when they grow up.

There is a better way.  First, everyone should be guaranteed healthcare.  Second, if the family income is low, the government should pay for the child care costs.  Third, the mother gets neither if she doesn't work. 

Let's also clarify that this doesn't mean there is no role for the government for those truly in need.  People with physical and mental disabilities, for example, should never be left behind.  Some of them have families to support them, others don't, but we should never let these people suffer for something they cannot control. 

Look, the Democrats did an amazing job over the past 100 years:

• Civil rights: check
• Women's rights: check
• Get out of Vietnam: check
• Social safety net: check

But I think they are somewhat rudderless and without a major "cause" that can galvinize the country like these major societal issues.  They should check out my articles on Healthcare, Education, Immigration and Global Warming for issues that can bring the country together.

Barack Obama has his work cut out for him, and he would be wise to heed this creed.  

I have a radical idea that I want to open to debate: 

    All laws should expire every 20 years. 

Now before you go off the handle on this, hear me out.

The first major issue with our current legal system I will illustrate by example.   It is illegal in 17 states plus the District of Columbia to have oral sex according to SFSU.  According to this analysis, "In Georgia those charged and convicted for either oral or anal sex can be sentenced to no less than one year and no more than 20 years imprisonment."  Now, let's be real.  About 75% of the state of Georgia has violated this law.  So why is this law still on the books in so many states?  It's pretty simple.  There is no state legislator that wants to come out and take a public stance in favor of oral sex (although he/she would earn my vote). Now this goes much beyond a few out of date puritanical laws.  There are countless special interests that are continuing to get unjustified tax breaks, contracts, etc.

The second major issue is a little more subtle.   Imagine you're a legislator that ran a great campaign and got elected to office.  It's your first day on the job.  Things are going pretty well.  In fact, the country is doing just fine.  But all the good citizens of your state elected you to PASS LEGISLATION.  So now feel compelled to get busy and show them you've accomplished something.  You dig around and come up with some asinine law, lobby hard, and pass it.  In all likelihood the existing legislation was just fine, maybe even better.  But you had to do something, right?

Having all laws expire every 20 years solves both of these problems.  First, all the old stupid laws would quickly drop off the books.  And the good citizens of Georgia and enjoy their oral sex without fear of doing 1 to 20 years hard time.  But as importantly, the legislative branch would be kept supremely busy RENEWING THE IMPORTANT LAWS like murder, rape, etc.  Now the new legislator can go home and say that he renewed the laws preventing child pornography.  His constituency is happy.  He is happy.  The country is happy.  The good news is that this is a pretty self regulating process.  If a senator fails to renew the law for, say, murder, guess who the first person his constituents would murder legally? :)

The only major downside that I see is that a lot of the execution of laws is based on court interpretations and hundreds of years of legal precedent.  But I figure we're pretty resourceful and we can figure that out.

 JOIN THE DEBATE!  Comment on this article or discuss in the forums .

Bush is right.  There, I said it.  That was very, very painful. 

Immigration is perhaps the only issue that I think Bush hasn't got completely wrong.  Let's take a look at this hot and emotional issue.

We are a nation of immigrants.  My great grandfather, Emilio, came to the United States on a boat in 1907, exactly 100 years ago.  At the time, he needed work and the US needed labor.  It was a perfect match.  He spent one day in the coal mines of West Virginia and decided to start a grocery store.  It turns out he became a successful business man who employed may US worker and also funded many other local businesses.  It's the classic tale of successful immigration.  This influx of labor, energy and dedication is what drove the growth of the US economy for centuries. So what has happened that immigration has become such a controversy? 

Why do we need immigration?  Let's forget, for a moment, that we are all immigrants in the US and that it is part of the tradition and fabric of our society.  Let's be completely objective.

1. Our country is aging.  This is a well known and well documented impending train wreck.  The ratio of working age persons to retired persons is on its was from 7:1 to 2:1.  As a direct result, social security system is going to go bankrupt.  It is as simple as that. Without dramatically increasing the number of TAX PAYING, YOUNGER people in the US, our senior citizen will be forced to increase their retirement age by up to 10 years AND will see dramatically lower benefits.  Immigration is the answer.
2. We need low cost labor to do the menial jobs nobody else wants to do. Who do you know that wants to pick vegetables in the fields in 100 degree heat?  Nobody I know does.  The truth is, if we didn't have the vast pool of illegal immigrants in this country, many, many jobs would go unfilled.  And many of the goods and services we enjoy would be much more expensive.
3. We have an enormous trade imbalance.  The direct result is that our currency has ALREADY devalued significantly vs the other major world currencies.  Have you been to Europe lately?  For the first time in our generation, traveling the Europe and many other developed nations is almost completely unaffordable for Americans.  And it's only going to get worse. And the reason is simple.  We no longer manufacture good in the united states.  Why?  Because the cost of labor is too high.  Afraid manufacturing jobs are going to be lost?  Too late.  It already happened.  They are gone.  And more are leaving.  So we can pretend that this isn't happening and wait for our economy to implode and the cost of imported goods to skyrocket. Or we can make a huge, strategic choice to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US.  And the way you do that is bring the low cost labor here.  If anyone tells you otherwise, they are just blowing smoke.

There is a mathematical equation that determines how much immigration the US experiences. 

Given 1: The US needs immigrants.

Given 2: Immigrants need the US.

Demand of immigrant labor = supply of immigrants

This equation says the number of immigrants has very little to do with our quotas or policies.  To tell the truth, the current policies are beyond idiotic. We have already established that the US needs low cost labor.  But because our policies limit the number of legal immigrants from low cost areas to an absurdly low number, we wind up with a high number of illegal immigrants.  This is not harms the immigrants, but also dramatically reduces the benefits to the US of immigration.

• Ethical problem 1:  Each year we get hundreds of thousands of immigrants that risk their lives to come into the US illegally.  While getting into the US, many are often subjected to dangererous or deadly crossing, others are forced to pay exhorbitant fees to smugglers, and others are forced into human slavery or the sex trade.
• Ethical problem 2:  These people have no protections if they are taken advantage of since complaining results in deportation.
  
• Practical problem 1: They don't pay taxes.
• Practical problem 2: They don't pay social security.
• Practical problem 3: Rhetoric to the contrary, we NEED their children to become educated and contribute even MORE tax revenue to our economy.
• Practical problem 4: The major manufacturing companies won't hire illegal immigrants because of the legal implications.  Could you imagine GM imploying illegal immigrants?  So they simply ship the jobs overseas where a different set of low wage workers do the job WITHOUT paying taxes and WITHOUT contributing to our economy and WITHOUT consuming other goods made in the US.  

So we're now in a brilliantly stupid position.  We have over 10 MILLION illegal immigrants in the US.  Many or most of them do not pay taxes.  Almost all of them cannot contribute to our imploding manufacturing sector.  Even if we brought in the army, we could never ID or deport even a fraction of them. And if we did, it would be disastrous to our economy.  Smart.  Really smart.

What do we do?

OPEN UP IMMIGRATION!  

1. Figure out how many people we can let into the US without significantly affecting or displacing our existing workforce and set the quota there.
   
2. Create a fast process to check the backgrounds of immigrants and get them on their way to work!  Get them paying taxes?  Get them into both low paying menial jobs and ALSO re-invest in the manufacturing sector. Get them productive! 
   
3. Leverage several classes of visas, also.  Some want to get on the track to permanent citizenship. Great.  Just learn English and get a steady job.  Others want simply to come here for a couple years, save some money, and go home.  Great.  Just learn English and get a steady job. And there is no reason to be bureaucratic.  If someone initially plans to be here for a short period but proves himself to be a productive member of society,let them easily change their visa track

Sorry Lou Dobbs.  

DEBATE THIS TOPIC

There are a few fundamental roles of a democratic government.  One of them is to provide equal opportunity to its citizens through education.  The  justification of this statement is twofold:  societal self-interest and moral imperative.

1. It is the right thing to do.  A person's position should be based upon their individual accomplishments, not hereditary entitlement.   There is significant inequality in the US today, across races and classes.  Education is the main equalizer.  Statistically, the higher the level of education a person receives, the higher their salary.  Without quality education, there is no reliable way for citizens to rise out of their current status and achieve their potential.  And without that, the American dream is lost.
2. It is in the direct self interest of the US government, as economic growth is correlated directly with education. 

 The trouble is, the quality of the US public educational system goes from outstanding to completely failing.   

What can be done?  That's the purpose of this DISCUSSION .

Or perhaps more accurately, make it permanent.

Here is my beef.  It's a December day in Boston.  You've been locked up in the office all day and it's 5pm.  You walk out the door at 5:01 pm, craving the feeling of the sun on your face, and.... it's dark.  You came to work and it was dark. You leave work and it's dark.  You're depressed, 

In fact, this is a well documented medical disorder.  As far back as 1984 the American Medical Association confirmed "The high rate of depression people experience in winter has been linked...to inadequate light stimulation."

So by making daylight saving permanent and eliminating the "fall back" clock reset, during the short days of winter workers would get at least an hour of sunlight after closing up shop for the day.  And our national mental health would be better for it.

DEBATE IT!  

Fidel Castro has been a horrible leader for Cuba.  I think there is no debate in the civilized world on this point.  I've been to "el museo de la revolucion" in Havana.  He basically blames the inevitable catastrophic results of his policies on US conspiracies .  I've seen ordinary people being harassed and arrested on the streets by the special police.  Locals aren't allowed to enter / visit the tourist hotels. There are chronic shortages.  A man begged me on the street to buy his children milk.  None of this is debated.

But we must face the facts.  Fidel has outlasted 6 (!) US presidents.  And while we've tried everything from economic embargoes to assassination attempts, we have failed.  Plain and simple.  And unfortunately the Cuban people have paid for it.  Their economy is in shambles.  How many times do we have to prove that economic growth is the ONLY way to improved standards of living.  So over the last 60 years maybe Fidel would still be there, but at least the average wage of a Cuban worker would be larger than the current $250/year.  That's right, per YEAR.  

And don't forget, once people get a taste of prosperity, social change is just a step behind.

DEBATE !

My first boss told me "look at a country's tax rate and you'll know how socialist they are."  He was a smart guy.  I am not a socialist.  And I think the tax code needs to be simplified and restructured.

Amazingly, taxes are probably one of the most divisive issues.  I say amazingly since you'd think everyone would want lower taxes.  But in recent years "tax cuts" have become a bad word. Democrats are labeled "tax and spenders" and republicans are supposed to be fiscally responsible.  However, the years have proven both these assumptions to be wrong.  Clinton actually ran large budget surpluses after cutting taxes.  Bush, on the other hand, has accumulated massive debt.  The reason is because while the republicans have at times cut taxes, they have not cut spending.  The result is predictably disastrous.  Keep this in mind.

How much do we spend on taxes?  It's hard to say.  That's because there are so many deduction, exemptions and penalties that it's not a straightforward calculation.  What I can tell you is that on the margin (my most heavily taxed dollar), I pay 33% federal, 8% local, 8% social security + medicare (up to the 90K maximum) and 7% sales tax.  That's 56%.  By any measure, that's pretty socialist.

So let's get down to business.  And let's make the "rich vs poor" debate completely irrelevant.  The fact is that the bottom 50% of earners pay less than 5% of taxes.  So let's just eliminate their federal income tax altogether.  That seems pretty fair and doesn't have much impact at all on the budget.  And now we can get past the rhetoric. 

I propose:

• Single flat tax
• $50K exemption
• Elimination of the inheritance tax on the first $10MM (hey- you earned it!)
• Get rid of the difference between 401Ks and IRAs => they should all be treated like 401Ks.  We NEED people to save for retirement.  The government doesn't have the cash to pay for this. 
• Capital gains tax of 15%
• Dividend tax of 15%
  

 What's the tax rate?  Well, we just need to calculate it.

Now for corporations:

• Flat tax on earnings
• Eliminate all loopholes except deductions for interest and depreciation
  
• Go after any firm trying to avoid taxes through incorporation overseas
  

That's it.

DEBATE IT!  

There is a simple reason why education is failing in many districts.  And it's not teachers, governance, testing or any other of the major issues.  It's much simpler and more obvious. That reason is money. 

The truth is, many school districts are funded locally.  Only about 6% of educational funds are provided by the Department of Education.  The rest is left up to the states, and many of them have decided to pass the buck and let the local property taxes fund local schools.  That may seem like the ultimate in giving control to local groups.  But it's probably the most disastrous policy you could imagine.  Let's think about this for a minute.

Wealthier neighborhoods / regions have much richer tax bases.  Obvious, right?  That means that these neighborhoods have lots of money to fund their schools.  Consequently, they can attract the best teachers, have lower student to teacher ratios, have better learning materials and better access to resources.  Conversely, poor neighborhoods, often minority neighborhoods, have a limited tax base, can't afford to spend money on extra teachers, have a higher teacher to student ratio, and sometimes can't afford the basics such as textbooks.

 The results are predictable.  The children from affluent areas have much higher graduation rates, are much more likely to attend college and have higher lifetime earnings.  The children from poorer, minority neighborhoods, tend to have lower graduation rates, lower rates of college attendance, and lower lifetime earnings.  And they tend to live in poorer neighborhoods, where their children will suffer the same fate.

 So much for the land of opportunity.  So much for the land of equality. 

One of the fundamental roles of our government is to provide opportunity.  Not all people will seize that opportunity.  And that is OK.  But under the current system, it flat out doesn't exist.

 So what do we do about it?  Education funding should be national.  There is no other way to manage this fairly.  Otherwise, each state will be working from a different opportunity platform, and more importantly, each region will as well.  Nothing could be less fair.

DEBATE IT