A New....Old idea that just might help.

Due family obligations and a busy schedule it has been difficult for me to write on the many events that have occurred in our country over the last few weeks. However, after what has happened with the whole budget debacle I felt compelled to write something as opposed to nothing.  Here we have two sides with two opposite Ideologies. One side believes in spending so as to create jobs, social programs, and taxation of the rich. The other side believes in spending cuts, the dis-continuation of social programs and tax cuts for the rich, as well as the middle class. Both sides want the economy to improve. So how do we compromise on such opposite ideologies? I submit to you the Negative Income Tax (NIT).

Now don't get me wrong, I've always been Conservative, and no I'm not moving to the middle. The Negative Income Tax is not a new idea and it could actually be a benefit to Republicans by exploring it. The NIT was introduced in the late 1960’s by free-market economist Milton Friedman as an alternative tax to combat the ever increasing welfare state that was being created by the Government. In a recent City Journal Article by Guy Sorman, I read and re-read the NIT idea and, to be honest it is really thinking outside of the box; something that our “Great Leaders” in Washington should be doing at this point in History.

So what is the NIT? In the City Journal Article that I read, Sorman writes:  “The NIT is easy to describe. ‘The basic idea,’ Friedman wrote in a 1968 Newsweek column, ‘is to use the mechanism by which we now collect tax revenue from people with incomes above some minimum level to provide financial assistance to people with incomes below that level.’ Already, he pointed out, no one pays taxes on the first few thousand dollars of income, thanks to personal exemptions and deductions. Most earners pay a fraction of their “positive taxable income”—that is, the amount by which their earnings exceed that first few thousand dollars. In Friedman’s plan, the poor would similarly receive a fraction of their “negative taxable income”—the amount by which their earnings fell short of that level. This direct cash grant would replace all other welfare programs for the poor, which, Friedman rightly observed, were generating a huge bureaucracy and extensive welfare dependency.”  (http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_1_income-tax.html)

So exactly how would this work? Again, I refer to Sorman: “To limit the disincentive, Friedman argued, the NIT should be progressive. Say the government drew the income line at $10,000 for a family of four and the NIT was 50 percent, as most economists recommend. If the family had no income at all, it would receive $5,000—that is, 50 percent of the amount by which its income fell short of $10,000. If the family earned $2,000, it would get $4,000 from the government—again, 50 percent of its income shortfall—for a total post-tax income of $6,000. Bring in $4,000, and it would receive $3,000, for a total of $7,000. So as the family’s earnings rise, its post-tax income rises, too, preserving the work incentive. This is very different from many social welfare programs, in which a household either receives all of a benefit or, if it ceases to qualify, nothing at all. The all-or-nothing model encourages what social scientists call “poverty traps,” tempting the poor not to improve their situations.” (http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_1_income-tax.html)

Now let’s put this theory in today’s economic market. According the 2010 U.S. Census, the Poverty Threshold for a family of 4 with 2 children is $22,162. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html) For the sake of argument, let’s say the median income for this particular group is set at $25,000. So, if a family of 4 with 2 kids makes no income at all they will get a 50% difference of the median income which is $12,500. Not too bad for doing nothing. Let’s say this same family makes $10,000 in income, again they will get a 50% difference totaling $7,500 for a total post tax income of $17,500. One last example, let’s say the same family makes $20,000 in income, they will get a 50% difference of $2,500 for a total post income of $22,500. So why is there only a 50% difference? As explained, it would give incentive for one to work because the more you work, the more post tax income you have. There has to be a percentage of median income set so as to provide this incentive. An additional incentive would be that there would be no more social programs, such as food stamps, for one to fall back on if they don't want to use their talents to get a job and work.

We’ll, what about health care? Sorman’s Article goes on to say that one of two things could happen. One would be to keep Medicare and Medicaid in place and give a less NIT. The other, which I like the best, would be to offer Health Care Vouchers, much in the same way that School Vouchers work. Why not make the insurance companies compete with each other? Let people go across state lines and offer them vouchers for the most affordable and best health care options? The school voucher program does work in the sense that schools are more competitive with each other. Just look at the paper and you will see the many advertisements from schools who want your kid as their student. It helps keep the schools accountable for their work. I’m sure this could work with the insurance companies. Vouchers could apply to a Government Healthcare plan as well if one makes a CHOICE to enroll in one.

Okay then, what about food? This is where the NIT is brilliant in its thinking. You make the individual responsible for their choices. Yep, the individual has to choose what they are going to do with post median income that they are going to get. Are they going to go out and buy a new big screen TV and video game system? Or are they going to save the money for future food purchases for their family? And when they buy the food, are they going to buy that six pack of beer for themselves? Or are they going to buy a few gallons of milk for their kids? Responsibility is the key in this case. Something that many American’s need to re-learn.
What about those who can’t work? For those who are disabled and can’t work, I believe it will have to be approached on a case by case basis; and most likely for these individuals, some kind of voucher and median income program will have to be set in place. Why? Because these are the individuals who will really NEED the help. However, they will have to prove that they are really disabled to qualify. This is the only exception that I can see here for the NIT.

Lastly, the NIT will take care of many other issues that face our country. I’ll just hit on the issue of how the NIT will effect Illegal immigration. According to Sorman’s article: “The NIT would reduce illegal immigration, too. Managed by the IRS, it would apply only to citizens and legal residents, and since it would eliminate welfare programs, aliens would have less incentive to cross the border illegally for government benefits (though local authorities would still have to decide whether to grant them access to schools and hospitals).” http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_1_income-tax.html What a deterrent! And it doesn’t even involve the Border Patrol.

From what I see if the NIT was established, the Dems will get their tax raises because those who make money above the median income will be taxed at a progressive rate, which is something they really like. The Reps will get their savings because social welfare programs will be very much diminished, if not shut down,  as well as government bureaucracy.  Now, I'm no economist but, I guess the whole budget issue is that we are so stuck in our current way of thinking that we ignore other alternatives that may be out there for us to explore. Don’t get me wrong, the NIT would need to have some tweaking done to work, but to me it seems like a good theory to try at this time.

Sources:
http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_1_income-tax.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html

Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero to cut 120 plus Public Sector Union Jobs.

In a March 29, 2011 article, the Lansing State Journal reported that former Michigan Government Candidate Virg Bernero has suggested cutting around 120 Public Sector Union jobs, involving Police and Fire, to help balance the City of Lansing budget. In other words, they will be laid off. http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20110329/NEWS01/103290329/Bernero-s-Lansing-budget-plan-cuts-police-fire-jobs?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

GASP!!! Why, this is outrageous! Gather up the protestors! Let’s march on Lansing to protect our jobs! Call up the Unions and have them bus in as many people as they can so we can have a good show of force! Call up Michael Moore so he can give an uplifting speech so as to encourage the Union protesters.  Call up the Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson and have them begin to chant through the Bull Horns, “SAVE OUR JOBS! UNFAIR! SHAME!” Call up the Union Presidents to give rousing Union rights speeches in City Hall. Better yet, call up President Obama so that he can put in his two cents to help bring this to National Attention. We need too…..what? Mr. Bernero is a Democrat? Really?

Then….ummmmm. Blame Bush! Blame Bush! Wait….no….that won’t work. Ah Ha! Got it! Blame Snyder! Blame Snyder! How dare he take away municipality revenue sharing so as to help balance the State Budget! Who cares if this revenue sharing program will put us further in debt. The State of Michigan owes the municipalities that money so they can pay our $64,000 salaries with a $34,000 benefits package along with full health, dental, and vision. I mean, we can’t expect the cities, townships and villages to consolidate and balance their own budget, when the State can swoop right in and do it for them.  It’s not fair for them to take away this important…. wait….what did you say? The State will hand out incentives to the municipalities?

Great! What do you mean if they qualify? You mean that we need to hold municipalities accountable? They have to do work and make hard decisions so as to balance their budgets? We have to consolidate services so as to save millions of dollars? New Union Members will now have to pay 20% of their health care costs like the Private Sector. http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20110321/NEWS04/103210326/Gov-Snyder-lays-out-ideas-streamlining-Michigan-government?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

We are better than them! We do more for the individual taxpayer than any Private Sector employee! We are a necessity to the community! We are supported by the taxpayers that pay our salaries and benefit packages and to prove this we are going to ask the municipalities, cities and villages to raise the citizens taxes so as to counteract this atrocious cut that mean Mr. Snyder has suggested. This raise in taxes is necessary so that we can keep our salaries way above the Private Sector. How dare they! How dare they keep us accountable and force us to share the sacrifice with everyone else. How dare they. Shame. Shame . Shame.  We should have Bernero in office. He would have never cut Public Sector Union jobs to balance a budget regardless of the fact that he just did this in Lansing. We can’t hold him accountable to his actions because he is one of us…..

(Honestly I could go on, but I think I proved my point that when a Democrat does the same thing that a Republican does, they are exempt from all blame. Amazing double standard isn’t it? )

Florida Judge states that Islamic Law will be used to decide Civil case

This has not yet made it to the Large News Organizations, but it has been reported by ACT for America and other blog posts. I don't understand why this has not been on CNN, FOX, MSNBC or any other news organizations. It is a concerning case because it seems to trump United States Federal Law.

A little background on this case. According to an March 18th ACT E-mail which I received:

"In Tampa, Florida, a dispute arose over who controls the funds a mosque received in 2008 from an eminent domain proceeding. Former trustees of the mosque are claiming in court they have the right to the funds. Current mosque leaders are disputing that claim. The current mosque leaders want the case decided according to secular, Florida civil law, and their attorney has been vigorously arguing the case accordingly. The former trustees of the mosque want the case decided according to sharia law. "

Now, I normally would not automatically believe this type of claim, but a Judgment Ruling has been published and it states that the case will be decided by Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.

http://tool.donation-net.net/Images/Email/1097/110303_Order_in_Connection_with_Plaintiffs__Emergency_Motion.pdf

Why is Federal Law being trumped by Islamic Law? In my own opinion this Judge should be removed for subverting Federal Law. I wonder if the Major News Organizations will pick up on this Ruling.

Also see Newsmax who has recently reported this outrageous action by this Judge. 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/tampa-judge-islamiccase-mosque/2011/03/22/id/390356?s=al&promo_code=BEA0-1

A few little Libyan secrets.

Now that the United States has engaged itself against Col. Gaddafi there are a few things that are beginning to "leak" out that seem to have been suppressed by the Obama Administration.

First, Obama has bowed to the United Nations authority instead of the United States Constitutional Authority which states that only Congress can "declare War" or authorize use of troops. Now, some may say that he is invoking the 1973 War Powers Act. However, the President can only invoke this act for one of three reasons: "1. A declaration of War. 2. Specific Statutory Authorization. 3. A National emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or it's armed forces."  http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm In taking a look at the Lybian situation this 1973 War Powers Act does not fall into play. A declaration of War was never made by Lybia. However, that could change because we have already attacked them. As for the "Statutory Authority", this may be where Obama "gets away" with side stepping this Act because the United Nations has Authorized the use of Force and may have invoked article 43 of the UN Charter. However, in section 3 of Article 43 it recognizes the constitutional processes of its members. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml We will see what happens. If Obama is successful in invoking the 1973 War Powers Act he has a total of 90 days to use the US Military, after that he must cease all use of the Military in Lybia period. A question that I have is, why has Obama submitted to the UN while ignoring the soverenty of the US? Does the UN now create US Policy under the Obama administration?

Second, it appears that the US has been duped in that the Rebels in Lybia may be tied to non other than al-Queda. Yep, you read right....al-Qaeda. S reported in the UK The Telegraph, "Statements of support for Lybia's revolution by al-Qaeda and leading Islamists have led to fears that military action by the West might be playing into the hands of its ideological enemies." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8391632/Libya-the-West-and-al-Qaeda-on-the-same-side.html

The article also states: "An al-Qaeda leader of Libyan origin, Abu Yahya al-Libi, released a statement backing the insurrection a week ago, while Yusuf Qaradawi, the Qatar-based, Muslim Brotherhood-linked theologian issues a fatwa authorising Col Gaddafi's military entourage to assasinate him."

So, this begs some questions, Why is our Military over in Lybia? Why are we backing our sworn enemies? Why is Obama backing our sworn enemies? Maybe this is a "wag the dog" type of a situation created by the Obama administration to create a diversion from the mess that he has caused. Maybe he want's to be seen as a War Time President for re-election purposes and Lybia is the key to making that happen. This could explain why the Arab League has joined in this UN approved action. But who will ask the President these hard questions? Who will call him out? Where is the Main Stream Media on this one? Will Congress have the guts to stand up to a President who seemingly rules like a king? Is impeachment an option if it is proven that Obama is supporting our enemies? Many questions to ask, but who will have the guts to ask them first?