Legalizing marijuana …

When I was young and working in a rock band in the 1960s, my parents always thought everybody in that band, including me, smoked pot. 

They were wrong. I never smoked pot in the 1960s, nor did I do any other drugs back then; I didn’t even drink alcohol before or during a job.  The reason was simple: performing was a job. We got paid for performing. The group’s belief was you couldn’t be high and perform your best; that might work for the Rolling Stones, but we weren’t the Stones by a long shot.    

In fact, the one and only time one of our guitarists – who had been with us almost from the beginning – showed up high was the last time he worked with us. We fired him the next day.

Sure, we were performing songs about peace, love and dope, at times. That was the music. And I’m certain a lot of the crowds we played for were toking up big time and enjoying our music and light show. But a job was a job and we thought ourselves to be professionals.

I didn’t even try pot until I was away at college.  I remember the first time quite well.  A bunch of us were in a room and someone pulled out a baggie and rolling papers. A joint was made and passed.  I tried it and didn’t feel any difference.  There was another joint, then another, and I finally said this is stupid and a waste of their pot and I tried to get up to leave.

That’s when I felt it.  And to be completely honest, I liked it.  Really, really liked it.

Pot was cheap and pretty weak back then. People would come by the place on campus where we lived and sell us a pound of it for as little as $160 – which made an ounce only $10. But as I said, it wasn’t very potent; smoking a joint with a couple of friends would give you about the same buzz as a couple of beers.  It was so cheap there were often ounce parties.

Just about everybody smoked pot back then.  It was cheaper than booze and didn’t leave you with a hangover. But it did give you the munchies, which led to weight gain.

And it was everywhere, despite being illegal. When I hear people in my generation now say they never even tried it once I know they are probably lying. Maybe they never did more than take a puff but I’d bet dollars to doughnuts they at least did that.  I’m sure there are some among my generational peers who really didn’t ever try it, but they’d be hard to find. 

Aside from the weight gain, there was another side effect of pot – it made you stupid, albeit temporarily, but stupid nonetheless. That fact didn’t stop some folks from claiming that pot made them smarter.  Classmates who made smoking pot a regular part of their daily life – before class, after class, and between classes – usually ended up dropping out.

You can forget those BS stories from people who claimed pot gave them valuable insights. Nobody I ever knew then found Jesus, saw God, or solved important life questions while stoned.

For us boomers, that’s what we remember about pot. Maybe that’s why so many boomers can’t understand why there’s such a big deal about legalizing marijuana. We were all in favor of legalization back then. In a way it already was.  In reality, unless you were caught with a lot of pot, or had the misfortune to be caught by some gung-ho county cop, or were a complete jerk, if you were found to have a joint on you most cops at the time would let you skate.

We never saw pot as that much of a menace. The people we bought from were ordinary folks, not pushers trying to get you to move on to harder stuff, or mobsters bent on literally killing off their competitors. In one memorable instance, someone left a bag with $10,000 cash in it for the local Jerry Lewis Telethon with a card saying it was from the marijuana dealers of Gainesville.   

It’s a lot different now. The pot we remember isn’t the same anymore.

Years ago, after years of no pot at all, some friends had us over and after dinner – and after that curious verbal dance to find out if you ever smoked pot – they brought out a joint.  It was the most potent stuff I’d ever experienced; after two hits I was wasted. And uncomfortably wasted at that. I actually felt sick. I could hear my heartbeat in my ears and I felt clammy. It was awful. 

It scared the crap out of me. 

Does that mean I’ll never try pot again? No, to be absolutely truthful I can’t say that. But I can tell you that science and technology have advanced the potency of pot exponentially and the price has apparently risen accordingly. I haven’t bought any in decades but people I know who have tell me that an ounce of “decent stuff” is up to $400-$500 or more.

Prices like that have also tempted a number of states to legalize recreational use of marijuana while slapping huge taxes on it at the same time. All of a sudden, pot’s gone from a public health issue to a way to boost state budget coffers.   

Still, marijuana remains a controlled substance under Federal law.  Under Obama and the Democrats there was no effort to enforce that law and rein in states like Colorado and others that are clearly defying existing Federal law.

That leaves me in an awkward position.

On one hand I believe pot for recreational use should be legalized and treated much the same as alcohol – regulated for quality, weight, potency and additives, and also restricted to licensed distributors and adults. On the other hand, I have a great deal of trouble with allowing individual states to determine which Federal laws they will or will not enforce; that’s a terrible precedent. 

Pot, like alcohol, is a drug no matter how you look at it. Yes, it has some medical applications, which the media like to promote, but the real widespread use of pot will always be for recreation. And like alcohol, pot can dramatically diminish your ability to perform complex tasks such as driving a car or operating certain machinery.  That’s not in question.  But there’s no way to measure for now. 

Some states are now trying to determine the metrics to define when someone using pot meets or exceeds a new legal standard for “under the influence.”  There are established blood tests for alcohol but none for pot so far. Bloodshot eyes, laughing at stupid stuff and Doritos dust all over you aren’t enough to put you in the slammer; there needs to be a standard.  

There’s also the issue of workplace drug testing, whether that’s for a private sector job, a government position, or to maintain your job as a professional or student athlete.  I’m not sure how that works if you’re a pot user and a resident of a place where pot use is legal.

Should marijuana be legalized?  I suppose it should under the right circumstances, and with the right controls in place. And only if it’s legalized by Federal law that covers the entire country.  If it was legalized for recreational use nationwide I’d buy some, if for no other reason than to see what it’s like now. But I’d be really careful with it.

As should most everybody else in my generation.

It’s not the same pot we remember.  

The Second Civil War …

That’s what’s shaping up, folks. 

The first one was fought over slavery and states’ rights. Everyone remembers the slavery part, but few on the left remember the states’ rights part. 

When some states opted to secede, rather than give in to Federal authority on a variety of issues including slavery, a real war started. The South lost, mostly because it lacked the industrial might and population of the North. A clear message was also sent that states couldn’t decide which Federal law, regulation or ruling to obey, nor could any state law supersede those.  

States’ rights came up again in the battle to desegregate parts of the South in the 1950s and 60s.  Some states in the South claimed the Federal government had no authority to overturn state laws that segregated blacks from whites. Defending those states’ position were a large number of prominent Democrats in Congress, many who also opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Ultimately, the Federal government sent troops to enforce desegregation, and it took Democrat Presidents – with the overwhelming support of Republicans in Congress and scant support from their Democrat counterparts – to buck their own party and pass the Civil Rights Act. 

It’s still surprising to me that so many people see Democrats as the champions of civil rights. Perhaps their American History classes never covered the shameful role of so many Democrats during the fight for civil rights.  Those classes apparently now focus more on America’s disgraceful treatment of Native Americans, our internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, our role in subverting democratically elected governments during the Cold War, our legacy of slavery, and the role of women and minorities in the American Revolution.

On social issues there’s probably more coverage about the power of the modern Federal government – especially the courts – to do “the right thing.” Even when states disagree. 

States really can’t pass and enforce laws – no matter how popular in their particular state – with the goal of thwarting Federal authority. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) has always been held to mean that when state laws or even state constitutions conflict with Federal law or Federal court decisions, Federal law prevails. 

That’s the basis of Federalism. 

The Supremacy Clause is also a back door activists like to use especially to kill state laws and regulations they don’t like.  Instead, they often go for Federal court decisions to win the day.  They know if a state law outlawing same-sex marriage is overturned by U.S. Supreme Court then all fundamentally similar state laws are invalid. If the Supreme Court rules that women have the right to an abortion then abortion cannot be made illegal by any state law. If they can persuade a majority on the Supreme Court that a state voter ID law is discriminatory, then they can stop other states from enforcing a similar law, even if those laws were approved by a public referendum.   

That’s how the left and liberals deploy the Supremacy Clause. 

Except when they don’t want to. 

Which brings us to today. 

There are long-standing Federal laws against illegal immigration.    

Those laws can only be changed by an act of the U.S. Congress.  Those laws have not been changed by Congress, so those laws are still in effect. And because of the same Supremacy Clause the left so loves for other matters, those laws are still applicable to every state and every locality therein. 

You might think it’s a settled matter – after all doesn’t the Supremacy Clause make it clear that Federal law supersedes any state law or local law to the contrary? 

However, all of a sudden politicians in several left-leaning states are enthusiasts of states’ rights; the same people who wave around the Supremacy Clause when it suits them.

The California Senate has approved a bill (SB54) preventing their state and local law enforcement agencies and other public institutions from cooperating with Federal agents attempting to execute lawful orders to find, detain and deport illegal immigrants.

Major cities across the country, such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco, and hundreds of others, are passing similar laws and asserting that as sanctuary cities they will no longer assist Federal agents in catching and deporting illegal immigrants – even those with repeated felony convictions.  Recently, an Oregon judge hearing the case of an illegal immigrant facing deportation by ICE helped that immigrant to escape through a side door to avoid Federal agents. 

They claim it’s a states’ rights issue. They also claim it’s a civil rights issue.  Because they don’t feel the current Federal laws are moral and just, they don’t have to abide by Federal law on immigration, nor do they have to assist Federal agents trying to enforce Federal law. 

California politicians – and the mayors of the sanctuary cities – are openly defying the Federal government to do anything about their flaunting of Federal immigration laws.

There’s even a nascent movement in California to secede from the United States.

Let’s hope California succeeds with that. I for one would not miss California one bit.  I believe a lot of people in the rest of this country would be happy to see them go. We could close up all our military bases there saving billions and allow the new Socialist Republic of Mexifornia to defend itself.  Plus, we wouldn’t have to listen to Nancy Pelosi ever again. 

Still, if the overall nullification logic – if not the precise circumstances – seems eerily familiar, it’s because it echoes the sentiments of slave holders in the South leading up to the Civil War: the Federal government has no legal authority to overturn state and local laws in conflict with Federal laws. In this case it’s not slavery, but illegal immigration. But the logic is the same. 

Ah, so much for the Supremacy Clause.  Apparently, it only applies when you want it to apply, and when it suits your purpose.      

Under Obama, nothing happened. However, under Trump a lot could.  

He’s certainly no Abraham Lincoln or JFK, but as President he has the same authority to use Federal troops if necessary to enforce Federal law. 

Make no mistake: there are Federal laws concerning illegal immigration; laws some states and hundreds of so-called sanctuary cities are openly defying.  The Federal government has the ultimate authority on immigration according to the Constitution, and the President has an obligation under his oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the United States – something Obama ignored. 

Right now the left is cheering the defiance of Federal law on illegal immigration. They particularly like the resistance to any of Trump’s immigration orders.  Once again they are cherry-picking Federal courts to halt Trump’s orders, setting up a final battle in the U.S. Supreme Court.   

When that case does get to the Supreme Court, it will probably hold that, as President, Trump has the legal authority to issue restrictions on immigration. It will also probably hold that Federal immigration laws supersede state and local laws that conflict.

Then what? 

If I were the current sanctuary states and cities, I wouldn’t push back too hard.

Trump’s not Obama. 

Finding yourself through DNA testing ...

In this day and age a lot of folks seem to be searching for some clues from their past that might help explain who they are today. There are widely advertised DNA searches people can buy to see where their ancestors were from.

Watch TV any night and you’ll see the woman who didn’t know who she really was, apparently, and through her DNA found that she was actually part Native American. Which, I suppose we are to infer, is why she’s surrounded herself with Native American pottery. It was just a natural thing to happen, I guess, because somewhere in her family tree is a Native American.  

I wonder when Elizabeth Warren will get tested.  

Then there’s the guy whose wife thought she married an Italian. DNA testing proved some of his ancestors were Eastern European.  I don’t know if this news put him off pasta and cannoli for a while, or made his wife reconsider their marriage, but to me he still seems a bit confused and unsure how he should act now.    

There’s also the guy who always thought he was of German extraction but learned through DNA testing his ancestors were actually Scottish. Now he wears a kilt instead of lederhosen and, I’m just guessing again, is trying to develop a taste for haggis. 

Good luck with that.

Some people obviously take this DNA/ancestor testing seriously. I’m not sure what they’re hoping to find. Maybe a link to somewhere exotic, but not too, too exotic – like someplace they’d rather not even visit much less claim ancestors from.  Like survivors of the Donner party.

I suppose this trend is an outgrowth of the “Roots” phenomenon and connecting – however tangentially – to your distant past. It may also be because people want to find some more interesting identity for themselves other than simply being an American.

For some reason now, “identity” has become important culturally and politically. 

It shouldn’t be surprising someone has made a business out of this. We have people who are clearly Caucasian yet claim to be African-American, or claim to be “part” Native American. It’s often to gain prestige or a minority preference.  Or just to be “special.”

What better way to find something interesting about yourself, what indeed makes you unique and not just another hunk of protoplasm  like the average Joe or Jane next door, than to send your spit to a company that will tell you all about your distant past. 

It’s even available for animals.  A former client sent his rescue dog’s spit to some outfit to find out what kind of dog it was. Turned out his dog was just a dog; the results were inconclusive.  I don’t know what he was expecting. I don’t think it mattered much to the dog.       

I remember a similar fad years ago when people connected with their “past lives.” Curiously, almost everybody in their past life was somebody important and interesting. Nobody ever seemed to “remember” a past life where they were a peasant, a common whore, a horse thief, or the village idiot. What a surprise.   

Years ago my mother sent me a big packet of stuff about our family history. She had all this from when she applied to and was accepted into the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). She wanted me to apply to be accepted into the Sons of the American Revolution (SAR).

I found some of the background interesting – we are apparently descended from a Dutchman named Jacobus who fought in the American Revolution. But we’re also descended from a whole lot of other people, as most people are, in the intervening couple of centuries.  Weirdly, when I showed this information to a client of mine, it appeared that we might be distantly related, too. 

Then again, isn’t everybody? Go back far enough, maybe to the Olduvai Gorge, and you’ll find some link that makes us all somehow related.

Does it matter? To me, not so much.

As best as I can determine – and I haven’t looked that hard – my heritage is Dutch, English, Scottish, Irish, German and most likely whoever else my forbears found attractive, available, or too drunk or lazy to say no. There may be other nationalities in that mix but I don’t know.    

The thing is, I don’t care.  I have zero interest in having my DNA tested to find out where my ancestors were from. It just doesn’t matter to me. 

My distant ancestors have been dead a long, long time. I didn’t know any of them personally. As far as I’m concerned, they didn’t have much of an influence on who I’ve been so far. My grandparents, parents and aunts and uncles – and my parents’ closest friends – left their imprint on me much more than someone related to me who lived and died a century or so ago.

Where my long-dead ancestors originally came from is even less relevant to me.  I’m sure it was somewhat important to them.  But then again they left there to come here, so I guess it wasn’t important enough for them to stay put.   

Now, I’m not dismissing that you can get traits passed down from previous generations. However, I don’t think an affinity for balalaika music or bagpipes are among these.  

If you decide to get your DNA tested to find where your ancestors came from, the important thing is not to read too much into what you might find.

Simply because your family tree has a Native American, or for that matter an Eastern European or someone from Scotland, in its distant past doesn’t mean much. If you are a rational human being it shouldn't have a big effect on your everyday life. Or provide excuses. 

Cultural traits don’t usually survive past a few generations unless your ancestors just kept reproducing with people from their same culture, which, this being America after all, is highly unlikely. At some point in time someone probably strayed outside their ancestral and cultural herd and made a genetic deposit somewhere else. 

That’s how most of us got where we are today, genetically.  That’s actually a good thing overall. Cultures and ethnic groups that are very insular and typically marry within their group – such as the Amish and certain groups of ultra-Orthodox Jews – tend to have higher concentrations of genetically-related disorders. Heinz-57 mutts usually do better and are healthier than overly inbred purebreds That applies to humans as well as animals. Just look at the British royal family,      

Fortunately for the rest of us we are the product of generation after generation of diversifying the gene pool. And if you go back far enough, we’re all related in one way or another. 

Who any of us are – and the traits, allergies and whatever we inherited – is more a matter of the luck of the draw than anything else. 

If you decide to do the DNA tests to determine your ancestry, more power to you.  Have fun. 

For me, I’m okay with just being who I am now. An ordinary American.     

Yet still missing the point …

It’s been months since Trump was inaugurated and the left – and Democrats in particular – still don’t understand how or why he was elected.

For the umpteenth time here’s the answer:  how – he got more electoral votes than Hillary; why – voters were tired of the same old crap from the same old politicians.  

Let’s deal with the how factor first.

Democrats, the left, and the media – I know that’s redundant; I could have just said the left – are obsessed with blaming the Russians in some way for Trump’s victory. 

Certainly, the Russians hacked us during the election cycle, but that’s not a big surprise.  They do this to us on a daily basis throughout the year. And much as we do to them every day as well; the last election cycle wasn’t anything special.  Of course the Russians tried to interfere in our elections.  Again, as much as we try to all the time in Russian elections. 

Did the Russians affect the outcome? No.  Do our efforts ever affect the outcome of their elections? Once again, no.  

Did Trump campaign officials collude with the Russians to help Trump? No. Nobody in the intelligence community (the left is suddenly and paradoxically so fond of) can find a single instance of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. Were there contacts between Trump’s people and the Russians? Sure, but there were also contacts between Hillary’s people and the Russians at the same time – something the left conveniently ignores.     

Did the e-mail release by WikiLeaks hurt Hillary? Probably, because those e-mails ultimately confirmed what a lot in the public already believed about her and the Democrats. These reinforced what public opinion polls already showed – that Hillary was seen as untrustworthy and dishonest. Also confirmed was that Democrat Party officials thought the voting public was dumb, easily conned, and easily manipulated. Finally, these revealed dirty laundry that the Democrat Party feared Sanders more than Trump and actively conspired against Sanders. 

The left blames the Russians for these leaks. In truth any twelve year old anywhere could have hacked the Democrat Party servers. John Podesta’s password was “password.” Duh.

The intelligence community believes Russians had some part in getting the e-mails and turning these over to WikiLeaks – something WikiLeaks denies. The intelligence community, whatever that is, is not willing to say there’s a direct link between the Russian government and the e-mail leaks. However, they do think some Russians of some sort were involved. That’s a far cry from supporting the claim that Vladimir Putin ordered the hacking to help Trump beat Hillary.     

In the end, it’s much ado about nothing. It might be something if the info in the e-mails was fabricated but so far nobody has denied the veracity of any of the released e-mails. 

Then there’s James Comey and the FBI.  Another red herring.  Nothing he said, often seemingly reversing positions, made any difference in the election. It was a wash.

So, to get to the heart of how Trump won, after all the other bogus variables are removed, is pretty simple.  Trump supporters were more motivated to vote and did. Potential Hillary voters, without Obama on the ticket, weren’t as motivated and didn’t show up to vote. Trump campaigned hard in long-time blue states such as Wisconsin while Hillary took these for granted and didn’t. Trump won many of the states she ignored, much to the surprise of just about everyone.

Everyone, that is, except for Trump supporters in those states.

So let’s deal with the why factor. 

Trump campaigned on bringing real change to Washington; Hillary campaigned on being the first woman President and maintaining the status quo.  Hillary wedded herself to Obama’s agenda. 

The left, and Obama of course, have never understood how many Americans feel about the Obama agenda. Few wanted to say anything against Obama when he was President for fear of being called a racist, a bigot, or worse.

He was, after all, our first black President. That gave him a lot of Teflon.    

But the reality on the ground was that many felt Obama only represented the views of urban liberals on the two coasts and in the big cities. People in the rest of the country felt their needs largely ignored by the Obama Administration and Democrats in general. 

There also seemed to be a bias against people of faith who actually worked for a living, paid their bills, and took responsibility for their own lives. The rules appeared to be twisting in favor of otherwise able-bodied people who chose not to work, depended on government to maintain them comfortably in their chosen lifestyle, and those – such as illegal aliens – who were allowed to break our laws with impunity.  Aggravating this were Obama Administration actions that seemed to trample on people’s basic rights to worship as they pleased, conduct everyday business on their own terms, and protect their other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 

Perhaps most unnerving to many folks was the unrelenting attack on law enforcement. Cops were automatically presumed guilty until proven otherwise. The media played up any shooting of a black or Hispanic by cops, yet appeared to downplay whenever a cop was shot by a black or Hispanic.  Eric Holder of Obama’s Justice Department was quick to blame cops, and to transform righteous shootings by cops, and others acting in self-defense, into Federal civil rights cases. The full power of the Feds was brought down on police departments time and again for little reason. 

I would be remiss if I didn’t add the pissed-off factor.  I still maintain this is one of the biggest reasons Trump beat Hillary.

You can only insult people so many times before they fight back. The Democrats and Obama constantly gave the impression they believed anyone who didn’t agree with them was stupid.  On the wrong side of history. A racist. A bigot. A xenophobe. Whatever. 

When ObamaCare was presented, it was actually based on the premise that most people weren’t smart enough to know what they needed.  So Democrats and government bureaucrats decided what should be in a “good” healthcare insurance plan.  One of the so-called architects of the plan – Jonathan Gruber – went so far as to publicly state that the ObamaCare designers counted on the stupidity of the American public.  Ouch. 

Obama openly and knowingly  lied about ObamaCare. He claimed if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor, and if you liked your existing plan you could keep your plan – both entirely false – because under the plan’s rules and regulations many were no longer allowed. And because insurance companies now had to provide a wider array of built-in services to everyone – including those with pre-existing conditions and ridiculous stuff like prostate exams for women and maternity benefits for men – premium and deductible costs soared and participating doctor networks contracted. 

Meanwhile, as ObamaCare mandated that employers with more than a set number of full-time employees had to provide coverage to all their employees, employers made more employees part time and cut their hours which also reduced their wages in the process.

For sure there were beneficiaries from ObamaCare. Such as people who suddenly had subsidized healthcare who never had it before. In some extreme cases a few people paid as little as 72 cents a month for their plan after all the subsidies; at the same time their neighbor with a real full-time job might see their own insurance costs double and their deductibles quadruple for a plan offering far less coverage than before ObamaCare.

That’s not made up. In my own company my per-employee healthcare cost doubled just in the time ObamaCare was in effect. And we had an excellent and affordable plan with reasonable deductibles through Aetna before that; unfortunately, that plan was no longer available within ACA guidelines and with about the same deductibles without major cost hikes.  

The net result is that for the first time in our over 30-year history, employees now have to contribute toward their health insurance. 

In my wife’s former company, when she turned 65 she was booted off her employer’s plan and pushed into Medicare. She had the option to stay in the plan if she was willing to pay more than $1,000 a month in premiums. So she went into Medicare, but because our household income for the previous two years exceeded what was allowed, she had to pay a premium penalty and was not allowed to use some of the services without additional cost.    

Ah, but what about the promise that ObamaCare would help small businesses that provided insurance for their employees with tax credits?  As one of the few small businesses – according to our insurance broker – that still paid 100% of the premiums for their employees did I qualify for the credit?  No, because I paid my employees too much. In fact, our broker only had one small business client that qualified – a landscaping service that paid minimum wage.    

And the left still wonders why so many small business owners – and employees of small businesses feel harmed by Obama and Democrats.  When the media and Democrats tout how many people who never had insurance before now do – albeit at incredibly subsidized rates – that’s little solace to those who took it up the butt financially to provide insurance to people getting essentially free coverage. 

Let’s also not forget the folks who lost their jobs to outsourcing, and those likely to be hurt from the TPP which Hillary and Obama called the “gold standard” of trade agreements. Or those who saw their previously good-paying jobs taken by illegal immigrants willing to work for peanuts, while Obama and the Democrats encouraged even more illegals to come here. 

Yes, people were pissed. And Trump was their way to give Washington the finger.       

And that’s yet another powerful reason why Trump won. 

To sum it up: it wasn't because of the Russians; it wasn't because of the FBI; Trump won because he worked harder to win his Electoral College votes and people who voted for him did so because they didn't want more of the same from Washington.        

Any questions?    

Fixing this nation: Taxes …

Tax policy is the open cesspool of American politics. 

Our Federal tax system is a fetid swamp tended and nurtured by hordes of lobbyists, special interests and big campaign contributors, aided and abetted by elected politicians.

Most of the public only see the tip of the iceberg – what they as individuals have to pay in taxes. What lies below the surface is a labyrinthine maze of subsidies, credits, special tax treatments and exemptions that hardly anyone understands fully.

The only ones who do are the lobbyists and politicians who are on a never-ending quest to use tax policy for their own narrow purposes.  They try to manipulate tax policy to punish their perceived enemies, reward their patrons, and curry favor with key voting blocs.

Consequently, our current tax system is far from fair, by design. 

The public battles over tax policy typically center on Federal income tax and the need to either raise or cut Federal income tax on key constituencies.  Some want across-the-board tax cuts; others, tax cuts for the “middle class” and “the poor” although neither of those groups pays much if any Federal income tax; almost nobody is willing to propose across-the-board tax increases.     

Ironically, the people who usually rail about having “the rich” pay their “fair share” of income taxes aren’t paying much if any Federal income tax themselves. Meanwhile, “the rich” are actually paying most of the Federal income tax the Treasury takes in. 

When Romney said that almost half of all Americans aren’t paying any Federal income tax he was crucified. But he was right.   

Between all the credits, subsidies and exemptions, almost half of all Americans don’t owe any Federal income tax; many actually get money “back” from the government without paying any money in through programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) – a program plagued by rampant fraud.  

And most of this is perfectly legal, thanks to Congress. All those credits, subsidies and exemptions exist because members of Congress have over the years used tax policy to win votes, push causes, and, of course, reward their friends and sometimes punish the enemies of their friends.    

But while the media and politicians constantly focus on “the rich” and “the poor” and the “middle class” both the media and politicians conveniently ignore all the tax breaks given out to certain businesses and industries, consumers who are incented to buy certain products and services, and others in the general public – depending entirely on where they live.   

Trump and Republicans like to say our corporate taxes are among the highest in the industrialized world. Technically our corporate taxes are among the highest, but the truth is hardly any major corporation here pays that rate. Many of our largest corporations make billions in profits and pay zero or close to zero in corporate taxes.  Again, it’s all perfectly legal. 

And for the same reason so few ordinary Americans pay Federal income taxes. Congress has provided so many tax breaks and credits to specific businesses and industries that when corporate accountants are done almost nobody owes anything.

So what’s the point of lowering a corporate tax rate nobody pays? It’s about as useful as lowering the Federal income tax rate on poor or middle-class people who also aren’t paying anything.

It’s all about optics. 

In a perfect world, there would be no Federal corporate income tax. 

There’s really no point to it if you eliminate all the subsidies, credits, exemptions and other special tax treatments; these only exist to favor one business or industry or another, to reward organizations that do what politicians want, and provide leverage to politicians seeking campaign funds. If you wiped these all away and eliminated the Federal corporate income tax very little would actually change in the long term. 

Trump and Republicans say they will enact major tax reforms to benefit ordinary taxpayers, too. 

Good luck with that. Watch carefully as the Republicans tiptoe around simplifying and making the tax code more rational so that everybody pays some taxes. Even more telling will be how they deal with provisions that actually subsidize wasteful spending by some state and local governments at the expense of taxpayers in more fiscally responsible states.   

They should start by getting rid of all the subsidies, credits, exemptions and other special tax treatments for the rest of us as well. Like the corporate tax breaks, many of these simply reward dumb behavior, or incent people to do what they should do anyway on their own dime. 

Get rid of all of these and people might start doing things for the right reasons.  Or, at the very least, understand that subsidies inevitably raise the price of whatever is subsidized, and cause some people to make poor choices they would never consider making with their own money.  

If they could do that, and that is a very big if, they could rethink what our tax policy should be, philosophically and ethically, to make taxpayers real participants in our government.       

The ultimate goal of a responsible Federal tax policy should be that every person has some skin in the game so they have a vested financial interest in how government spends their money.  The only way to do this equitably is for every bit of income a person received – whether from interest on savings, from salaries, or from distributions of profit to employees, bondholders or shareholders, or whatever – to be subject to Federal income tax at the same rate.

This is what a true Federal flat tax would be; not the wishy-washy mish-mash often proposed where certain groups would still be exempt from taxes, or would pay a lower or higher rate. Or a different rate, or exempted from tax altogether, based on where the income was derived or how that income was spent.

Not going to happen. 

The reason is simple: too many special interests have their hands in the process, all clamoring to retain whatever tax treatment they have now.  And they always want more. 

I’ll pick just a few of the more egregious examples.

Residents in several high-tax states such as New York and New Jersey can deduct many of their state and local taxes from their Federal taxes. This alone cost the Federal Treasury almost $80 billion in 2013. But that’s not the worst part – it hides the true cost of out-of-control spending on the state and local level. Without the offset, even more people who could would be fleeing New York and New Jersey in droves.  

So when Republicans from low-tax states like Florida and Texas start discussing which tax breaks to cut, expect Senators and House members from high-tax states to fight tooth and nail to preserve this nonsense for their constituencies. 

Getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction would also save a bundle for the U.S. Treasury – between $70 and $100 billion a year.  Realtors will, as always, fight to the death to defeat any attempt to eliminate it.  It’s a fundamental part of some realtors’ sales pitch to get potential home buyers to buy a more expensive house than they planned.  The mortgage interest deduction doesn’t really make that more expensive house more affordable, and contrary to what some realtors pitch, it only – at best – temporarily lowers the buyer’s gross income for tax purposes. 

It’s a variation of the car dealer con when he or she asks a first-time car buyer “How much of a monthly payment can you afford?” Conveniently forget the cost of insurance, maintenance, gas and every other expense associated with that car and, sure, it looks like a deal.     

Remember when Congress eliminated the ability to deduct credit card interest on personal purchases from your income? The banks and credit card issuers howled. But it really didn’t make any difference in how consumers used credit cards. Neither would eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, except to make home buyers a bit more realistic about what they could afford. 

Next, you’ve probably heard about generous tax credits for installing solar panels. In some cases you can deduct up to 30% of the cost of installation and qualifying equipment from your Federal tax bill. This has done absolutely nothing except help solar panel manufacturers and installers sell more stuff at a fat profit. Much like the pitch from realtors, the solar industry makes it seem like the government is helping you save even more on your utility bills.  It’s not.

By the way, the top residential uses of solar power in this country are to power attic ventilation systems (photovoltaic panels) and to heat swimming pools (passive solar panels). Neither of these seems to me to fall into the category of absolutely essential applications that promise to wean America from its dependence on fossil fuels.  But that’s just me. 

The real problems with subsidizing solar panels and installations are that these are a waste of our taxpayer dollars for almost no benefit whatsoever to consumers or the nation. The payback – if ever – on photovoltaic solar panels the green energy lobby is so enamored of can take as much as 20 years.  Next, because these panels and their installation are so expensive, the credits mainly reward the affluent who could afford to pay for the solar panels anyway without the credits, or make enough taxable income to make it worthwhile to get these credits to lower their tax bill.  

Think about it – how many poor or middle income families could afford to spend from $10,000 to $30,000 on something that’s breakeven in about 20 years or more? 

But what about all the American jobs making and installing green energy solutions? 

Well, despite squandering hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and loan guarantees to now-bankrupt companies like Solyndra, most solar panels now come from China.

Is that helping put Americans back to work on green energy?

The tax credits to consumers are set to expire in 2019. But don’t count on it.

There are so many of these. I earlier mentioned the EITC where low-income families get paid extra money from the government based on how many dependents they have. Please note this is not a conventional tax credit – offsetting the taxes someone paid – but is really an outright grant; checks are sent to recipients from the government despite what they paid in. 

However, while some politicians see the EITC as a valuable anti-poverty program, it’s also a program that has experienced major fraud. It’s been estimated that as much as $2 billion has been fraudulently claimed by illegal immigrants alone. Perhaps many billions more have been fraudulently claimed by people working the system claiming fictitious dependents or multiple people claiming the same dependents within the same household.

Is EITC fraud just the result of a poorly written law with unexpected consequences?  Nope, I believe it’s a matter of nobody wanting to enforce the rules. And why not? Well, because it would mean cracking down on the poor and illegals.  Also, like most government giveaways, it’s hard to pull back something people are used to.  

That’s the point.  Nobody will willingly give up their special tax breaks, credits, or subsidies. Whenever talk of tax reform comes up, everybody wants to eliminate or scale back the breaks for others, but they don’t want their own touched.

Parochial politics consistently override doing the right thing; politicians want to protect their home-state industries and residents and keep the support of key special interest groups.  

That’s why there’s always a huge fight over reforming the tax code. And why real reform of the Federal tax code almost never comes.

For the record, the last time was in 1986. More than 30 years later it’s still a mess.

I don’t care …

There’s only so much you can care about.  I’ve reached my limit.

I’m suffering from a serious “care” overload.  I can’t possibly care about everything – whether that’s what the media, the Democrats, the Republicans, Trump, St. Jude’s Hospital, the ASPCA, poor Jews in Israel, immigrant-rights activists, and innumerable others want me to care about.

It’s all one big blur anymore. 

Everything related to Trump is too much. And we're all supposed to care. Every time the man does anything you can be certain somebody will be outraged.

He puts out an Executive Order about immigration. The media, Democrats and immigration-rights groups go nuts. He amends the order in response to make it more acceptable and less draconian. The media, Democrats and immigration-rights groups go nuts.  Again. 

I swear, Trump could issue an Executive Order establishing a national kitten and puppy day and somebody, somewhere would be outraged.

I can hear it now: Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi saying something like “if only he cared as much about poor undocumented immigrants and their families as he does about kittens and puppies …” PETA would be in the streets protesting his “support” of kitten and puppy mills. Ezekiel Emmanuel would be on CNN talking about how this is unfair to children with life-threatening pet-dander allergies, especially since they will no longer get treatment after Trump repeals the Affordable Care Act.  There would be people upset that he was favoring kittens and puppies over endangered species.   

Black Lives Matter folks would be pissed that … well … they are always pissed. As, it seems, everyone else is these day. Everybody is looking for something to be outraged over.   

It just never ends.    

No detail of what Trump does goes unreported.  The perfect example is the news that Trump recently had an overcooked $54 steak with ketchup. I’m serious – that made the news.     

Now, certainly he has his faults. Those are too numerous to even begin listing.  But for Christ’s sake, if he likes burnt steak with ketchup, who cares?  I don’t. 

Here’s a list of other things I find equally important to caring about Trump’s steak:

“If silver only reaches its recent all-time high …”

Mike Lindell’s latest My Pillow offer …

“Rosland Capital ships my gold fast … “

“For only $19 a month …”

“Get this love-to-the-rescue blanket that shows you care …”

Get the picture?  Enough is enough. 

The worst, by far is the political circus. 

The other day I watched Lethal Weapon 3 and Lethal Weapon 4 back to back – on regular cable, with commercial interruptions – rather than the never-ending saga of claims, counter claims, counter-counter claims, and counter-counter-counter claims of who is accusing whom of doing whatever in Washington. That should tell you something. 

It’s gotten to where I can’t even stand to watch any news but local news, which, given where I now live, is really pathetic. Half the reporters in the field look and act like kids still in high school wearing borrowed clothes; the other half are like cast-offs from bottom-tier media markets who retired to Florida and still do the odd report to stay in the biz. 

The local news itself is mostly a non-stop litany of who got murdered by whom in Orlando – typically somewhere in the Pine Hills area; where the latest brush fires are; and traffic accidents on I4 causing backups for miles. Oh, and the local weather forecasts, which, this being Central Florida, are pretty much the same every day and about as accurate as a Magic Eight Ball. 

However, it’s a refreshing change from the national news. 

It’s not that I’ve turned my back on “important news” altogether – I still get The Wall Street Journal at home to learn what’s really happening in the world.

It’s just that so much of what the national broadcast media – NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox – consider “important news” isn’t really that important. At least not at this time. And I have lost patience with all of the networks for substituting opinion and bickering for real news I could use. 

Too often these days I feel like I’m caught in the middle of a perpetual pissing match between nitwits on both sides of the aisle who resort to invective and talking over each other instead of bringing something meaningful to a debate. It’s like being in a household with parents who bicker over every little thing.  I’d rather not participate, even as a viewer.    

Do I care what Chuck Schumer has to say? Nope. Do I care what Trump says? Nope.  Do I care what Rand Paul says? Nope. John McCain? Nope. Do I care what Nancy Pelosi says? Nope.  Do I care what the Republican or Democrat strategist or spokespuppet du jour has to say? Nope.  Do I care who won at the Academy Awards, the Grammys, the Screen Actors’ Guild Awards, the People’s Choice Awards, the Golden Globes, the Emmys and whatever other awards shows there are – and what the emcees and recipients said? Nope.   

The old line about “sound and fury signifying nothing” comes to mind. 

If something meaningful comes up, some news that’s actually important, I’m sure The Wall Street Journal will report  it. I can wait until the next issue to find out. 

Until then, I’ll watch something else; something that doesn’t demand I care.  

The debate over gender identity …

I watched with amazement the other night when an advocate for transgender rights said that gender is whichever sex someone feels they are and has nothing to do with biology or anatomy.

I’m having difficulty believing anyone – short of surgical procedures plus hormone treatments – can actually become a different gender. This isn't about appearance; that's easy to accomplish. No, this is about being fully accepted, legally, as a different gender, on your word alone.    

That’s not to minimize the plight of those who feel that, despite the anatomy they were born with, they are in fact more female than male, or more male than female for that matter. I am sure that’s very difficult for them. Yet there’s a profound difference between feeling like one gender or another psychologically and actually being a certain gender physiologically and legally.    

Advocates say this is a civil rights issue – they believe people of virtually any age should be allowed to claim whichever gender they feel they are.  And if they are anatomically male but identify as female, or anatomically female but gender identify as male, they should be accepted by society, and government, and the law, as the gender of their choice. 

By logical extension then, anyone should be allowed  to use bathrooms and locker rooms, to play on whatever teams and compete in whatever sports, based solely on their personal gender choice, not the anatomical and genetic gender they actually are. 

This may sound fair and all about “inclusiveness” to some but ignores the real physiological differences between most males and females that go well beyond genitalia and feelings.

Accepting that gender is merely an intellectual exercise could be devastating to women-only sports and scholarships that are protected under Title IX.  Some males could decide they would win more often and gain more scholarships simply by claiming to self-identify as female. 

Don't dismiss that possibility.

Then there are all the current gender-specific preferences, much like race-based preferences, created by Federal, state and local governments for a wide variety of programs. The good intention of these has always been to provide more opportunities to certain groups considered historically disadvantaged in some way – in short, to level the playing field if possible. 

Those gender-based preferences are based on biology, not self-identification. Until now, it’s been pretty clear: women-owned businesses get preference for government contracts; women-owned businesses help other contractors comply with government contract requirements; and women are entitled to special treatment for loans and start-up assistance from the SBA, just to name a few.

The result is that billions of dollars – both from governments and the corporations that do business with governments as well – flow through to women-owned firms by edict. 

I am not saying this is wrong. Or questioning the validity of these policies.  That’s a different discussion altogether about government picking winners and losers.   

Still, by redefining gender – which it appears some activists are trying to do – to be based on psychology rather than biology or physiology, a new problem is created.  Does a male who claims to self-identify as a female qualify for participation in these women-only programs? 

Who decides?

And is that fair to physiological females competing for the same preferences?   

Personally, I am fundamentally opposed to all artificial preferences by race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or whatever. It’s all discrimination no matter how you look at it.  I’d like to see us stop playing games in employment or government aid based on anything other than merit or true financial need.  Putting the fickle fat finger of government on who gets what based entirely on other criteria is a recipe for corruption and fraud. 

Right now, the media and Democrats are obsessed with which bathrooms transgender people should be allowed to use, and that Trump has pushed that decision back to the states. Lost in all this is that there are much bigger implications of self-defined gender identity down the road. 

Democrats and the media see the whole issue of transgender rights as a wedge issue to keep the LGBTQ community on their side, while painting those opposed to allowing people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with as homophobes and bigots. The word “discrimination” keeps surfacing in almost every discussion.   

The reality is that the concept of self-defined gender to gain access to restrooms is baffling to a lot of folks who are neither homophobes nor bigots. Me included. 

How did this become such an important issue?  And why are almost all the “victims” of discrimination reported by the media transgendered children or adolescents?   

More to the point, is there really a point to all this? That’s what has most of us puzzled. 

Why would a transgender female who self identifies as a male prefer to use a men’s restroom in the first place? There’s nothing particularly inspiring or enlightening about a men’s restroom. There are sinks, stalls, urinals, and no small talk; most males spend as little time as possible there, and, trust me, most men’s restrooms are pigsties. Men’s restrooms don’t even have a couch.     

Then there’s the issue of a transgender male who self identifies as a woman preferring to use a women’s rest room. 

While men seeing a woman entering a men’s restroom might be surprised, most of us have seen that before, especially at sporting events when the women’s restroom lines are so long.  However, at the present time, I suspect women seeing a man enter a women’s restroom might be exponentially more freaked out; not because women are homophobes or bigots, but because they are more afraid – warranted or unwarranted in this case – of possible sexual assault.

So how did this gender identity thing become such a big deal – especially since there are maybe at most 300,000 adults in the U.S. (much less than one-tenth of one percent of the population) who may or may not feel they are transgendered?  And even that’s a conditional number; more of a high-side guess by advocacy groups. Still, it’s 300,000 people – maybe.

Advocacy groups won’t even estimate how many kids may or may not be considering themselves transgendered – which is what’s getting most of the media attention now – since kids really don’t have much of a firm gender identity until they are older, and even then aren’t sure. 

I’ll tell you why it’s suddenly become a big deal.

The media and Democrats are running low on “victims” to exploit. When there are openly gay Republicans and conservatives, black and Hispanic Republicans and conservatives, and female Republicans and conservatives, their universe of potential victims to hype is shrinking. That’s very troubling to those who rely on victimology to advance their political agenda.    

Sure, there are the illegal immigrants and the Syrian refugees, but polls show most Americans aren’t in favor of either; the majority of Americans want to cut down on both.  

So the transgendered are their new McGuffin – an elusive, hard to define category – perfect foils for the media and Democrats to wield as a cudgel against their nemesis, conservatives.  Using children and adolescents to make their case is a new low, even for them.   

How disingenuous is this?  Recently, on two separate nights Tucker Carlson interviewed two serious advocates for the transgendered.

He asked both the same question: What are the absolute standards for deciding someone is actually transgendered and the gender they self-identify with is real? 

One blathered on about several psychologists coming up with tests, but when Carlson asked for the science behind it to definitively prove someone was really the alternative gender they chose she had nothing. Carlson then asked if there was any reputable scientist – and offered $1,000 if she could name just one – who would show there was a scientific way to prove someone was really the alternative gender they chose. She said she’d have to get back to him on that.

The other, and more entertaining advocate, maintained that people didn’t have to prove anything to support their claim to be a male or a female – it was enough for them to believe they were to be accepted as the gender of their choice.  When Carlson asked if biology and physiology didn’t matter, the advocate insisted gender identity was a strictly personal choice – not based on biology or physiology – and anyone could be any gender they chose. 

Then, Carlson said, what’s to prevent him from deciding he was now a female to gain access to government preferences for women? The advocate responded that Carlson was being ridiculous. Carlson followed up by asking if he could choose his gender, despite biology and physiology, could he also choose his race – could he, for example, choose to be African-American? 

Well of course not, the advocate replied. You can’t simply change your race just because you want to – race is something you’re born with.   

But apparently you can choose your gender. Who knew? 

The unintended consequences of the media and Democrats’ push for everyone – including government officials at all levels and the people running our schools – to  accept that gender is merely a matter of personal choice, are potentially far more serious than which bathroom someone should be allowed to use.   

There’s an awful lot of money at stake. And there are a lot of well-meant programs designed to help women using gender as the qualification on the proverbial block. 

Don’t count out the probability of people switching gender just to gain an edge.