Tag: Politics

Tax and Budget Reform

I wish there was a decent way to file RFE’s (request for enhancements) with the federal government. I can’t do a thing about the complexity of the tax code or the annoyance of having to spend a weekend filling out forms just to get my money back. But there’s existing tax code for charitable deductions (although you can fall afoul of the AMT if you donate too much of your income … so that may need a little rewrite here). Create a new tax deductible donation categorization for government entities — then each department of the government not get themselves registered as a not-for-profit-goverment-entity that qualifies for tax deductible charitable donations. I would feel a LOT better about paying 10k in taxes this year if I knew the money was going toward departments I support (and not going to departments I do not support). I could literally donate every dollar I owe in taxes to specific departments – then get my payroll deduction contributions completely refunded (bonus, US government, you got the interest on my payroll deductions since you held on to them). Don’t want to bother? Then don’t – your payroll deductions will get allocated out for you through the budgeting process.

With a significant adoption rate, if no one wants to fund the Department of Whatever, then the people writing the budget could well take that as a hint. Obviously that’s not a perfect rule – no one wants to fund the IRS, but you’re still going to need someone to handle tax collection & filing (at least until you manage to sort out the tax code & processes). But someone who advocates eliminating the Department of Education may be surprised how many people voluntarily earmark their taxes for Education. Or the military industrial complex may be shocked that donations don’t approach the 60% or 16% (depending on your point of view of “all spending”) of the federal budget that goes into the military and Homeland Security.

Absolutism

I read an article from the NY Times stating: ‘Mr. Trump suggested that all Muslim immigrants posed potential threats to America’s security and called for a ban on migrants from any part of the world with “a proven history of terrorism” against the United States or its allies’. I know there’s a lot of interpretation in journalism, and I was curious what he actually advocated.

One quick Google later, I found the speech text on the candidate’s web site:

    “When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.”

If this is what the man actually said, then there’s no third-party misinterpretation to blame. “Areas” of the world is vague, but I get not using legally accurate terms in campaign speeches. Linguistic and legal nuances are not exactly gripping (and sometimes get ridiculed a la what-the-meaning-of-is-is). But where there is a proven history of terrorism against the US, Europe, or our allies??? No delta-time qualification in there, so the Irish are right out? Bonus, though, is he inadvertently sorted a huge portion of South/Central America with this generalization too. For the most part, it’s been decades there too, but “fuera yankis” and all that.

Actually, I’d find the proposal far less incendiary if he said “the immigration system is absolutely a mess. I propose stopping all immigration for six months while we figure out how to do this properly.”. Years ago, Microsoft had a run of significant bugs and took a coding holiday to perform a code review. Similar thing — yeah, it’s disruptive to shut down our business for some period of time while we make sure we’re doing the right thing … but it’s more disruptive to continue doing the wrong thing.

Problem is that what Mr. Trump probably means is more apt to be banning immigration from any country some arbitrary individual / board decides seems like it could be dangerous (or just to be safe – any individual immigrant who looks like ..). Which would be frighteningly institutionalized racism.

Multi Party System

I’m eternally hopeful that a viable third party will emerge from the chaos that is the American political landscape. Movements with sufficient momentum (e.g. the tea party who think taxation with representation is just as bad as taxation without) get absorbed into one of the two traditional parties. And while I am still certain a viable centrist party would provide a truer picture of American’s actual will, the Republican primaries serve as warning against dividing the electorate among dozens of parties.

In the UK, there are hundreds of parties. A good dozen of them are represented in Parliament. But there’s no national vote for Prime Minister – if no party garners a sufficient majority in Parliament, then parties agree to work together (a coalition government) until a sufficient majority is created. And failure to abide by the agreement can force a PM out of office. Unless a plurality of Britons chose to elect the same party, the most extreme views of any party are tempered by the views of their coalition partners.

In the US, however, there is a nation-wide vote for head of the Executive branch. What would an American election look like with a dozen viable political parties? The Republican primary has shown us – last cycle and again this year. The lesson from last cycle is that a dozen people researching and publicizing the worst about each other diminishes them all. If half a dozen people spent six months digging into every single action or interaction you’ve had in your lifetime and assembling a worst-of list … I doubt anyone would look good. But this year the lesson is more dangerous — splitting your electorate in so many pieces allows an individual who is not the majority’s preference … a charismatic individual, an individual with divisive enough views to appeal to a “their” segment and  a small fraction of other voting segments … to win the election. If 120 million people vote in the presidential election, but split their votes across a dozen parties, someone could win with thirteen million votes. 89% of voters don’t want the person in office, but there they sit.

I still wish for a viable centrist third party, but many party systems are probably best left to Parliamentary systems.

Great again?

We’ve been seeing a lot of political ads and campaign rallies – and I am constantly struck by Trump’s slogan. Make American great again. I know there are people who dispute it because “we’re already great”. Whatever, never been a big fan of exceptionalism in any country. What I want to know is … to which “great” time period does he want us to return? Just before Obama – embroiled in two military offensives that were doomed from the start? The 90’s – wait, that was Clinton. 80’s – run away deficits and a nuclear arms race? The 70’s with the oil embargo? The 60’s – well, they’ve got good music, good drugs … but they’re also about as close to nuclear annihilation as we’ve ever been, a president who was assassinated, and a lot of racial turmoil. The 50’s – not the TV fantasy, but the reality – Brown v Board of Education was a good step, but the actual desegregation process was ugly. Outside of schools, it isn’t like Rosa Parks sat down and ended segregation. Women – well, we were allowed to vote, but didn’t have a lot of options that provided economic independence. Maybe back to before women could vote? Or how about when people could be legal possessions? Maybe he thinks we went wrong breaking away from England and we should request our colony status back?

His slogan, at least to me, has an a priori assumption that you are a white dude. Old white dudes gave up a lot — more voters mean less power per vote, more people vying for jobs means it is harder to get a job, independent women mean you need to be more cognizant of your partner’s needs. Young white dudes didn’t get to experience the “great” before, but I could see wanting to return too. But, seriously, half of the country isn’t a dude. Some other significant percentage isn’t white. Maybe you’ll get lucky and a large proportion of white dudes will show up to vote. But how can you govern an entire country when your entire platform is focused on the needs of maybe 40% of the population?

Primary Elections In Ohio

This is mostly a note for myself, but if anyone else in Ohio is currently an unaffiliated voter who wants to cast a primary ballot for a party, you can switch party affiliation at your polling location by asking for the party ballot. Since you did not cast a ballot for that party in the previous primary (I’ve used the non-party issues ballot for the past few years. In Arkansas, you did not have to be party-affiliated to use a party’s primary ballot), you may be challenged by the poll worker. If that is the case, tell them you wish to switch parties and would like to complete the appropriate form.

Per Ohio Revised Code 3513.20, this is the proper process *provided that you “support the principals of the political party whose ballot” you vote*. Political party principals are *really* generic (and don’t specify the specifics to reach those goals) – not a lot of people who want more crime, think primary education is a bunch of nonsense, wish there was more unemployment, and so on. Really, even long time party members disagree about how to reach a goal and how well an individual candidate reflects the principals of their party … so not liking a specific policy implementation does not negate my support for the PRINCIPALS of the party.