Category: Uncategorized

In the last line of George Will’s recent column about federal income taxes he said that the best tax bill might be one that Rep. Bob Goodlatte has introduced multiple times. This “Tax Termination Act” would scrap the existing cumbersome and extremely complicated present four million-word tax code for a much simpler version – ” one designed on purpose.”
I have a reasonable tax plan that would be fair, quite simple, and designed on purpose. The entire tax code could be on one page!
In my plan there are three principles that cannot be changed. While there are parts that will be negotiable, the three major principles are not negotiable.
1) Everybody, who has earned income, pays taxes.
Those who make very little will pay taxes and those who earn a lot will pay a lot more in taxes. To my way of thinking, if one is receiving the benefits of being a US citizen, then that person should have to contribute (everyone needs to have some skin in the game!)
2) There will be three income tax brackets. The rates in the upper two brackets will ultimately be determined by the tax rate is for the lowest group of income earners.The rate for the lowest bracket will initially be set, and then the rates for the other two brackets will be incrementally related to this lowest rate. If the lowest bracket started at 5%, then both the middle and the upper tax bracket would pay a 5% higher rate compared to the bracket below.
For example, if the lowest rate is set at 5% then the middle rate would be
10%, and the top rate would be 15%. The corporate tax rate would be the
same as the highest individual tax rate.
This leads to the first negotiable item – in my example the increment between the different levels was 5%, but perhaps for this to be revenue neutral the lowest rate would have to start at 6% then with the same 6% incremental increase between levels; or perhaps would start at 8% with an 8% incremental increase between levels.
What is also negotiable here is the income level at which the rates change. The upper middle bracket cut off would be a 10X multiple of the upper level of the lowestbracket, but again this is a negotiable part. For instance, if the lower bracket were extended to $30,000, then the middle bracket would extend to $300,000 or if the lowest bracket were to extend to $15,000, then the middle bracket would extend to $150,000.
My suggestions as to the income cutoffs for the different rates would be $15,000 and $150,000 with the middle tax bracket being those who earn between $15,000 and $150,000.
3) The tax would be a flat tax. No AMT. Other than deductions for medical expenses, there would be no deductions and no credits.
Let me be clear on this . . . No deductions for state and local taxes; no mortgage deductions; no property tax deductions; no charitable donation deductions; etc.
No standard deduction. No tax credits.
So to summarize, for example (with high rates at 10, 20, & 30%) if the lowest bracket went up to $15,000 and if one earned $15,000, he/she would pay $1,500 in taxes at the 10% rate.
Continuing on, if one earned $150,000, he/she would pay $28,500 in taxes. ($1500 for the first $15,000 of earned income at the 10% rate plus $27,000 for the other $135,000 of earned income at 20%)
Finally if one earned $500,000, then he/she would pay $133,500 in taxes. ($1500 for the initial $15,000; $27,000 for the next $135,000; and $105,000 for the last $350,000 at the 30% rate)
Remember, no deductions, no standard deduction and no credits.
Other than being very simple, the beauty of this system would be that no one would like it, and that can only be good!
The Democrats would not like this example, because the working poor would have to pay something (in my example, their rate would be 10%), and so they would plead to lower the rate on the lowest level. However, perhaps the Democrats would not be anxious to follow their initial instincts to lower the tax rate to 5% on the lowest income groups, as this would also lower the tax rate percentage on the other two groups to 10% and 15% respectively.
The Republicans would not like it because all of their deductions would no longer be there. Imagine no deductions!! Capital gains would be taxed the same as ordinary income. No one would like losing his/her deductions, but the lower tax rates would compensate.
States with high state tax rates would not like it.
Charities would not like it.
Realtors would not like it.
Etc., etc. would not like it!
So what do you think?
I hear ya sayin’, “We don’t like it!!”
No surprise!

In my soon to be published book, The Quirky Contrarian, one of the chapters is titled “Generation Me; ‘Me First’ Is Not Age Related.”

As I was reading the Wall Street Journal on 11/9/17 it struck me that this chapter heading is more that just whimsical, as it is Reality.  In one part of Daniel Henninger’s column (WSJ, 11/9/17), he refers to President Trump as a “selfie president” (Embrace Me), and then describes Democrats’ as focused solely on “what awful thing Donald Trump has tweeted about . . . Me!”  Mr. Henninger also notes that self-interest has always been ‘normal’ in politics, but he implied that now it appears to be over the edge.  Me, Me, Me!!!

 

On that same day while skimming the letters to the editor, it struck me that this ‘Me‘ concept is seemingly much more ubiquitous. All of these letters were in response to “Tax Reform”, and almost all were self serving in that they were all about why my deduction should not be messed with: “Don’t take away my deduction of . . . !”:

Those living in the high state-tax states were bemoaning the loss of SALT (the state and local tax deduction). “It is mean-spirited and intended to punish those that live in high tax-and-spend states that did not vote for the Tweeter.” (Darien, Connecticut)

“Middle-class salarymen (and women) are losing SALT so that the uber rich  can avoid paying estate taxes and the AMT.” (Mill Valley, California)

Senior citizens were complaining that they will be hit with higher taxes as one in three recipients of social security will still have their benefits taxed. (Urbandale, Iowa)

“The child tax credit should be preserved as it helps raise children out of poverty, and provides a well deserved break to hard working parents.” Obviously written by someone who is a ‘hardworking parent’ and not poor. (Monument, Colorado)

Why punish the Republican base by taking away big mortgage and property tax deductions? (a CPA from Los Gatos, California – probably not a Republican?)

Why take away the itemized deduction for medical expenses. “Talk about mean spirited.” (a 90 year old from Plano, Texas) The elimination of the itemized deduction for medical expenses penalizes the ordinary family, not to mention those facing catastrophic medical issues.” (Woodway, Texas)

 

Some of these “don’t take away my deduction” pleas appear valid, especially those pertaining to medical expense deductions, but shouldn’t everyone have to give up something for the overall benefit of the country’s economy?

For the record I live in a blue coastal state and I would gladly go along with eliminating the SALT deduction as possibly this would cause the residents of my state to wake up and thus lead to the ousting of our liberal tax-and-spend local and state Democratic politicians.

 

 

 

In a major decision on 11/7/17,  the LA Unified Board of Education averted a showdown with five charter school operators, who subsequently said in a joint statement, “Today shows that when charter schools and the district work together, kids win. We are proud to have stood up for policies that will have a major impact on our students and teachers.”

The compromise decision involved renewals for 15 established L.A. charter schools and the launch of three new charter schools. The school district staff had recommended denial of all 18 for some mumbo-jumbo reason, but in the end only one renewal application was denied – that because of academic performance shortcomings. Very surprising to me is the fact that there are 224 charter schools in the L.A. Unified system, and this is more than any other school district in the nation.

 

When I looked into the status of charter schools in San Diego County, I was surprised again. In 2017 there are 124 charter schools in San Diego County with over 69,000 students – both of these are significantly improved compared to 2008-9 when there was 73 charters with 38,680 students. At this time approximately 20% of the students in the San Diego Unified School District attend a charter school, and this is projected to increase to 30% over the next decade. Not unexpectedly some of the inner city public schools are loosing students to charter schools, and as a consequence are revamping their modus operandi to become more like some “independent study charters” that combine classroom based instruction with computer based programs.

All of this is good because this competition is forcing the public schools to up the ante, and the result is kids win!

 

 

Yesterday I successfully completed another week without NFL football, and it’s almost getting easier. I am no longer even aware of the night games on Thursday, Sunday, and Monday, but Sunday day is still tough. This past Sunday we decided to go to a movie. What to see? What to see? As it was my turn to choose,  I googled “movies San Diego” to see what was around. I basically knew which movie I wanted to see, so I scrolled Google. There were 51 films and “Let There Be Light” was number 50 on the list.

For those of you not familiar with this film, it is a faith based movie, produced by Sean Hannity, so right away, the reviews and the publicity for the film will be marginal at best. In our local throw-away neighborhood paper, The Reader, the reviewer of movie basically said, “Sean Hannity was involved with this       movie . . . nuff said!” I did find a review in the New Yorker, and as is possibly typical for the New Yorker, I had to look up two of the words in the title of the review! (“A Xenophobic Morality Tale As Cynical As It Is Saccharine”). Anyway the New York City “elitist” reviewer did not especially like it –  no surprise here. He even went out of his way to take a swipe at Trump, even though the movie was completed before the election, and Trump’s name is not mentioned or alluded to in the film.

What was interesting was that even though the film is set in and was filmed in New York City, in its opening week, none of the movie theaters in any of the five New York City boroughs was showing the movie. If you wanted to see it during its opening week, you had to go to New Jersey.

We did find the movie at four theaters in the San Diego area, and we went to the 11:50 a.m. Sunday showing. We expected to be able to have our pick of seats once in the theater, but to my surprise, the theater was about 90% full . . . and this was in California! We did get two seats together, and people kept coming in all throughout the previews. Why was this the case? It was not raining. We’re all of these people in the theater also protesting NFL football? Was this some sort of protest against Hollywood -i.e. by wanting to go to a movie but not wanting to see a movie coming out of the ‘West Coast swamp’? Was this demonstrative of a desire by ordinary folk to see a Christian film? Was this because of Sean Hannity?

I don’t know the answer, but I do know that at noon on a beautiful San Diego day, the theater was practically full.

Anyway the film was okay, but not outstanding. With Sean Hannity’s name affiliated with the film, it could never be an Oscar nominee, but it is not Oscar quality anyway. The acting was okay. The plot was okay. It was a story of a world renowned atheist who had a life changing experience, and subsequently became a Christian. Without ruining it for you, I thought the ending was unexpected. There was humor and sadness sprinkled throughout, and at the conclusion of the film there was some applause from of the audience.

Am I glad I saw Let There Be Light  . . . Yes.

Did I survive another week without NFL football? . . . Yes!

 

 

What a great World Series! For those of you who don’t know, the Houston Astros defeated the Los Angels Dodgers in seven games. The games were exciting. The hitting was good on both sides (except for L.A. in the 7th game), and this was against some of the best pitchers in the game. Houston was the sentimental favorite because of all the recent destruction from  Hurricane Harvey. No one that I spoke to was for the Dodgers including people from the East Coast, and from both Northern California and Southern California outside of the L.A. area. I did not speak to anyone from the L.A. area, but I have to assume that they were for the Dodgers. This morning my wife asked me, “Why does everyone dislike the L.A. teams”? I do not know why this seems to be true. I was trying to think of a witty political reason for this . . . but I’ve got nothing.
Not only were the games good, but the singing of the National Anthem and the associated pomp was very good. The tribute to the flag by the fans as well as the players on both sides was touching. These are all professional athletes and many of the players are from outside of the continental U.S., yet I did not see any of the players show disrespect for the National Anthem.
Why would these professional baseball players act with respect during the National Anthem while professional football players are acting the opposite? Both make a lot of money. Both teams were from major U.S. cities. Both sports are being played before large audiences including those attending the live game as well as those watching on TV. There is a mixture of Blacks, Whites and Latinos in both sports, albeit with a significantly higher percentage of Blacks in the NFL and a significantly greater number of Latinos in MLB.
From my perspective there is only one logical answer as to why there is such a dramatic difference in behavior when it comes to the National Anthem – CTE!

Baseball players in general have very little head trauma, while football players have a lot of head trauma. A recent study of the brains deceased pro-football and college football players showed an unbelievably high incidence of CTE. About 99% of these brains demonstrated evidence of CTE on autopsy in this study. Now granted these brains were studied mostly because of some suspicion of possible CTE before death . . . but 99%!!! Therefore my postulate as to why these NFL football players are acting out with disrespect to the National Anthem, especially why they are acting out in a way that is detrimental to both their league and to themselves is that most of these players already have CTE. The only way to potentially prove this while the players are still alive would be by means of a blood test, which is not yet available.

I predict that once this blood test becomes available, there will be a new sport being shown on Sundays on TV. – NFL Flag Football!

Headline: “President Trump’s Travel Ban Rejected by Court”
Is this rejection in line with what has happened in the past with travel bans issued by past presidents?
Has there been a pattern?
President Carter in 1979 ordered federal officials to “invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.”
(hmmm – a ban of citizens of a Moslem country imposed by a Democratic president)
As far as I can tell this travel ban was not found to be unconstitutional by the courts.

During WWII President Roosevelt limited the number of incoming Jewish refugees fearing that Nazi spies could be among these refugees.
(hmmm – a ban against foreign citizens of a specific religion imposed by a Democratic president)
As far as I can tell this travel ban was not found to be unconstitutional by the courts.

In 2011 Obama’s State Department stopped processing Iraqi refugees for 6 months after two al Queda terrorists were found living in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
(hmmm – a ban on all refugees from a Moslem nation, imposed by the State Department of a Democratic president, because there were some terrorists in the U.S.A. from that particular nation)
As far as I can tell this ban was not found to be unconstitutional by courts.

Are we seeing a pattern here yet?°
Perhaps, the pattern here is that all of these travel bans involved a Democratic president. Those on the left will rightfully say, “Not so fast! There have been some prior travel bans issued by a Republican presidents!”
True.

Chester Arthur in 1882 banned ” skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining” from entering the U.S.A. – for 10 years during a time of high unemployment. Also Theodore Roosevelt in 1903 banned anarchists and others deemed to be political extremists from entering the U.S.A. This after President McKinley was killed by an American anarchist, a son of Polish immigrants.
As far as I can tell these “Republican” bans were also not found to be unconstitutional by the courts.
Are we seeing a pattern here yet?

In the past the courts have not gotten involved when presidents have issued travel bans, even if the ban was against a Moslem nation (Iran & Iraq), a specific religion (Jews from Germany), or people of a specific foreign nationality (Chinese).

As William Stock, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said, “It is very clear that the president has been given the authority when the standard [of] national interest would be adversely affected.”

Alan Dershowitz, a prominent liberal professor emeritus from Harvard Law, stated, “Usually the judicial branch will defer to the executive branch in matters involving national security, unless there is a clear cut violation of the Constitution. In my opinion that high threshold has not been met in this case.”

When asked at the recent Circuit Court hearing, a lawyer from the ACLU said, when asked, that the ban would have been okay if it had been issued by “President Hillary Clinton” . . . and the 4th Circuit still ruled against President Trump!
Could it be that liberal judges of the 4th & 9th Circuit have ruled against President Trump’s recent travel ban only because President Trump issued it?

Are we seeing a pattern . . . now?

Remember back in early 2015 when Donald Trump decided to put his name into the Republican list of candidates for President of the Unitied States . . . a good decision. Then in mid and late 2015 the initial Republican debates had a myriad of potential presidential candidates. No way at this point can I remember the names of all these potential candidates. As the months went by many of these potentials dropped out mainly because they realized that they had no chance . . . all good decisions. On the debate stages Donald Trump was in the center in the beginning and he remained in the center throughout. There was a reason for this. . . he was making good decisions.

As the field narrowed in the early part of 2016, the remainder of the potential candidates basically took one of two basic avenues of approach – one was to choose to go head-to-head with Mr. Trump and the other was to avoid direct confrontation with him. Those that avoided a direct confrontation were obviously not the final Republican nominee, but their reputations remained intact (Chris Christie, Ben Carson, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, and Mike Huckabee).. . . all good decisions.

Jeb Bush decided to go one-on-one with Mr. Trump . . . a bad decision! It was no contest. He was humiliated and shot down. My guess is that we will not hear from him in the future.
Ted Cruz learned a lesson when some of his supporters went after Mr. Trump’s wife. Mr. Cruz did not immediately and vociferously show distain for this lowball tactic . . . a bad decision. Mr. Trump counterattacked, and it was not pretty.

Recently the NFL and their liberal genuflectees made a decision to go head-to-head with Mr. Trump . . . a bad decision. Roger Goodell, the NFL Commissioner is now having second thoughts as the league’s TV ratings are tanking and the attendance at the live games is decreasing. Goodell and the NFL now have a second chance. Hopefully they will make a good decision!
On 10/16/17 President Trump and Mitch McConnell had lunch at the White House.. I think that it is reasonable to say that these two have not had a cordial relationship prior to this lunch date. Mr. McConnell had a decision to make.. Accept the invitation or not. He accepted . . . good decision.

What went on at lunch? Oh! to be the proverbial fly on the wall. Whatever transpired, the result was that both men emerged smiling and for all intents and purposes, on the same page, as together they then held a news conference. From my perspective Mr. McConnell had some crucial decisions to make at lunch. He made these decisions . . . seemingly good decisions.
In retrospect, perhaps Jeb Bush and the NFL should have sought Mr. McConnell’s counsel before going head-to-head with The Donald.

“We got a new kid on our swim team today,” said one of my daughters at dinner one night many years ago. “Well it’s not really a new kid. It’s James, but he told us all today that he wants to be called Murphy Patterson from now on. For the entire practice he would not respond to anyone unless he was specifically called Murphy Patterson.”
This “I’m not who I am, but I’m somebody else because that’s how I see myself” lasted for a few days until some adult in the room (either one or both of James’ parents or perhaps Phil, the swim coach) recognized the folly of “Murphy Patterson”, and restored sanity and “James” to the swim team.
Could it be possible that James is now a member of the California Senate? Obviously the odds would be against this happening, but I am trying to find some logic in the California Senate’s recent passage of SB219, which in essence says everyone must call James whatever he wants to be called or be fined.
To whit, SB219 states that would be unlawful for a long term care facility or it staff to willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.
Help me here, but doesn’t this sound like the revenge of Murphy Patterson? Namely you will call me what I want to be called or you might receive $1000 in fines or up to one year in jail (as reported by CBN news). I guess it could be worse, or perhaps I should say more ‘looney tunes’ as you could live in Canada where Bill C16 is already in place and violations can be considered a hate crime! Likewise in NYC (Now You’re Crazy) failure to comply with similar measures as instituted by de Blasio’s Commission of Human Rights can lead to civil penalties of up to $125,000, and, if due to “willful, wanton, or malicious conduct”, up to $250,000.
But back to California where the pronoun part of SB219 is even more insane, and refers to not only to the pronouns, “he/she/his/her/them”, but also the pronouns, “ze” and “hir” which are popular gender free pronouns used by some transgender and/or gender-nonconforming individuals.
I guess I can gloss over the Canadian lunacy as I do not live there, but as far as I know the USA (which still includes New York and California) still has a First Amendment and I’m pretty sure that this means that I do not have to call James, “Murphy Patterson” or refer to him as ze or hir under penalty of law.
I would guess that by now those of you who do not live in California (or NYC, or Canada) are probably chuckling to yourself at this craziness, but it is even more laughable if you do live in California because we are actually paying these loons in our Senate and Assembly to think up and vote on stuff like this! On 10/4/17 SB219 was signed into law by Gov. ‘Moonbeam’ Brown-and we are paying ze (him/her) too!
It is no wonder that the rest of the country refers to California as ” the land of fruits and nuts”, and are happy that they do not live hir!!

During the end of the baseball season I came across two interesting baseball box scores on the sports page:
Colo.  7  12  1
Atl.     6  13  0
and
Pit.     1   4   0
Cin.   0   5   0

For you non baseball fans, the initial number represents “runs”.
The second number represents “hits” and the third represents “errors”.
Now what if those in Cincinnati and Colorado said that they had won because they had more hits than Pittsburg and Atlanta respectively. Of course any knowledgeable fan would reply, “The rules state that the winner is the one with the most runs – not the most hits. You cannot change the criteria for winning after the game has been played. You are sore losers, Cincinnati and Atlanta fans.”
In baseball if hits were more important than runs, the strategy and the type of desired players would be different. One would retool his team to have more players that hit more singles and strike out less, and less players who hit home runs but strike out more, because in that scenario a single and a home run would count the same as each would be “one hit.”
Now does this tale have anything to do reality? Well again and again I am still hearing the now trite and quite tiresome excuse of “Hilary should be in the White House because she won the popular vote.”
To them I continue to reply, “Good for Hilary, but the popular vote is not how the game is decided. The popular vote is like “hits” in the above box scores. The team with the most runs wins the baseball game, and here the electoral college votes are the equivalent of “runs” in baseball. If hits and not runs were the deciding factor, then perhaps a different make-up of team would have been advantageous, and perhaps the games (and the campaign) would have been played differently.
Note to Democrats: Next time get a smarter candidate who understands the art of a successful campaign strategy tailored to winning the electoral college.

Trump ran a campaign based on the rules which were and still are that the higher electoral vote tally wins, and BTW, “shut up and stop whining!”

I think that these days we are not merely involved in an era of intense political disagreement, but I think that we are involved in a war. The enemy is Leftism.
First of all it is important to realize that in this war, just about any kind of dishonest underhanded behavior is not considered dishonest or underhanded by the Left, but rather is not only accepted but also encouraged. Leftism is in fact like a religion where anything is permissible if it is done to further the cause. No weapon is considered to base to use. I have not read Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’, but if I were to guess, the following would be a partial list of tactics that would be encouraged to defeat opponents:
Ridicule
Humiliation
Slander
Insults
False Accusations
Innuendo
Outright Lies
When Accused . . . Deny
Even though none or perhaps just a smidgeon of what one says or does is true, if you continue to repeat it over and over again often enough . . . then it becomes just as good as the truth. It is accepted.
“Trump colluded with the Russians.” “Trump colluded with the Russians.”
Now even though there hasn’t been a smidgeon of evidence to prove that false accusation, CNN and MSNBC viewers believe that it is true . . . “It must be true as I have heard it over and over again”!
“Trump is going to be impeached.”
“Really! Why?”
“Because he is colluding with the Russians .”
And it goes on from there, because those on the left do not care about veracity.
They only want to destroy their enemies, and it does not matter how they do it.
Recall that Lying, Slander, and Innuendo are not only accepted, but encouraged by the Left.
Recently, a friend of mine was extolling the virtues of Rep. Scott Peters.(D, Ca.) “Oh he is such a nice man. His father was a minister.” Those two things may in fact be true, but of no consequence, because this is politics. When Scott Peters was initially elected, he barely beat Carl DeMaio. In fact DeMaio was ahead in the race with about a week to go, when someone who used to work in DeMaio’s office accused Mr. DeMaio of sexual harassment and more. This accusation made the local papers and TV news. After the election, it turned out that these accusations were spurious and made up. Scott Brown claimed that he knew nothing about these accusations being untrue, but did not refute them before the election. Did he know about this lying? Did he close his eyes to this deceit? This will always be a question in my mind, as recall that Slander, False Accusations, and Outright Lying are not only accepted, but encouraged by the Left.
When Hollywood mogul uber liberal Harvey Weinstein was credibly accused of multiple episodes of sexual harassment (and more) by multiple women, the Left immediately began saying that Donald Trump would be next. Of course the fact that they had already tried this before (and failed) did not matter. Recall that Innuendo and False Accusations are not only accepted, but encouraged by the Left.
So when I heard Al Franken (D,Mn)questioning Jeff Sessions the other day on T.V., I was not shocked when I heard the ex-SNLer using his standard line of questioning featuring Innuendo, False Accusations, and Outright Lies, as these are not only accepted but encouraged by the Left.
Whenever I see Adam Schiff (D,Ca) opening his mouth, I do not actually have to listen as he only speaks out of the left side of his mouth. He is always spewing Slander, Innuendo, False Accusations, etc. as these are not only accepted but expected from a leftist like him!