The Deficit with a Side of Annoyance

I previously had faith that the US government could possibly pass a budget that everybody seems to agree needs to be passed. At present, it seems that that's not happening.

Maybe it's the inherent problems with both the Democrats and the Republicans budget. The Democrats, in short, want to raise taxes on the upper class and make some cuts in spending, mostly military. The Republicans would like to make major cuts in every part of government. Each of these would probably only solve half the problem.

For the US to balance its books, we need to raise taxes on everyone and really take a good look at what needs to be cut. For example, military spending is out of control. We don't need to spend 50 billion dollars on flying humvees. Yes, that was a project, and it was an utter failure. The Army is notorious for throwing away time and money on pet projects that end up collapsing.

So the Republicans come along and say "Military cuts are off limits!" What? Does that even make a hint of sense? It's the sector of government that spends the most! It's hypocritical to say that it shouldn't be cut. Of course, the Tea Party doesn't mind making minor cuts in military spending, but only minor.

That isn't to say that government spending isn't out of control as well. We don't need to be paying taxes to support people who can't pay for gas. That's a total waste of money and a pet project that the Democrats will fight tooth and nail to defend, along with their precious Medicare and Medicaid.

So, what should Congress do then, Mr. Inspective Nudibranch, know-it-all political analyst? First of all, stop quibbling and get to work! The recent affairs of Representative Wiener mean absolutely nothing to the government of the United States! Republicans, stop threatening to shut down the government in the event that your budget isn't passed! Democrats, actually come up with a reasonable budget that makes the Republicans look like men wielding chainsaws on the American people!

Here's where to look. We've already got worthless agricultural subsidies that only help out the big farm companies on the chopping block. Let's put oil subsidies there too. Republicans, once again, stop being hypocrites! You want to cut spending only in the places that don't matter to you! Avoid NASA and the EPA at all costs! The only valid argument against climate change is that there isn't enough evidence. Well, the only way to prove there is no evidence is to actually look for evidence! That's how science works, Republicans  and Democrats (more evidence towards climate change = greater argument). NASA has no money! What happened to "We'll get to the moon in ten years!" in the 60s? Now, all the pledges to return to the moon by, I don't know, 2015, 2035, whatever, are always forgotten. Why? Because NASA doesn't have any money, and has to go through the partisan Congress to get it, whose opinion can change on a whim! This should be a non-issue. Don't touch NASA or the EPA.

Instead, rip the military to shreds! Examine every single project currently being paid for, and decide whether it will A. help save lives or B. have civilian applications. New assault rifles? Cut! New naval vessels? Cut! Advanced, cheap, and durable computer systems? Save! Armored vehicles safe from IEDs? Save! Just like that, billions of wasted dollars could be saved.

Salaries of government officials have already been cut, but they need to do more. 5% isn't enough, we need at least a 75% reduction in government salaries. We do not need to be paying people who basically sit on their ass all day and maybe make a few decisions 175 thousand dollars per year! That's ridiculous! You are supposed to go into Congress because you see at as your civic duty, remaining at your normal job! Representatives and Senators stay in office for years with good benefits and high salaries, and barely have to do any thing except vote on a few issues occasionally! This needs to end!

To top off large cuts in waste, we need to raise taxes on everyone. The Republicans keep stating, "We don't have a revenue problem!" If we don't have a revenue problem, why do we have a deficit this large? We could spend whatever we liked if we didn't have a revenue problem! Their argument that the top tax bracket consists only of small business owners is similarly invalid, as is the Democrats that it's only filled with millionaires with 50-foot yachts that hoard all their money to themselves. Furthermore, taxes seems to matter little in terms of job creation. Go look at Norway and Sweden, whose people are supposedly crushed by tax burdens, and you'll see that business is thriving just as well as in the US. Taxes don't seem to matter as much, they say. I'm not making this up; here's the link to the article:

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html

Go check it out, and you'll be surprised about how little taxes to small businesses. Maybe it's because Norwegians see it as a payment for good social services they receive. Maybe it's a good idea to have free health care, but higher taxes to pay for it. So, that argument is invalid as well. It's still unfair to crush small businessmen and women under billionaire-level taxes, so we  need to split the tax bracket.

I doubt anybody actually will hear me ranting into space in a plastic bubble. If you are listening, please speak up. It let's me know you care. Please. Just one comment makes me know this blog matters to someone other than myself.

On Other Matters . . .

So, I've talked about politics for a while now, and am closing in on the anniversary of this blog. However, I want to see if anyone is actually listening. If you have at least once read a post, or regularly read posts, but haven't subscribed, please place your name (real or online) in the comments.

I just wanted to know if I'm ranting into space or into a small group of people's ears. And, hey, tell me if you agree or disagree. I'd love to hear discussion.

Once again, just put your name, real or online, into the comments section.

The Climate of Stupidity

You know, sometimes it feels like I'm ranting to a brick wall, mostly because nobody actually follows this blog. Oh well. Yelling at a brick wall is sometime better than yelling at nothing.

However, I can't shake this feeling of non-importance, in more ways than one; firstly the one above, and secondly because I can't stop stupid people from doing stupid things.

These people, namely, are John Shimkus (R-Illinois) and James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), along with many other senators who have simply decided that politics comes before science. This is simply unacceptable.

Perhaps it would be best to begin as to why these congressmen are acting so foolishly. For one, they are both heads of committees that discuss environmental legislation. This is a ploy to make sure such legislation does not pass. Mr. Inhofe strongly believes that global warming is "a hoax." Mr. Shimkus argues that since God did not destroy the Earth with a flood in the Bible, why should modern society be worried about the effects of greenhouse gasses?

It's sickening.

Especially when you consider statistics. 83% of Americans think that the EPA should be doing a better job, according to a Gallup and USA Today poll. So why do these people get elected?

Mostly, it's because most Americans also don't think to look at their elected officials opinions beyond the headlines.

So, the next time you're at the voting both, take a moment to think about the general intelligence of your congressmen, or senator, or president. It might just save your life. Because, if people like this have their way, we're going to have much more than Hell to pay.

A Brief Thought On the Deficit

Dearest listeners. Today the American government is faced with a colossal deficit of approximately 13 trillion dollars. Economists fear that we are at the tipping point at which the revenue earned by the government will not be able to even pay off the interest on the innumerable loans the government has taken out over the course of its 234-year lifespan.

But we are faced with a dilemma. Politicians being politicians, they refuse to raise taxes, citing that the problem does not come from the amount of revenue the government earns from its annual harvests in April. To begin with, though, the tax code is fraught with loopholes and complications. It needs to be cleaned in more ways than one. I do believe that the process of raising taxes as one's wealth rises is worthless. It makes it not as profitable to raise one's social status. A major tenet of American culture is that anyone can make it anywhere. Raising your taxes as you earn more is counter to this principle. Therefore, this should be removed from the tax code, instead replacing it with a flat tax of, for example, 30%. Its both fair and simple.

However, let us return to the fact that taxes apparently shouldn't be raised under any circumstances, no matter what. It's a political no-no, and that's idiotic. Taxes ebb and flow with the state of the country's deficit, and they cannot just be lowered and lowered and lowered. We have come across a plain example of the Machiavellian paradox.

Niccoló Machiavelli, an Italian humanist philosopher of the Renaissance, developed many theories of governance in his writings. In one of these, he states that a ruler should not always simply appease the masses, but do what is best for the state. If a ruler always pleases his people, when it comes time to make changes that will harm each person individually, but benefit the state as a whole, they will be incredibly resistant. This is what is occurring in not only the United States, but also other nations as they react to their deficits and aging populations. The populace is screaming against the reforms because they will take away government handouts  (or in the United State's case, low taxes) that they have considered essential rights. It's time for everyone to man up, tighten their belts, and prepare to not be political fools. The United Kingdom has done this successfully. We can too.

Nuclear Power

Hello dear listeners. I have just read that the New START Treaty, a vital treaty to reduce nuclear arms, is due for vote in the next few weeks. The Republican party, which had mostly opposed the treaty, has seen the views of its electorate, and decided to split. The more conservative Republicans continue to oppose the treaty, citing that it would lower America's ability to respond to threats and lower the danger of Mutually Assured Destruction. These are invalid points. We (we meaning the entire global community) currently have enough nuclear arms to annihilate every country on the planet three times over. The decreasing of our supplies of nuclear weapons from roughly 2,200 to 1,500 is a task for the safety of the global community. I certainly don't want to be killed in World War III. Because, as Einstein said, "I don't know how World War III will be fought, but I know how the Fourth World War will be: rocks!"

Now the question is how to correctly utilize the stocks of enriched uranium and plutonium that each nuclear weapon contains. I do not know if this is on the table, but I think that this fissile material should be used to fuel a new era in the construction of nuclear power plants. We can derive great stores of clean energy, provide plenty of jobs, and solve our nuclear crisis by simply utilizing the fuel for a better use. If this action is not taken, this hazardous material will probably end up in a military storage facility, the vast stores of energy it contains useless. That is not the path I would like to take.

Let's take out three birds with one stone. Let's switch to nuclear power.

An Update on Current Affairs

Hello to my four current followers. In the past few months a myriad of different events have occured, mostly negative. The world has become a much rockier place, and I am frightened for several reasons.

To start, the complete reversal of the United States House of Representatives to the Republican Party. I am not so much scared of the political ideas they will implement, as on some I agree with them, but I am mortified by the possibilty of the repeal of many environmental standards.

I think that an explanation of my name is in order as of now, as it helps explain why I feel so strongly liberal about environmental issues. Nudibranchs are a specific family of sea slugs in the order Ophistobranchia. The name, translated from its roots, means naked gills or naked lungs. Their gills, unlike most marine gastropods, are outside of their bodies in protrusions called cerata. Because of their vulnerability, they ingest poisonous sponges, cnidarians, and other toxic marine life. They are my personal favorite creature.

However, the oceans are overtaxed and being destroyed by pollution. All animals, not just nudibranchs, are vulnerable. With thousands, if not millions, of scientific papers related to the destruction of the environment, how can the Republicans possibly deny any more that we need to change our habits?

The scientific community is raging at the views of the Republican party. While we will never prove that humans are directly causing global warming, we are certainly increasing the effect, they argue. For example: it is a well known fact that the combustion of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide and water, along with other chemicals. Modern technology does help us remove some of the more harmful ones. However, we also know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. So if about 200,000,000 cars are producing carbon dioxide almost every day, how is it disputable that humans are not affecting, if not directly causing, climate change?

There is further proof that because of the effects of the Industrial Revolution, the number of droughts, flash floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters related to climate change have been increased exponentially. It is unreasonable, if not just crazy, to argue that we, as the only form of sapient life on Earth, should not try to stop this.

However, the Republicans argue that implementing environmental laws will cost the nation jobs. While most likely, and unfortunately, this is true, that is increasing the threat of  a disaster of global proportions. The longer we wait to stop climate change, the more we are going to have to do to either A. prevent life loss, or B. reverse the effects. We have to act now. Not ten years from now, not twenty years from now. Now. Otherwise, the effects will be too great to stop.

As I have said in a previous post, a trillion or two is worth preventing the end of the world.

Moving to other affairs, we have the budget defficit, which Congress is failing at as usual. The solution to this problem is going to have to involve a raise in taxes for everyone, not just the "rich."

Note that I put quotes around the word rich. That is on purpose. The definition of rich seems to be, for the average American, millionaires and billionaires. Unfortunately, the tax bracket including millionaires and billionaires also includes people who just became successful, i.e. small business owners. We need to separate the succesful from the wealthy before we start raising taxes on the "rich." It's unfair to group people that live completely different lives into the same group. Confusing millionaires with small business owners is just as
bad as equating the middle-class with the lower-class.

However, I have to agree with Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernankey that now really isn't the time to raise taxes to cover the deficit. However, we do need to stop "kicking the can down the road." So maybe it is time to deal with the monster in the closet of the deficit. But to prevent damge to the enconomy, taxes should niether be raised nor lowered. Instead, the code should be cleaned up.

I don't remember which Senator said this, but in a speech to the Detroit Economic Conference, a Republican Senator talked about how the tax code works in short. It was staggering. The number of things a person can be taxed on is appalling, and the number of loopholes in the law is surely inumerable. Before we start raising, lowering, or changing any part of the numeral parts of the tax code, we should make it effectively and fairly make revenue.

I will not talk about Don't Ask, Don't Tell in length, as I believe it's unimportant. All I think is that it should be changed to Don't Ask, Don't Care.

Thank you for listening. Tell your friends, please, and if you listen but haven't subscribed, please do. I'd like to know you care.

Democrat v. Republican and Why It Isn't Working

We have a bipartisan system. Our constitution states that each side is meant to represent the opposite points of view for each issue. Unfortunately, modern issues are too complex to allow for just one solution.

Let's begin with our struggling economy. The Democrats propose raising taxes on the rich. Let's define the term "rich," though. "Rich" in the modern sense means anyone who earns over $250,000 per year. That probably makes up about 4% of that tax bracket, which makes up only 5% of the U.S. population. Most of those people are doctors, lawyers, and small business owners who worked through extra years at college and work arguably more stressful jobs. The people who deserve taxation are people who earn over $1,000,000 per year, a so-called "millionaire's tax." In fact, before the 1950s, only millionaires paid income tax. Simply put, a solution to taxation may be a removal of the income tax, as 95% of the revenue comes from the top 1% of wealth.

However, lowering taxes may not be a solution right now. That's what the Republicans want. Arguably, lower taxes could stimulate the economy, but to me, it seems like a cheap election ploy. The goal of every politician today is to get reelected. Some politicians have been in the House or Senate for over 30 years. Therefore, I think its logical to amend the constitution so that politicians can only be elected once, and receive no salary. Being a politician should be about getting things done, not getting a cushy job because you have enough money to spoil the opposition with possibly bogus campaign adds. I'm  pointing fingers at both sides, because almost all politicians are wealthy enough to make adds and run for office. Which is why I think that political parties should fund the races. Everyone gets $100,000 to run for office; if you don't win, you can't say it was because you didn't spend enough money. Furthermore, adds should be limited to support, not criticism of other candidates.

Despite this, I think the bipartisan system is really ineffectual. In the end, it becomes a brawl between two opposing armies who will just try to defeat the other by any means necessary. Just look at the recent health care bill. A full year was spent on it basically because the Republicans just kept saying no, no, no. That's a pointless waste of time for both sides. In that time, the Republicans should have come up with an effective response that could have favored what they support: strong defense, low taxes, and small government. Also, some things end up just being political games. Bills that could help the environment become worthless because they allow oil companies to continue to have free reign through our already overtaxed oceans or start to gain ground in fragile areas of the northern tundra. That is why I propose that the party system be completely disbanded, or independent parties be allowed to enter the House and Senate. There are more than one perspective on every issue. Let's have those perspectives heard.