President Trump released his tax reform proposal this week. The focus is to increase economic growth by cutting both personal and business taxes and simplifying the tax code. Details are in short supply, but it appears it is underpinned by the Trump Campaign tax plan. Using that document one might gain some insight into the impact on families should the reforms be implemented.
Trump proposes to simplify the tax code by reducing the number of tax brackets from seven to three: 10%, 25%, and 35%. The standard deduction for a married couple would double to $24,000. The “death” tax and alternative minimum tax would be eliminated. Child and dependent care expenses would be deductible. Business tax rates would lower to 15% and the maximum dividend and capital gain tax rate would slip to 20%.
Liberty Takes Effort is a blog for the discussion of current national, state, and regional issues while relying on the wisdom of the founders of our nation.
Book Ad
If you enjoy Liberty Takes Effort posts and pages, please consider my recent books.
Brotherhood and Borders
A thoughtful look at immigration, compassion, division, and the rule of law in America.
Buy on Amazon
Small-Town Boomers
A nostalgic look back at growing up in Randolph, Massachusetts, and the small-town Boomer experience.
Buy on AmazonAttack North Korea?
Was the failed North Korean launch of a ballistic missile from a submarine on April 15th incompetence or a hack by the U.S.? Is the nearly 90% failure rate of launch tests of the 2,200 mile Musudan missile incompetence or hacking? One can only hope that the U.S. has and has exercised such a capability. If not, are the Chinese responsible? Again, one can only hope.
Stability in the home, office, army, country, or world is brought about by the expectation of a code of behavior that is reinforced by the clear and consistent application of rules. A system of incentive and disincentive buttresses the system – it is called discipline. When expectations are unclear, rules are inconsistently applied, discipline is not enforced, or threats are idle - the undisciplined grow emboldened. North Korea is the perfect example of the failure of this system.
Stability in the home, office, army, country, or world is brought about by the expectation of a code of behavior that is reinforced by the clear and consistent application of rules. A system of incentive and disincentive buttresses the system – it is called discipline. When expectations are unclear, rules are inconsistently applied, discipline is not enforced, or threats are idle - the undisciplined grow emboldened. North Korea is the perfect example of the failure of this system.
South Coast Rail a Mistake
Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker should cancel the South Coast Rail project and re-purpose the nearly $3.4 billion capital funding and long term operating costs into a regional capital trust fund to support regional economic development on the South Coast and on Cape Cod through grants and low or no interest lending. Municipalities and regional consortia could tap these funds for economic development and potentially leverage them for federal funding through existing programs or any potential infrastructure law.
In September, 2016 the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and the MBTA announced the South Coast Rail project will cost $3.4 billion - a more than 50 percent increase over the original $2.23 billion estimate – and the original completion date of 2022 was extended to 2030. More recently, the MBTA began investigating an interim route via the Middleborough line using diesel trains while simultaneously pursuing development of the preferred Stoughton electric line.
In September, 2016 the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and the MBTA announced the South Coast Rail project will cost $3.4 billion - a more than 50 percent increase over the original $2.23 billion estimate – and the original completion date of 2022 was extended to 2030. More recently, the MBTA began investigating an interim route via the Middleborough line using diesel trains while simultaneously pursuing development of the preferred Stoughton electric line.
Getting past healthcare noise
On September 9, 2009, before a joint session of Congress, President Barrack Obama revealed his Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly ACA or ObamaCare). He said of the bill, “It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. [it did not] It will provide insurance for those who don't [it did for many]. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. [it did not]”
The ObamaCare bill was flawed, its adoption was flawed, its implementation was flawed, and its result was flawed. It is teetering on a precipice of unsustainable rising cost and unacceptable declining choices.
Its complexity is at the core of its failure. Being all things to all people in complex schemes with untold numbers of variables is a common formula for failure - especially when done without transparency and in a highly partisan manner.
The ObamaCare bill was flawed, its adoption was flawed, its implementation was flawed, and its result was flawed. It is teetering on a precipice of unsustainable rising cost and unacceptable declining choices.
Its complexity is at the core of its failure. Being all things to all people in complex schemes with untold numbers of variables is a common formula for failure - especially when done without transparency and in a highly partisan manner.
Brotherhood and Borders
From pulpits across America sermons and homilies exhort parishioners to fulfill their Christian responsibilities toward migrants whether they are immigrants (legal or illegal) or refugees. The message focuses appropriately on treating the migrant with dignity, but often fails to address the responsibility and authority of government to regulate migration for the common good of citizens. Clergy could better inform parishioners of the righteousness of both of these potentially competing interests so that they may balance them appropriately.
Christian faith communities generally accept two major principles regarding migration. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops instructs Catholics to, “treat the stranger as we would treat Christ himself.” The Bishops and other faith leaders, such as the Presbyterian Church (USA), also recognize “the right and responsibility of the U.S. to maintain our country’s borders.”
Jesus’ commandment to “love one another as I have loved you” is the foundation of the Christian obligation towards the migrant. Other Bible passages are often cited in this regard, to include: "You shall treat the stranger who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you, have the same love for him as for yourself; for you too were once strangers in the land of Egypt" (Lv 19:33-34).
The Catholic Catechism provides the clearest statement on the second principle: "Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."
Religious leaders often issue policy and pastoral guidance that can be very detailed regarding these issues such as the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s Outline of General Assembly Policy related to Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in America, and the Conference of Catholic Bishop’s Catholic Church's Position On Immigration Reform.
Christian faith communities generally accept two major principles regarding migration. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops instructs Catholics to, “treat the stranger as we would treat Christ himself.” The Bishops and other faith leaders, such as the Presbyterian Church (USA), also recognize “the right and responsibility of the U.S. to maintain our country’s borders.”
Jesus’ commandment to “love one another as I have loved you” is the foundation of the Christian obligation towards the migrant. Other Bible passages are often cited in this regard, to include: "You shall treat the stranger who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you, have the same love for him as for yourself; for you too were once strangers in the land of Egypt" (Lv 19:33-34).
The Catholic Catechism provides the clearest statement on the second principle: "Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."
Religious leaders often issue policy and pastoral guidance that can be very detailed regarding these issues such as the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s Outline of General Assembly Policy related to Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in America, and the Conference of Catholic Bishop’s Catholic Church's Position On Immigration Reform.
The Democratic constituency coalition is cracking
The Democratic Party’s focus on national level politics and its constituency coalition strategy based on identity politics has failed miserably over the past eight years. Lacking the will to conduct serious introspection of its strategy the Party will exclusively pursue obstruction - at its own peril.
The Republican Party now controls the White House and Congress, and may soon establish an originalist Supreme Court majority that could last a generation. In the coming 2018 elections as many as eight senate seats could flip from Democratic to Republican providing a 60 vote lock on the chamber. Their strength is even greater at the state level with 33 of 50 governorships and control of both houses in 32 state legislatures.
The ongoing debate for Chair of the Democratic National Committee reveals a consensus about needed organizational change. The candidates for that position all recognize that in order to compete at the national level the party must invest itself much more in state party development.
Reorganization of the Party’s resources is one needed shift, but it is not enough.
President Obama and others contend the Party message needs to be conveyed better. President Obama emphasized this as one of the reasons for the 2016 loss when he said, “are you making sure that your message is reaching everybody and not just those who have already been converted.”
Others, rightfully, argue it is not just the organizational focus or the messaging but the MESSAGE that needs to change to win elections at all levels of government.
Mark Lilla, a humanities professor at ultra-liberal Columbia University opened the debate on message saying, “American liberalism has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.”
In response to Lilla’s piece came a scathing response from Katherine Franke, Director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia University calling Lilla a “white supremacist.” Asked in an NPR interview about Franke’s retort professor Lilla said, “I rest my case.”
The far left base of the Party will resist any debate of the identity strategy. But a message of exclusive inclusion that allows a limited scope of “approved” constituencies by nature excludes those who are not “approved.” It is not inclusive. It is divisive and fails to address issues of broad concern such as economic growth and trade. In part, the 2016 presidential election was lost because many felt outcast by the divisive strategy and rejected the Democratic message.
It gets worse.
The Republican Party now controls the White House and Congress, and may soon establish an originalist Supreme Court majority that could last a generation. In the coming 2018 elections as many as eight senate seats could flip from Democratic to Republican providing a 60 vote lock on the chamber. Their strength is even greater at the state level with 33 of 50 governorships and control of both houses in 32 state legislatures.
The ongoing debate for Chair of the Democratic National Committee reveals a consensus about needed organizational change. The candidates for that position all recognize that in order to compete at the national level the party must invest itself much more in state party development.
Reorganization of the Party’s resources is one needed shift, but it is not enough.
President Obama and others contend the Party message needs to be conveyed better. President Obama emphasized this as one of the reasons for the 2016 loss when he said, “are you making sure that your message is reaching everybody and not just those who have already been converted.”
Others, rightfully, argue it is not just the organizational focus or the messaging but the MESSAGE that needs to change to win elections at all levels of government.
Mark Lilla, a humanities professor at ultra-liberal Columbia University opened the debate on message saying, “American liberalism has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.”
In response to Lilla’s piece came a scathing response from Katherine Franke, Director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia University calling Lilla a “white supremacist.” Asked in an NPR interview about Franke’s retort professor Lilla said, “I rest my case.”
The far left base of the Party will resist any debate of the identity strategy. But a message of exclusive inclusion that allows a limited scope of “approved” constituencies by nature excludes those who are not “approved.” It is not inclusive. It is divisive and fails to address issues of broad concern such as economic growth and trade. In part, the 2016 presidential election was lost because many felt outcast by the divisive strategy and rejected the Democratic message.
It gets worse.
There is no Muslim ban
On January 27, 2016 US Senator Elizabeth Warren Tweeted, “Let’s be clear: A Muslim ban by any other name is still a Muslim ban.” There is the hashtag #MuslimBan. Memes on Facebook “ACLU blocks unconstitutional Muslim ban.” Protesters at Kennedy Airport with signs reading, “Christians against Muslim Ban. Linkage to the Holocaust! CNN banner “Executive Disorder.” Huffington Post – “Blueprint for mass deportation.”
There are 52 countries in the world that are at least 50% Muslim. President Trump’s Executive Order PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES suspends the “Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern” for seven countries - not the 52 Muslim countries. The words Muslim or Islam do not appear within the Executive Order.
There are 52 countries in the world that are at least 50% Muslim. President Trump’s Executive Order PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES suspends the “Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern” for seven countries - not the 52 Muslim countries. The words Muslim or Islam do not appear within the Executive Order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)