Responsibility of wealth

The unfortunate reality about wealth is its power to corrupt.  People who have the ability to help other people often do very little.  I realize I live in a glass house on this one as I have done nothing myself, but I also haven't had much that I can help with either.  As Americans we live in a very prosperous nation, and yet we have a large poverty problem.  It is no wonder the 99 percent movement exists. When the top 1% control 43% of the overall wealth of the nation and the top 5% a total of 72%, there is a huge disparity.  If there were 100 people in a room and we ordered 10 pizzas with 10 slices each.  At this rate, 1 person would get 4 of those pizzas and an extra 3 slices.  The next 4 people would get 2 pizzas and 9 more slices.  The 95 other people would then have to split the other 28 slices.

While being wealthy in and of itself is not a bad thing.  Being greedy, selfish, and narcissistic is.  As Barack Obama has stated in his campaign, no one has become wealthy without other people.  In fact without other people's existence, wealth has no meaning.  You cannot become wealthy without other people placing value on your goods and/or services.  You cannot become wealthy without other people being able to have access to your goods and/or services.  This is what Barack Obama was talking about when he said "You didn't build that".  He was referring to the roads and bridges, the society that we all belong to, the public services that we all depend on, the education system that allowed the United States to prosper, and fireman, policemen and EMTs that we all pay to protect us.  Without these public services that we all pay for with our taxes, an individual has no capability of becoming wealthy.
So if wealth cannot exist without a society, then to continue being wealthy, society must continue to exist.  But you didn't come here to read tautologies.  Having wealth to such an extent that it is impossible to spend it all has little meaning except to stroke one's ego.  Unless that money is being used to provide goods and services for people whether by donation or through new or expanded businesses, then that money is just sitting in a bank account, not doing anything.  I'm sorry, but your ego is just not as important as the health of society.  Society helped make you wealthy, is it not also your responsibility to give back to that society?  I realize that you cannot and should not be able to compel the wealthy to help the rest of society, but we as a nation need to create a culture where we hoist those who help their fellow citizens on our shoulders as heros.  As people we should all aspire to be.  Our current culture has role models such as Snooki and Chris Brown.  These people are awful human beings and yet they are the types of people who get all our attention.  We need a change of culture.  Our culture needs to place altruism and philanthropy as core values.

Why the war on drugs is ballooning our debt

I don't know if I've made it clear enough in the past, but I will make it undeniably clear now.  The government should not be in the business of telling people what they should or should not be doing so long as the actions individuals take do not negatively impact others without their prior consent.  This means that I am of the opinion that if someone wants to inject into their blood stream a dose of methamphetamine, then by all means do so.  We currently allow people to drink alcohol and smoke tobacco without much concern.  While it may extremely personally detrimental for a person to take meth, that is their choice.  It is again the "conservatives" that push "big government" in this area of our lives.

Let's start by discussing what would happen if we immediately decriminalized narcotics.  The amount of money that would be saved simply from not having to house the amount of people in our prisons  would be outrageous.  The United States currently has 2.3 million people in prisons.  This is almost 1/4th of the world's total number of incarcerations.  We see that 20% of people in state prisons are there for drug related offenses and over 50% in federal prisons.  This means that on day one of decriminalizing drugs would immediately release at least 400,000 people.  These are people who can work and pay taxes and contribute to society.  This also means 400,000 people who we as tax payers do not need to spend money on to house and feed.  It costs nearly $50,000 to house a prisoner for a year.  Some quick math here, $50,000 * 400,000 people = $20,000,000,000.  If you count the zeros, thats 20 billion dollars.  This is just for not having to house these people in the prisons.

If we then turn to the other costs related to this the savings begins to balloon.  How much time and money is spent in courts dealing with these people every year?  We require administrative time spent having to deal with paperwork, paying for public defense attorneys, wasting judicial resources.  So surely I have convinced you that ending criminalization of drugs would save the taxpayers a lot of money.  But let me remind you, this isn't money that is being saved, this is money not being spent.  This is actually spending a spending cut.

Now let's talk about the money the government can actually earn based on the legalization of drugs.  States make about 19 billion dollars a year in taxes on tobacco and the federal government another 7 billion dollars.  That is a large amount of money that the government makes by taxing a legal drug.

What are the social implications of legalizing drugs?  Drugs can be regulated.  That means that they can be made safer.  The largest implication is that drug cartels can no longer make money selling drugs.  The great number of people who have been killed near the Mexican border is a result of the war on drugs in America.  The money that the government makes from the taxes on the sale of drugs can be used on education programs in the same way that anti-tobacco campaigns were done.

Let's stop spending billions of dollars on needlessly arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating people for doing with their body as they please.  This is not liberty, but tyranny.  Let's not give incentive for illegal activity with a prohibition that isn't working.  This is exactly history repeating itself with the prohibition of the early 20th century.  How long do we have to wait to learn from our own mistakes.

Values voters hate the first amendment

Someone has to say it.  People who make political campaigns and vote based on moral objections do not understand the principles behind the first amendment.  The purpose of the first amendment was to attempt to spell out that it is not the government's responsibility to tell its citizens what they should or should not be doing in their private lives.  The government should only become involved when actions taken affect others.  This means that people who campaign or vote based on positions that are against gay marriage or gay adoption are actually doing something that in all honesty should be illegal.

Discrimination based on ethnicity, race, religion, age, or sex is already illegal.  With the exception of religion, these are all things one is born with and is incapable of changing.  All reputable scientific evidence suggests the same for sexual preference.  Standing in opposition of these allowing people to have such rights is outright bigotry.  It is no different than when the disgusting legislation that prevented interracial couples from getting wed.  It astounds me that this type of thing is by default illegal in the first place.  I cannot understand the mindset of someone who thinks that they should have the power to prevent other people from enjoying rights that they themselves are allowed to practice.

Now let us begin by discussing the hypocrisy of the values voters who claim to be conservative.  I was under the impression that conservatism meant less government intervention in the lives of its citizens.  And yet value voters are more than happy to shove an ultrasound wand inside of a woman for exercising her freedom to have an abortion and even less of a problem with having the government be in the business of forming marital bonds, but only when it's the way they like it.  This is not what conservatism is or should be about.  This is not liberty, but tyranny.  It is beyond my ability to comprehend how a person can proclaim that the first amendment allows them the right to both free speech and freedom of religion to tell other's how they should and through legislation how they shall live their lives.  Meanwhile, when these people are told that this is inappropriate and violates first amendment rights, those very same people proclaim persecution.

This article is going to run a little long because I have one last point to make.  Value voters are also extraordinarily short sighted.  Many of them are Christians and many of them will say that they would not want to be forced to follow the laws of Islam for example.  But by putting into effect these religious based laws, they are in fact opening the door for Muslims to do exactly the same thing with regard to their own religious convictions.  With precedent being set that religiously based laws being acceptable, it takes only a majority of voters (since too many people don't vote) to be Muslim to force Islam based legislation on the Christians.  And we all know who will be the first to claim that they shouldn't be allowed to do it based on the first amendment.

Universal health care

As an elected official, your job is to serve your constituents in a manor that best serves their interests. This may or may not always be a popular decision, but no one said being a politician would be an easy job.  This means that the Affordable Care Act was the wrong policy to pass.  Politicians spent too much time doing politics and not enough time caring about the people of the United States.  At no point did I hear politicians talking about how the Affordable Care Act didn't go far enough.  I only ever heard about how its socialism and how it destroys capitalism.  No one ever mentioned how actual universal health care has already been tested, it has already been proven successful, and it has already proven to raise overall health of a society.  According to the World Health Organization, America is ranked 37th in the world in terms of overall health, all while spending the most money on health care per person.  Guess what, more than a majority of the countries on this list have universal health care.

Our "representatives", Democratic or Republican, were elected to represent our interests in Congress.  In a single paragraph, I have shown that neither party is doing this.  The best argument I've heard against universal health care is monetary, but we already spend more on health care per person than any other country.  Our representatives unfortunately care more about the interests of the people who pay for their campaign than about the people who actually elected them into office.  Several articles claim that 94% of elections are won by the candidate who spent the most money, and while this statistic may be a bit of an overestimate, it is not far from the truth.

So who's fault is it that money rules our politics?  It is no one's fault.  This may not be the answer you were expecting, but there really is no one to blame.  It truly is the system that is to blame, but this is a discussion that will be had at a later date.

Compassion, sympathy, and empathy

I would like to know when the concept of compassion for other human beings became synonymous with liberalism.  The current political atmosphere of the United States has gotten to the point where having compassion, sympathy, or empathy for other people makes someone a liberal.  The only way to be a conservative in this country is to be selfish and self interested.  There's another word for this, narcissism.  It sickens me to see the sort of policy that the right wing conservatives push forward these days.

While you may agree or disagree morally about abortion, it is a fact that abortion is a legal procedure in the United States, it does not give you the right to federally violate a woman for electing to use a legal procedure.  Republicans have put forth numerous bills designed to either humiliate or violate a woman for attempting to receive an abortion.  In response, several Democrats have countered with satire and suggesting that men should be forced to endure similar humiliation and violations.  The Republican response was to dismiss it completely and not accept the satire for its true purpose.  To reflect upon themselves and see to see why it was that these Democrats would suggest such ridiculous proposals.

The reason Republicans "don't get it" is because they don't have empathy.  And when I refer to Republicans and Democrats, I mean only the politicians.  While what I say may apply to citizens that vote along these party lines, they are not the people that I am referring to.  So when I say Republicans don't have empathy, I mean to say that these politicians don't care about how the laws they vote into effect affect other people.  They don't care so long as it is the vote that will result in the better chance to be reelected in the next election.  Current politics has become a system where you step on and over anyone and everyone that becomes a problem to your reelection.  This is wrong!!!  Caring about the people you represent and attempting to do right by the people that elected you should not be a liberal ideal, it should be an American ideal.  Our heros are not those who made a little effort and kept getting elected, our heros are those who sacrificed for other people to improve other peoples lives.

"May I never get too busy in my own affairs that I fail to respond to the needs of others with kindness and compassion." -- Thomas Jefferson

No "conservative" can ever tell me that I don't follow the ideals of our founding fathers.  I will continue to attack their ideals with the very words of the founding fathers they claim to support.  I do very much believe that the type of politics that exists today is exactly what the founding fathers were attempting to avoid, but unfortunately greed and corruption is immortal and mankind is ever so mortal.  Greed and corruption are Pennywise and we the people need to rise up every so often and banish it back and remind future generations not to allow these awful traits of human nature to arise.  We must play wack-a-mole better and kill corruption before it can take root and spread.  Special bonus prize to anyone who understands the Pennywise reference.

Separation of church and state

Why did the puritans leave Britain to come to the United States?  To escape religious persecution.  People should be allowed to live their lives in a way that best suits them. Typically this is not a problem, but it becomes a problem when a person living their life impacts others in a way that the other people find undesireable.  This is where a separation of church and state becomes important.  If you believe that drawing a picture of your prophet is blasphemous, then it is up to you to not draw a picture of your prophet.  It is not, however, your responsibility to prevent me from drawing a picture of your prophet.  If I draw a picture of a person, does it affect you in any discernible way?  Of course, most reasonable people will say no.  But as soon as I say that the name of the person that I drew is the name of your prophet, suddenly it upsets some people, this is not a problem with the drawing, it is a problem with those people.

To the barely observant, you will notice that I'm poking at the Muslim faith at the moment.  With that having been said, my claim does not solely apply to the Muslim faith.  It also applies to all creeds, faiths and religions.  In the current political climate, this means that Christians in America should not be in the business of telling homosexuals that they are not allowed to be married because it offends their god.  Again, it is not the responsibility of anyone else to ensure that everyone else follows their belief structure.  I guarantee that any Christian would be very upset to be forced to live under sharia law as would any Muslim be upset to be forced to live under Christian religious law.  This is why separation of church and state is important.  To prevent such situations from arising.

The opposite side of this spectrum is a theocracy.  For those Christians that do believe that the world would be better if everyone followed their faith, you need look no further than the theocracies of the middle east.  And while these may be Muslim theocracies, they act as great examples of what happens when governments control their citizens through religious means.  It is quite arguable that theocracies based on Christianity hindered human civilization's advancement by centuries.  More than two thousand years ago, the Greeks had discovered many things and were even on the brink of discovering atomic theory, the theory of evolution, and even the steam engine.  Instead we were forced to wait another two millennia for these things that have thrust the human race into the 21st century.  These are the problems with government and religion intermingling too much.

" The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." -- James Madison.  One of the father's of our country.  Again, I will never be able to say what our founder's said in as few words or as eloquently.  This is the purpose of the separation of church and state.

Election coverage 2012: Romney’s leaked tape

For my first post I want to discuss the big news that is being discussed at this time.  Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for president of the 2012 election is being hit with controversy for saying the following statement, "There are 47% who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."  This is in reference to 47% of Americans who currently do not pay income taxes.  There is much to be upset about in this quote.  There is hypocrisy contained within it as well.  Mitt Romney is speaking about how there are 47% of Americans who do not pay income taxes.

Let's start by discussing why 47% of Americans not paying income taxes isn't as bad as it sounds.  While these people may not pay income taxes, because they don't make enough money, they still pay sales taxes and payroll taxes.  If you read this article on CNN from several months ago, you can see that once you take into account payroll taxes, the number drops precipitously to 18%.  This is because many of the people in this 47% work, but do not make enough money to qualify for paying income tax.  The article continues to say that once sales taxes are taken into account, almost no households in America pay no taxes.  I feel it should also be stated that when you're making a very small amount of income, a 10% sales tax on the things you buy ends up being a very large portion of your income.  I cannot find the source at the time of writing this post, but I believe it was calculated that payroll and sales tax ends up being about 15% of a family in poverty's income.

With that having been said, we can now move on to my claim of hypocrisy.  Mitt Romney is on tape as having said that he has paid as low as 13% in taxes in the one year that he is willing to release his tax information.  This is lower than the above stated 15%.  Not to mention that he continues to refuse to release his tax information for the past decade and as a result is allowed to say anything he wants about his past taxes.  Of course this is all speculation, but some do believe that he may have paid zero taxes in some years which is why he will not release the information.  It is not for me to say whether or not Mitt Romney has paid no taxes or not, but for someone who pays such a small percentage of his income in taxes, especially when his income is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, it is hypocritical to say that people who do not pay income taxes are victims and feel entitled to government help.  It is a disgusting thing to say and shows a lack of compassion for other people and the bad hand that some people are dealt in their life.  Compassion may not be a requirement to run for president, but maybe it should be.

Other sources:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/09/19/mitt-romney-surprising-facts-pay-no-income-tax/