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?

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.