The Soviet Union invaded in 1978 which led to Communist rule for over a decade. The brand of communism ushered in corruption and adversity for the Afghan people. The Mujahideen were the so-called Afghan forces attempting to fight back the Soviet tide. Then Pakistan came to the aid of the Afghan troops and the Islamic Rebellion went on from 1992 to 1996. Finally, youth-driven Taliban movement drove the final soviet soldier out of the country and began its own reign of terror as leaders sought to purify Afghan society and force its own fundamentalist Islamic extremist philosophy on every citizen.

Afghanistan Tribal Leaders Map - as of 2004

People at first cheered the Taliban because they chased out the Soviet invaders. But soon they discovered that the Taliban represented a different kind of leadership of fear. With the Taliban in power, Usama bin Laden was free to operate his global terror network, al-Qaida, with no opposition. Many Afghans were forced to flee, not knowing when, if ever, they would return. Then, September 11, 2001, two planes flew a fated flight into the World Trade Center in New York City. Suddenly, Afghanistan had caught the attention of the most powerful nation in the world. So what did America do? The only thing it knew how to do – it placed a giant bullseye on a country still reeling from nearly a century of civil strife.

It took America less than 3 months to drive the Taliban out of power. In its place, an interim government was formed with Hamid Karzai elected President in 2004. Karzai is a Pashtun from Kandahar province (close to the Pakistan border), who was part of the Mujahideen trying to dispel the communists from his homeland. Now, 2 million Afghan deaths later, the country is still trying to “find itself”. The sad part is that too many of its neighbors want to stir up trouble, or stand to gain with a weak Afghanistan. America is playing right into the hands of those who have their own agendas, not necessarily what is best for the Afghan people.

In the wake of the Taliban rise to power, several factions in the north and west formed a fragile alliance with one common objective: do not let the Taliban win. How much of this was accomplished with American (even Russian) support is unclear. But this group of leaders shares very little in common, and has demonstrated itself to be rather weak in tactics and resolve. Still, perhaps allowing them the opportunity to rise to the occasion would be prudent. But with larger neighbors fronting opposition forces, the road indeed is dangerous for Afghan citizens to travel, as their quest for self-determination receives interference from all sides. Each with their own agendas, China, Pakistan, Iran and Russia cannot agree on “what is best” for their fledgling little brother Afghanistan. So they attempt to tip the balance in favor of one side or another, using the power of money and influence to shape events. In the meantime, the Afghan people are tired of being other peoples’ play toy.

Instead of backing out slowly and quietly, we are driving ourselves in even deeper into affairs that ought to be none of our concern. Making deals with Taliban leaders may help soothe fragile US-Pakistan relations, but it does little to help the Afghan people. Our current policy in that country is one of pure self-interest. The divided public doesn’t want the Taliban to return to power, but there are others who seek power who are just as bad (Abdul Rashid Dostum of the north-central region, for example). The two opposing groups (one hesitates to call them political parties) are no closer to any kind of civil discourse. As long as Afghans fight Afghans and suicide bombers attack civilians, there will not be peace.

In response to Barack Obama’s State of the Union, I am honestly perplexed that he truly believes targeted tax exemptions will have a large impact on the behavior of corporations. He’s a Democrat, and Democrats just cannot bring themselves to use the phrase “tax cut”. Even when it makes sense to do so, they simply cannot use the phrase.

Fact: The corporate tax rate for manufacturers in the U.S. is non-competitive with the rest of Europe, and the world. So don’t merely give tax breaks for some corporations and not others. Make the tax structure fair for all. Reduce the tax rate on all manufacturing. Small manufacturing companies and startups should have an even lower tax rate on income than large corporations – but even the highest tax rate should be competitive with the rest of the world.

With regard to Individual (Household) income tax, I disagree with Republicans who say that the capital gains tax should be eliminated or reduced (to encourage investment). The truth of the matter is that individuals will still invest money, if they have it to invest. Taxes should be applied equally to all income. Period. The minute we start talking about tax exemption for this or that, it becomes a tax that favors some and punishes others, because when you eliminate certain kinds of income from taxation, other kinds must then be taxed at a higher rate to make up the difference. Using the tax code as a form of behavior modification DOES NOT WORK. People on both sides of the aisle need to stop playing politics and acknowledge this fact.

According to the IRS, a “Capital Gain” is the following:  “When you sell a capital asset, the difference between the amount you sell it for and your basis – which is usually what you paid for it – is a capital gain or a capital loss.” What is a capital asset? “Almost everything you own and use for personal purposes, pleasure or investment is a capital asset.” Your house, car(s), boat(s), RV(s), land, stocks, bonds, estate jewelry, works of art, … it’s all considered to be part of capital.

Americans will not stop investing just because they may get taxed on the gains from those investments. We will not stop putting money into an IRA or other savings account. Just make the standard deduction (per household member) high enough to give middle income folks room to put something into savings and retirement.

What I proposed – and still propose – is the following: report ALL income, including capital gains, interest (foreign and domestic), and subtract ALL major losses, including alimony,  income lost to tuition payments for yourself or a dependent, qualified major medical expenses paid (non-cosmetic and non-elective) as well as loss from investments, personal property loss (catastrophic) that was not recovered by insurance - the result is your “Gross Income”. No more $200 here, $300 there – qualifying deductions in each category must reach a threshold of $4,000 or more to be deductible. This reporting of income and loss is the means by which major life events are taken into account when taxes are calculated.

Take a standard deduction for the household. If two or more members of a household file income tax, only one may claim the household deduction. This standard deduction should be in the neighborhood of $22-25,000. Definition of household is: individual who is not part of a domestic partnersip or domestic partner(s) and their dependents. To be a domestic partnership, you are either a married couple or have filed for civil union and live under the same roof. Standard deduction for dependents is $6-8,000 each.

After standard deductions, whatever income is left is your “taxable income”. If your taxable income is less than $100,000 you pay 15%. If your annual income is $100,000 up to $249,999 you pay 19%. Those whose income is $250K or more pay 23%. Even millionaires should not be punished for making money. Making the tax rates a bit lower may prevent folks from feeling the need to hide income or lie on their tax returns. It’s a strategy that makes sense, is compassionate to folks who suffer loss as well as asking a bit more from those who have been successful without being punitive.

Q: How will you set a higher standard for your campaign toward civility, constructive solutions and statements of policy that make a positive impact on American discourse – without relying on fear tactics and selective truth-telling to do so?

2) Compromise, for the sake of forming reasoned solutions that a majority can support, is not inherently evil

Q: How will you reach across both sides of the aisle, recognizing there are differences in approach, but creating a legislative climate in which both sides can claim victory when real solutions are needed?

3) Global climate change that began in the early part of the 20th century, is real and there is sufficient evidence that human activity is a significant cause. The next President faces many challenges, global in nature. Access to clean water, sanitation, famine and poverty in developing nations; energy efficiency and dependency; development of safe, nonpolluting resource extraction methods; promotion of a change in national mindset toward one of conservationism, reduction of waste and consumption.

Q: Will you acknowledge that global climate change is a real, and steadily increasing problem that human activity can curtail? What priority will you place on issues affecting global health and quality of life issues?

4) One of this nation’s highest values is that of freedom of religious expression and practice. A muslim taking time to pray at work or in school, a Christian public school teacher displaying a Bible on her desk as a daily reminder of Who she serves, a Hebrew wearing a prayer shawl and kippah… these overt and public displays all deserve protection under the Constitution.

Q: What is your idea of a balanced and fair approach to free expression of religion both in public and at work? Will you reject any legislation that attempts to define morality based on a specific religious teaching?

5) Another of this nation’s highest values is freedom of speech. This extends to peaceful demonstrations, written and spoken criticism of public officials or policies, and citizen protests – harassment, slander and libel are obvious exceptions.

Q: Will you support a person’s right to burn the American flag in protest in all 50 states as guaranteed by the Constitution? Will you rigorously defend the rights of all Americans to engage in peaceful expression that does not directly harm anyone?

6) Privacy and the rights of people to not have government intrusion and/or illegal searches and seizures ought to be modernized and current laws rewritten to protect these rights in a 21st century world.

Q: Will you repeal the Patriot Act and other legislation that have seriously defrauded Americans of their rights to due process and privacy of property and information, returning the burden to law enforcement to produce a warrant, issued by a judge after demonstrating sufficient cause?

7) The current tax structure in America is grossly overly geared toward social engineering rather than revenue generation. A 3-tier individual (or household) tax rate on all earnings after standard deductions (per person) is fair and eliminates the need for hiring an accountant. The poor pay no tax because the deduction is above poverty level, and the 3 tax rates differ by 4% (15%, 19% and 23%).

Q: Will you acknowledge that tax benefits are not a reliable means of social engineering and that other, more effective means can and should be implemented? Will you fight for a flatter, one-page tax return for all working Americans?

I was born on a cold winter day in 1965 as the Chinese Year of the Dragon was coming to a close. Charles “Rip” Engle was preparing for his last season as Head Coach of Penn State. Joe Paterno’s first season as Head coach was the 1966 season. Their record that year was 5-5. But in the years that followed, out of 46 seasons only 5 resulted in a losing record. During the 5-year period from 2000 to 2004, Penn State suffered an unprecedented 4 of their 5 losing seasons under Paterno’s reign. Any other coach would have been shown the door. But not JoePa. His contract was due to expire at the end of 2008. In a landmark speech in Pittsburgh in May of 2005, he told an increasingly concerned public that he’d consider retirement if the 2005 season was a disappointment. That fall, the team finished the year 11-1. It was enough to give folks reason to let him complete his contract. Then there were other signs he would take great lengths to protect his precious team from criticism and scrutiny. Would he knowingly sweep criminal, even violent, behavior under the rug so as to protect his team from scrutiny and criticism?

College athletics programs are rampant with attitudes of “boys will be boys” that hearkens back to a time when women were allowed to get college educations so they could “meet boys” and better themselves – but let the men do all the hard work please. In public statements, Joe Paterno made light of sexual assault (by male football players) as nothing more than letting hero worship get a little out of hand (2006). See comments made by Coach Paterno when Florida State linebacker A. J. Nicholson was sent home before a bowl game under possible arrest for sexual assault: ESPN article In 2008, when his contract expired, no fewer than 46 Penn State players faced a combination of 163 criminal charges. It was enough to make ESPN take notice and, in an “Outside the Lines” feature, it was suggested that Penn State leadership had lost control of their nationally recognized team. But the collective will of Penn State alumni and others of influence merely wrote it off as “an off year” – certainly not indicative of the quality of the overall program.

What is behind this collective will, this refusal to see our “heroes” for what they really are – flawed, open to corruption, and above all, ought to be held to the same standard as everyone else? To understand this, we need to consider that in a world fresh from two very decimating world wars, people needed to believe in something positive, something lasting. Also, people were suffering from a kind of reality overload. They were ready to put blinders on. War turned to Cold War, and people were looking for an escape.

My dad was born on October 23, 1933, son of James A and Lena McElroy. It was a small town in Osceola Mills, PA. My grandfather barely had an 8th grade education. But he knew construction. Most of his working life, he worked as a foreman building many of the central Pennsylvania’s bridges. And most of these are still in good shape even today. My dad grew up in a home where you went to church every Sunday, sick or not. And when he went to high school, he played football. He also had a love of gardening, which he inherited from his own father.

After high school, he signed up with the U.S. Navy. The choice was largely based on a warning from his older brother, a sharpshooter who served his country in Europe during World War II. “Anything but the infantry,” was Dean’s warning to my dad. He would not say why. He didn’t have to. There was a tacit understanding, a recognition that man is capable of lowering himself to unspeakable depths of evil and of depravity. But one never spoke aloud what these specific acts were. My father’s generation (at least the Christian part) grew up with the belief that to envision a horror was to make oneself vulnerable to its seductive qualities.

Committing an act of “sin” in one’s heart (in the form of desire) was just as bad as physically doing it. And so, an entire generation closed its eyes to evil. They closed their eyes to the horrors around them, even when evil occurred in their own back yards. The soldiers who fought on the battlefields of Europe had no choice. It was a survival mechanism. These horrific realities were best left on the streets of France and Germany, and forgotten.

My dad then did what many young men in the area did. He applied to Penn State University and took up Dairy Science (following in the footsteps of Dean). Through hard work and determination, he graduated. It was a very different scene at Penn State than it is today. Many, like my dad, studied hard and led a clean lifestyle. It would be shameful to do otherwise. If there was a dark side, it was hidden… obscured from the light of day because it was not “cool” to be anything but squeaky clean. No one asked questions if there didn’t appear to be any problems. If it was out of sight, it did not exist. And no one complained. Not even the victims.

When folks of my dad’s era then became parents, their children grew up in a culture that was shockingly different from their own. High school included weekend parties in which all manner of experimentation took place. Binge drinking was a big part of teenage life, and other drug use, and open sex. Kids would pack into a van and think nothing of going to the local X-rated Drive-In theatre. Proprietors and vendors did not care about the mothers who would grieve to learn about their children’s activities. To the young and innocent, this was merely a blip on the screen of an otherwise normal life. But for some, doors opened to a world that was very dark and very exploitative. People who suppress normal and natural desires for decades, to the point of extreme self-prohibition, are perhaps the most susceptible to the opposite extreme in a post-sexual-revolution society.

Joe Paterno did not even have a word in his vocabulary for male rape, more specifically the rape of a child. It meant an extreme of violent behavior that had only been seen previously on the battlefields of Europe. Not in the locker room of a college football team. Now, a career has ended in disgrace and Penn State is being forced to learn a rather hard lesson in humility. Sadly the lesson will likely be too short-lived.

Ultimately, I think what bothers me most about this whole series of incidents is that it took the admittedly horrific act of rape of a child to lead to a coach’s dismissal. But athletes everywhere can get away with violence against women and receive no more than a short suspension and a slap on the wrist. Case in point was A. J. Nicholson (mentioned earlier in this article). A mere four months after the college incident, he was arrested again. Nicholson Our society has a long way to go, in my mind, toward a culture of intolerance of criminal behavior and applying the same consequences for rule-breaking to all. Athletes who break rules ought to have their scholarships revoked and a permanent end to their athletic careers should result.

In America, we now have over 5,000 health insurance plans. All of them are grossly overpriced and out of pocket expenses for services are also grossly overpriced. Yet we continue to pay. We pay upwards of $70-80 per month for the privilege of access to 300+ cable TV channels, none of which are worth watching. It’s all junk. So we pay a high premium for insurance that does not even cover expenses (because we never reach the deductible) on the off chance that we just *might* reach the deductible and require major medical care. We pay $150 for a single office visit to our family physician which is enforced by the hospital where the physician is based. It’s bass-ackwards.

What needs restored? Sensible, practical compassion, real choice and transparency need to be restored. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to send a sick person to the emergency room to treat a bladder infection. So split health care into two distinct, separate entities: private and public. The public institutions operate under the principle of “turn no one away” but with some guidelines to keep costs down. Private institutions then fall under two categories: non-profit and not-for-profit. The poor (those who qualify for Medicare and Medicaid) obtain care at public institutions, all of which are governed by local boards of directors and must maintain standards of quality as well as affordability. Their budgets must be part of public record, including sources of funding. Strict guidelines apply in order to minimize the burden to the taxpayer. I would implement the following budgetary rules:

Public Health Budget

Funding for the operation and maintenance of a public health care facility comes from five sources. A suggestion for distribution of cost would be as follows: one source should exceed 30% of the overall budget burden. Also, a minimum of 75% of the diagnostic equipment, surgical instrumentation, furnishings, linens, electronics, office supplies must be obtained used or donated from private sources for the duration of its existence. Every citizen must have the option to public health care, insured or not. The main difference between the public option and private option is that the public option may not quite be state-of-the-art and physicians may not be Harvard graduates, but it will be a cost-effective way to take care of the flu, or every day health care needs.

Other incentives may or may not be built in to the process: private institutions that wish to maintain non-profit status may be required to farm out (in the form of lending time and/or access to resources) a certain percentage to public entities. It just seems to me that there are ways to be compassionate on the needy at a minimal cost to those who pay the bills. Real choice involves not just 300+ channels of garbage but a choice between Doctor A who has low overhead but is reliable, a typical office visit only costs $50 or Doctor B who is part of a highly trained practice with access to the best medical facilities charging $100 per office visit. Real choice means that public and private entities are generally just as convenient (travel and hours of availability) and just as workable with insurance covering the same apportionment for both. Transparency means that before even making an appointment or walking in the front door, the consumer (patient) knows exactly what they are getting and how much it will cost out of pocket – without having to jump through hoops to find out but to provide this information up front in bold print.

Is this an oversimplification of the issue? Personally, I think not. It just needs the political and institutional will to get it done.

So the point about social engineering I’d like to make is that perhaps the advertising/fashion industry as well as film/TV/music ought to take more of an interest in supporting the notion that bad habits are not sexy. The mantra of our generation, “livin large”, perhaps is not cool. As long as the Kardashians are making headlines and turning heads, all of the taxation and regulation in the world will not stop Americans from seeking wasteful engorgement and narcissistic pleasure-seeking indulgence. The graphs in the aforementioned study are undeniable: Americans are eating more, living in bigger houses and consuming greater amounts of energy per person than ever before. We are seeking lifestyles that are beyond our own income levels, and if we cannot control our own passions, the government will take action. The drain on resources and on health care cannot be sustained.

When I look at a graph showing how the federal government receives its income, it seems to me that far too heavy a burden is placed on individuals in terms of income tax and social security/medicare. This graph shows how income is made:

Federal Income Sources

Here is what household federal taxes ought to look like: households and individuals will pay federal taxes in two forms: income and sales. First, let’s look at income tax. The individual income tax will be replaced by a household income tax. The reason for this is simple and rational: individuals who share a home or living space benefit by sharing the expenses of maintaining that space. Their income is for the benefit of the household (even a household of one). It only makes sense to ask a household to pay its fair share of taxes to the federal government.

Definition of a household: a group of people who share common living space and are either dependent on others in that living space or, by their own income, contribute to the overall expenses of living, maintaining and/or heating/cooling the common living space. Two friends who share an apartment constitute a household. A family that includes multi-generational members living in a single home constitutes a household.

Each household (not each individual) will file one income tax form each year. No income will be exempt. Income (and losses) from wages and salaries, pensions, interest, divorce settlements, investments (foreign and domestic), inheritance, gambling and capital gains are added up and become part of the gross income. Now take a standard household deduction of $26,000 (at or just above the current poverty level). Then subtract an additional $6,000 per household member, regardless of age or status. Using this  model, a family of 4 will pay no taxes at all on the first $50,000 income.

After the standard deductions are subtracted, pay 14% of what remains. It is simple and fair.

What April 15 means

For tax withholding purposes, wage earners decide how to split the household deduction. Options are to apply it to one wage-earner, or split evenly between two. On the withholding form, an employee would choose “full”, “half” or “none” for the household deduction. They can then split the “per member” deductions in any way desired by putting the number of individual deductions to be applied to their estimated yearly earnings.

If this does not produce enough income for the federal government, the rest will come from a national sales tax. So that the poor do not have to pay, anyone who lived in a household that had $0 in taxable earnings will be issued a “tax-exempt” card. Only those who filed income tax form can qualify for this card. This tax will replace any current federal taxes and surcharges on goods like gasoline and utilities. The rate is 3% and will be applied to ALL retail items from CDs, digital media to groceries to automobiles and RVs. Utilities, such as electricity wattage, broadband usage and telephone minutes and SMS text/data usage will also be taxed (to be explained). Any consumable will be taxed. Is anything exempt? Yes, handmade items (like those sold on Etsy and at craft shows) are exempt unless made in what qualifies as “mass-produced” or “small batch” business. Also exempt are second-hand, or used, sales of items costing less than $100. If an item is unopened and qualifies for “full warranty” status, it is taxed. Online retail sales are taxed as well. Quite simply, it is a “sales” tax. This means, if you purchase something, you pay a portion to the federal government. This provides more of an incentive to buy used or recycled goods.

If this seems harsh, consider the following: As of right now, we pay 18.4c per gallon of gasoline to the federal government. At $3.50/gallon, this amounts to 5 ¼%. My proposal would cut that to 3%. Instead of 18.4c per gallon, it would be 10.5c per gallon.

As for phone, internet, cable and other telecommunications services, these are all consumable entities that can be measured based on usage. If a household keeps the TV turned on all day long, they pay a tax based on the minutes watched (via satellite or cable). The idea here is that people are consumers of media – through broadband data, satellite data, voice over IP, SMS, voice over wires, or cell transmissions. We possess the technology to monitor the usage of these various forms of communication. Tax it like every other consumption. On January 25, 2011, US Rep Dean Heller of Nevada introduced H.R. 428, a bill that would repeal the federal excise tax on telephone and other communication services. It was a good idea because the current federal taxes on communication are way out of date. This proposed sales tax would only be 3% of the usage. Cable providers, internet providers, satellite communications providers, cell communications providers, and traditional voice communications providers – all of these would have to adopt fee structures based on usage. No more “unlimited” plans. Pay based on what you use, no more. The average household would adopt their own self-discipline for usage to keep costs down.

Essentially, my proposal of the “national sales tax” includes sweeping reform of current federal tax law that applies to all excise and consumption taxes of goods that can be measured and quantified on an individual or household basis. It would replace any current tax or fee. I do not support piling an additional tax on top of current taxes. But since our society loves to consume, taxing consumption seems like a good idea to me. This, in combination with a flat income tax, is fair to all. It puts control in the hands of people to monitor their own tax levels, it exempts the poor, and the rich have nowhere to hide.

GOP HQ Situation Room

First, we have Michele Bachmann, Iowan who then was elected to the Minnesota State Senate in 2000. She has served in the U.S. Congress since 2006. The only woman running for President, her physical attractiveness will undoubtedly help gain the white, male vote. But as candidates go, Michele is one of the worst when it comes to shameless demagoguery. In fact, if her political career doesn’t work out, she’d make a fantastic televangelist. She refuses to acknowledge that there could be any veracity to the claim that greenhouse gas emissions pose a serious threat to global health. Does she cite science to refute the evidence? No, rather she stands firmly on the Holy Scriptures (as she understands them) to dismiss as “extremist nonsense” any proposal that mankind might be doing harm to God’s creation.

Bachmann’s own campaign website includes the following statement: “As Commander-in-Chief, I will do whatever it takes to fulfill the federal government’s foremost responsibility under the Constitution: to keep you safe in an increasingly dangerous world.” Supporters of hers would urge us not to read too much into this claim. Of course, she doesn’t mean impinging on fundamental civil rights under the Constitution. Ohh-kay, then don’t say it. In her bold statements condemning Obamacare, Bachmann fails to mention one of the worst offenders in the health care debate: private insurance companies. Yes, the government is no better. Neither gov’t nor insurance companies belong in the process of making medical decisions that belong in the office between a doctor and the patient. Remove the shackles of doctors and medical practitioners to set their own rates and control payment schedules of their patients. Insurance can be reserved for major medical expenses, such as long term hospitalization and treatments. She (and other Republicans) refuse to acknowledge the positives in Obamacare – e.g. not allowing refusal of treatment due to pre-existing conditions.

She also tackles the issues of National Debt and federal deficit. These two issues are indeed separate, but are conveniently thrown together in the same paragraph. She espouses the viewpoint that cutting federal spending and reducing the size of government can solve the problem of the deficit. Rather than finding a way to make cuts with democrat cooperation, she remains part of the heel-digging, arm-crossing movement not to “give in” with regard to federal revenue increases. If Congressional Republicans played their cards right, they could get democrats on board removing unnecessary federal regulations (another form of tax on businesses) in exchange for some tightening of tax loopholes. Oh no, that looks like work. No, it’s much easier to vilify the Democrats for ruining America and point the finger of blame elsewhere. Out of one side of her mouth, Michele complains about what she calls “out of control” federal spending. Yet, she “will not rest” until the War on Terror is won (however it takes and no matter how expensive it becomes). I cannot find one reason to like Bachmann for President.

Next we have Herman Cain. Despite the curious coincidences that his 9-9-9 plan looks just like the tax structure in the video game SimCity 4, Cain inspires a bit of confidence that he may have put some thought into his political agenda. Yet he makes the following statement on his campaign website: “We should never be deceived by terrorists. They only have one objective, namely, to kill all of us.” Really? Mr. Cain, you have sat in on the global terrorist planning meetings? Funny, it was my impression that while shouting “death to America” they are referring more to what America stands for – you know, ideals like individual liberty, along with life, pursuit of happiness – which we are doing a good job of destroying ourselves while we sacrifice liberty on the altar of security. As long as we act as a nation out of fear, we will lose the War on Terror. Last I checked, terror means intense fear. Still, despite his weak stance on global issues, I might like Cain. But I cannot support someone who has clouds of doubt hanging over his integrity. The claims of sexual harassment may not have stuck among likely voters, but I cannot help but wonder if someone is holding onto a smoking gun – until the right moment. Cain’s lack of political decorum and tact do not inspire me to jump on his bandwagon. I’m laughing too hard to fill in the circle next to Herman Cain for President.

If not Cain, we have Newt Gingrich. From recent debates, I would say that Mr. Gingrich comes across as the most “hawkish” of the Republican candidates for President. His no-holds-barred approach to foreign policy leaves little doubt who America’s friends are, and who are not. Electing him just might lead to World War III if we’re not careful. He talks a good talk, but there is a lot of history here. Throughout his tenure as Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt made a lot of statements that could be taken out of context and used as fodder in a national campaign for President of the United States. Dare we forget the “wither on the vine” comment that resulted in Newt’s resignation? Still, his “10 Steps” approach to the illegal immigrant problem is the most detailed, fair-minded and compassionate approach of all of the current GOP field. It’s worth adopting in the national Republican convention as part of the official party platform. I also like his “Jobs and Prosperity” plan, most especially the proposed tax structure. Unfortunately, Newt could end up looking too much like a “blast from the past” rather than the “outside-the-box” thinker that he is capable of being. What I like about him is that Newt can have a meaningful conversation, while not insisting on being right, with just about anyone. What I don’t like about him is his insistence that sending troops to Iraq was the right thing to do. I prefer a President who effectively wields the full power of diplomacy and earns the confidence/backing of our allies to put pressure on those who cross the line.

Is There a Point?

As for Jon Huntsman, (by the way, have you noticed the resemblance between him and Romney?) I must say that for the longest time I was ambivalent about this so-called “dark horse”, but I am very quickly warming up to him. Here is why: Huntsman set himself apart from other candidates in meaningful ways (to me): 1) he would end the War on Terror, in its current form, and bring troops home; 2) he does not dismiss the science of global warming as fringe science; instead, he acknowledges that the evidence is credible; 3) he stood alone among Republicans in the debt ceiling debate; 4) his position on taxes is dead on – simplify the tax code by phasing out itemized deductions, loopholes and corporate welfare and replacing these with a lower, flatter rate; 5) (and perhaps this is most important) his approach to health care reform in Utah was to study all options and, ultimately, support the one that “made the most sense” to bring down costs to consumers and increase access to care. I really have not heard him voice an opinion on an issue that is a deal-breaker for me. He views himself as a pragmatic conservative; he leans to the right but is willing to consider a balanced approach, especially when global concerns are at stake.

Ron Paul is perhaps the most courageous of the Republican candidates, voicing strong opposition to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as stating that marriage ought to be between a couple and their clergy, not decided by the government. Though I agree with him 90% of the time, the pragmatist in me just does not see the feasibility of getting any of his ideas past Congress. Bold and radical, if America were not so entrenched in certain approaches to government, Paul’s ideals would be a breath of fresh air. I believe this will be his last attempt at the Presidency. Paul has correctly pointed a finger at the Federal Reserve, blaming them for much of the mess in which our country finds itself; he wants to see a return to fiscal responsibility and has expressed a belief that the federal government has far outstretched its bounds in imposing its will on individual freedoms. My hope is that Ron Paul continues to influence the party and shake things up now and then.

Then we have Rick Perry. He may understand the meaning of “is” but along with Michele Bachmann, he belongs in a traveling evangelistic crusade more than behind the desk of the Oval Office. I just can’t take him seriously. And I hope that the majority of Republicans agree with me.

Mitt Romney has several things working against him: 1) he already lost once, to John McCain, in 2008; 2) Massachusetts health care that looks like ObamaCare; 3) he’s a graduate of Harvard University; 4) he still believes the War in Iraq was a good idea; 5) Romney lacks curb appeal. At this point, if given a choice between Romney, Huntsman and Obama, the choice is clear: and it’s not Romney, or Obama.

Rick Santorum is perhaps the most loathed of the candidates. Perhaps it’s his smugness; but I knew who and what he was back when we lived in Pennsylvania. He has done nothing to win people over to his side; he has said and done nothing to separate himself from other candidates. If anything, he perhaps can claim the distinction of being the Washington insider candidate. Rick Santorum will be status quo, and while ideologically very different from Obama, his effectiveness would be equal to our current President. I do not believe there would be much cooperation from Congress if Santorum’s name was on all of the White House stationery. From a “look at my record” perspective, Santorum has one of the worst voting records when it comes to siding with “the establishment” in industry over free enterprise.

If nothing substantively changes between now and Election Day, 2012, I am definitely leaning toward Huntsman as what seems to be the closest thing to a voice of Reason. Time will tell.

Now that Mitt Romney has officially entered his bid for the U.S. Presidency in 2012, there is a label attached to him that will be very difficult to shake. That label is “big spender” and its sister “big government liberal”. There is a list of reasons for this, but at the top of the list is his landmark health care reform for the state of Massachusetts. The bill was titled “AN ACT PROVIDING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE, QUALITY, ACCOUNTABLE HEALTH CARE”. It was, in part, the right thing to do. But conservatives will not hail it as a victory because they either are listening to pundits who are resorting to sound bites, or they are uncomfortable with the possibility that we are closer to sound, fair and reasonable policy than we were before.

For decades, I have been asking the question “Who pays for expensive, life-saving medical procedures on the uninsured (or underinsured)?” The answer is of course that insurance premiums of those who can and do pay. None of us wants anyone to be turned away from a hospital. We don’t want to see a society that would allow a person to die because they cannot pay for medical care. Another question had remained unanswered. Why does a simple X-ray cost so much? Why does a single visit to the doctor cost more than a 3-hour tutoring session? The answer is Robin Hood pricing. Not everyone pays the same amount for the same procedure. It fails the test of equality and leads to class envy.

So before I demonize either Governor Romney or President Obama, I think it would be prudent to hold both health care bills to the scrutiny of the following principles:

1) Every adult (and, by extension their family) must be financially accountable for catastrophic care. Having basic catastrophic health insurance makes sense for all individuals and families.

2) Transparency in costs. When looking for any medical service provider (doctors, diagnostics, emergency care, and everything in between), the consumer (patient) ought to be able to choose based not only on philosophy and training but also on price. Make ALL costs transparent up front.

3) Employers are not financially responsible for their employees’ health. They are responsible for ensuring safe and healthy working conditions but not for the employee’s personal health.

4) There needs to be a reasonable, cost-effective way for the poor to be able to afford basic health insurance, covering all medical treatments that are both necessary to save life as well as necessary to prevent loss of life.

5) Put an end to the high cost of medicines, surgical devices, diagnostic and testing equipment that fall under the category of life saving or necessary to function. These items need to be available to all, not just those who can pay. I would argue that companies which develop and then mass produce them develop fair pricing that is not profit-driven but service-driven.

6) Medicare and Medicaid premiums paid by taxpayers are untouchable for any purpose other than providing insurance for the retired and impoverished. Not an additional tax for Congress to spend any way they choose.

These principles are not just conservative ones. They are humane and socially responsible. There is a tradition in this country for employers to pay at least 50% (half) of employees’ health insurance. Both the Massachusetts and federal acts require companies of certain size to continue this tradition. This may be the primary reason conservatives are up in arms about the Obama health care package… and also the Romney plan. It puts even more burden on small businesses, despite the tax credits offered to them. The reason for this certainly is to spread the cost of insuring everyone to more than just individual taxpayers. Medicare and Medicaid have been the mechanism to insure those who cannot afford private insurance. In principal, it would be preferable to have these services in the hands of private industry, where the funds would be untouchable by Congress; our government regularly dips into these funds to pay for other projects so that, in fact, Medicare and Medicaid are merely extensions of the welfare state. They are not insurance providers at all and do not guarantee benefits for those who pay premiums. This was not what the American people were promised.

As for Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, there is a quiz you can take that begins to scratch the surface of each plan and what it means for everyone. Or perhaps you have the time to read the entire Massachusetts bill. Obama health care plan has been mercifully consolidated to only some 900 pages by the Cato Institute (translating into layman’s terms). Enjoy reading.

In the news today, it was reported that President Barack Obama was meeting with GOP Congressional leaders about raising the US Debt ceiling. With this news, I decided to educate myself about the Federal Debt and its implications for us as Americans as well as the health of our nation. Our government has a history dating back to the American Revolution of borrowing money (incurring debt) to pay for its wars. It also has a tradition of paying off that debt. FDR was the first to borrow money for a purpose other than war. Since the 1940s, the amount of debt has steadily increased, however. It is important to keep in mind that total debt includes interest payments. So as interest rates rise and fall, our total debt as a nation can change.

As seen here, it’s not the amount of debt that is most disturbing. It is the debt as a percent of our GDP (Gross Domestic Product). GDP is one method of measuring our ability to pay back the debt we incur. Now if that isn’t bad enough, it turns out that every dollar in your pocket or that you have in the bank, is part of the U.S. National Debt. It’s not an asset, it’s a liability. Here is how it works:

Tracking the U.S. Dollar

In effect, raising the debt ceiling gives the Federal Reserve Bank the ability to print more money. The sum total of all US dollars in circulation is the total debt, less interest. The math does not add up. This system is a never-ending cycle of printing $$. In the graphic above, where does one obtain the needed $2 to pay in interest? It doesn’t exist until the Fed prints more. But even that becomes more debt which owes interest.

Now the picture isn’t all doom and gloom. The Federal government has assets in the form of land, structures, and other investments. These are all tangible items that can be bought and sold. Also, the government can tax the people if it needs an influx of cash. But here’s the kicker: the names of the individuals that run the Federal Reserve Bank are confidential. They may be the very ones who head up companies that benefited from the bailout.

I suppose there is a bright side. Our currency isn’t backed by toxic assets… right?

October, 1755. The region is now Snyder County, Pennsylvania. But before 1855, it was part of Union County. In colonial times, this was “the wild west”. The lower Penns Creek Valley was settled about 1744. The area was included in the Albany Purchase of 1754. The Penns Creek Massacre of October 1755 was the start of Indian raids in the French and Indian War. The last Indian raid occurred in 1781.

The use of the word “Indian” here is very misleading and oversimplistic. The following distinct nations lived in Pennsylvania: The Conestoga, Nanticoke, Shawnee, Lenape (a.k.a. Delaware) , and Susquahannock as well as a portion of the Iroquois union were all present in what is now the Keystone State. Though William Penn preferred negotiating with the Delaware Indians, who were known for skills in diplomacy when dealing with other tribes, it was the Iroquois which was the dominant power. The steady influx of settlers into the backwoods regions of the Eastern colonies disrupted Indian life. Food supplies, wild game, and land were the sources of frequent skirmishes and conflict between the “white man” and the existing tribal people.

William Penn’s attitude toward the natives was by far the most progressive of the governors. Between 1682 and 1684, Penn negotiated with and bought land for colonization. His policy was to treat the Indians as equals and to acknowledge their right to sovereignty. The Iroquois, meanwhile, inhabited the area below Lakes Ontario and Erie all the way from northern New York to Pennsylvania. In 1570 5 tribes joined to form the most democratic nation of its time, the “Ho-De-No-Sau-Nee” or League of the Iroquois. The union was governed by a council made up of 50 representatives from each of the 5 member tribes and was responsible for negotiating peace with outsiders as well as declaring war. It was this group that was the most successful in resisting European advances of the early 1700s.

Now, fast-forward back to 1755. The French were arming groups of Indians in an effort to expand their influence and take territory from the English. Among these were the Shawnee, Miami and Ottowa nations. These tribes resided west of the Ohio River valley or north of the Great Lakes region. .

There were two issues which were a point of contention between the Assembly and the then-Governor. Firstly, the Penn family were the final authority in matters of State. The crown-appointed Governor had the ability to overturn (reject/veto) any legislation passed by the Assembly. Furthermore the Penn family were exempt from paying taxes. The Assembly apparently didn’t have the funds to arm a Militia, or to trade with the Indians, and wanted Penn’s heirs (in England) to ante up, since they were the beneficiaries of income from the colony. In 1757, Franklin was sent to London to petition King Charles II over this matter of tax exemption and veto power.

Secondly, the Governor lacked the power to control the militia. The Assembly passed a funding measure that would provide money for armaments but that funding would come from the Penn family. The Governor rejected this idea. It was also unclear who would receive arms. Colonists on the frontier did not like the idea of arming their Indian neighbors but the Assembly was in favor of giving weapons to their dark skinned allies so they could defend against the French sympathizers. Enlisting in the newly formed militia was voluntary. But it was limited to people of European descent.

What happens during this early period of the French and Indian conflict is still a matter of debate. We have to keep in mind that the Indians who were said to be marauding had been displaced by the colonists on the frontier. The Governor was given to exaggeration as to the role of Indians who were tenuously sided with the British, claiming that they were practically ready to side with the French under false promises of restored homelands. The Assembly was composed of citizens who knew very little of the struggle of the frontier but were the closest representation the colonists had.

There were all sorts of petitions coming in from the colonists to the Assembly–a page details them in a book published by Franklin and distributed in Philadelphia–including those who wanted the Assembly to stop petitioning the governor for money for armaments. There also were questions about whether the Governor’s reports about the Indian invasion were exaggerated or false. There were letters to the Governor as well, from members of the Assembly and influential representatives.

One such letter, dated November 11, 1755 contained the following quote: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety“. According to many sources it was Benjamin Franklin himself who spoke these words on the floor of the Assembly. It certainly is consistent with many of Franklin’s sentiments. Whether or not these words were indeed Franklin’s, he was an Assemblyman at the time. This sentence would become an oft-quoted sentiment during the gatherings of the Founding Fathers a few decades later. No surprise since it became the motto on the title page of a book, An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson though Franklin takes credit for some of the content.

Clearly the biggest losers in this entire affair were the Indians on both sides of the conflict. Were they innocent bystanders? No, clearly they were not. However a look at today’s land boundaries will lead to only one conclusion: both the British and French governments were not interested in keeping agreements with the Indians and the newly formed American government did not quickly forget that Indians fought against them not once but twice. Those tribes that were on the French side of the French and Indian war then sided with the British in the War for Independence.

So much of this story has implications for today. Could marauding bands of Indians be the terrorists of the 18th century? A governor of Pennsylvania represents British authority and rule. The representative Assembly is essentially powerless to enact legislation that is not in the interest of the crown. The only question remaining is… what is the lesson from a centuries old conflict to today?