What is wrong with our elected officials? Have they lost their minds or are they really that bad at math and economics? Is it because most of them have never actually run a business or worked a job outside of a law office or outside of Washington? How hard is it to understand that the one thing, the only thing that will make it better for Main Street is Jobs!!!
Let’s stop all of the talk about a Climate Change Bill or a Financial Reform Bill. Just stop it. You guys aren’t smart enough to come up with anything that will really work, even if there was a problem. Let’s focus on creating jobs, and then after we get some tax base built back up, then, and only then, can we talk about anything else.
Are you ready Washington? I’m going to give you the simplest and most straightforward jobs program you’ve ever seen. Give every small business ($100M in revenue and less) a $5000 rebate for every new hire that they employee for a minimum of 6 months. There, nothing complicated, no mental gymnastics, just plain and simple. Take the group that hires the most people and reward them to do a lot of it.
Now, I can hear the cries of the budgetary hawks, “Where are we going to get the money for this?” Okay, here is where the math and accounting skills come in, so for those in Washington I’ll go slowly. Right now, we the taxpayers are paying people on average $250 per week in unemployment. That comes to $6000 for 24 weeks, or 6 months. So, what we will be doing is paying employers to hire people with the same money that would have been used for their unemployment. Oh my, goodness, I’m a genius…Not! This idea is just basic common sense that one of our contributors came up with months ago.
Wait there’s more…not only will we be saving $1000, but it won’t cost taxpayers $5000 because the people that get hired will be paying taxes. It’s almost like the taxpayers will be getting interest on their investment before they pay for it. Think about what this could do for the consumer led economy.
So, I have one question…Why haven’t we seen this bill brought in front of the House? Why hasn’t one Congressperson made mention of this? I’m baffled!
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Understanding the Federal Budget
The two video's below discuss the basics of the inflow and outflows from the Federal Budget. It is necessary to understand these before you can make an informed decision on Tax Reform. In future posts I'll cover different options of Tax Reform.
If you have any questions please comment here or send them to info@thefranklinparty.org ..thanks.
If you have any questions please comment here or send them to info@thefranklinparty.org ..thanks.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
ACLU Sues Over Drone Attacks
Please tell me this is just a silly mistake. Tell me that the ACLU was just kidding, a bad April Fool’s joke. Wishful thinking, but the reality is the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) has decided to sue the U.S. Government for details on the drone strikes in our war against terrorists. They feel that the use of these surgical strikes may be against international law.
“The government's use of drones to conduct targeted killings raises complicated questions – not only legal questions, but policy and moral questions as well,” said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project.
Okay, here’s my cut at this, the ACLU is way out of bounds on getting involved in this issue. Why are they out of bounds? The “A” stands for American. When did international law become part of their mission? Civil Liberties, refers to defending the Bill of Rights for all citizens. I don’t believe we are using drones on American’s.
Even if they could somehow explain all of that, then I still have to question their goal here. If they somehow prove that drones aren’t supposed to be used, then what is the alternative?” Option 1 is to use missiles, which are far less accurate and create greater civilian casualties. Option 2 is to place more American servicemen, and women, in harm’s way to keep us safe here in the 50 states. Is the ACLU’s goal to encourage the death and injury of more Americans soldiers? If so, then I have to think it’s time for all of these people that call for regulation of industries to place the ACLU in their cross hairs. Maybe, to maintain their non-profit status they need to stay closer to their original mission statement? Maybe, we need to rein in the power and money that supports this rogue group.
“The government's use of drones to conduct targeted killings raises complicated questions – not only legal questions, but policy and moral questions as well,” said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project.
Okay, here’s my cut at this, the ACLU is way out of bounds on getting involved in this issue. Why are they out of bounds? The “A” stands for American. When did international law become part of their mission? Civil Liberties, refers to defending the Bill of Rights for all citizens. I don’t believe we are using drones on American’s.
Even if they could somehow explain all of that, then I still have to question their goal here. If they somehow prove that drones aren’t supposed to be used, then what is the alternative?” Option 1 is to use missiles, which are far less accurate and create greater civilian casualties. Option 2 is to place more American servicemen, and women, in harm’s way to keep us safe here in the 50 states. Is the ACLU’s goal to encourage the death and injury of more Americans soldiers? If so, then I have to think it’s time for all of these people that call for regulation of industries to place the ACLU in their cross hairs. Maybe, to maintain their non-profit status they need to stay closer to their original mission statement? Maybe, we need to rein in the power and money that supports this rogue group.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Prop 8 - Division between Church and State
By Brian J. Boeheim – Author of Political Common Sense for America
Did I miss the moment in time when religious freedom became something we voted on? If I recall, the whole reason people came all the way here, from Europe, on wooden ships was to avoid religious persecution. How then have we come to the point where the religious act of bonding two people through marriage has become something politicians stump on, judges rule on, and voters vote on. This is not about sexual preferences; this is about the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment and the right to freedom of religion. It reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
How did all of this get started?
In order to maintain control of ownership, debt, and taxation; the government once again stepped over its Constitutional authority. Through the Internal Revenue Service, and licensing laws, it has set up a legal definition for marriage. It has no authority to do that. If anything the federal government should be preventing individual states from defining marriage.
What’s next a legal definition of prayer? I can see it now, prayer as defined by lawyers and politicians. This wouldn’t just be limitations on where and when you can pray, but also how and with whom you can pray. How does that feel? Well, that is the legal equivalent of what our government is doing with the religious sanctity of marriage.
When the government stepped in front of the church, as the gate keepers for marriage, we started down a very slippery slope. By leaping over the dividing line, our political leaders have once again created a legal and political quagmire, which is the epitome of the term “religious argument”. Along with the expended time and energy, we’ve spent millions of taxpayer dollars arguing over rights which we already have.
Let’s look at what people want. First, people want to have the ability to define themselves as married in the eyes of their God. Second, people want to have the ability to share their physical lives together. Finally, the government wants to be able to define your union as a partnership, so that it can tax and impose laws upon you. So, the question is; “How hard can it be to satisfy everyone?”
Break it Down and Keep it Separate
It’s easier to find a solution if you just step back and break the problem down into its fundamental parts. First, marriage is a religious union between two people and the government has no say in it. Remember, the whole concept of separation between church and state. Second, let’s eliminate the term “marriage” from all legally binding contracts regarding ownership or debt. Let’s also eliminate the term from government documentation. Yes, that includes the IRS taxation law. This will create a clean break between church and state on the topic of binding relationships.
C3 Contract
Now that we have given marriage back to the religions, we still need to handle the day-to-day legal implications of two people joining in a life partnership. We need a definition which can be used to define couples who have decided to share their lives, property, and debt. I propose a Commitment, Cohabitation, and Collaboration contract, otherwise know as a C3 Contract. Every couple who wants to have all of the benefits, of what is now considered a legal marriage, would enter into this contract. It would replace the licensing process that states require and it would simplify the whole mess.
The C3 contract would be simple and could easily include a prenuptial agreement. The three C’s would be defined as follows: Commitment means that the two people are committed to each other until death, or such time that there is an irreconcilable breach of the contract. Cohabitation simply means that the two people must live together for over 50% of the calendar year. Finally, Collaboration means each person financially shares in all property ownership and is responsible for the other person’s debts and living expenses.
People always want to make this about same sex marriage, but there are many other people who would benefit from this shift in legal definition. What about two people in their golden years? They could improve their living environment and have the piece of mind that someone is there if they need help, without confusing the matter with any religious implications. How about two single mothers who could combine households to provide a better and safer living environment for their children? If both parties agree contractually, why shouldn’t they be considered in a legally binding partnership? The benefits would be huge. The C3 Contract would provide them a legal way to share expenses allowing them to improve their standard of living. They could also assume the “next of kin” status to make decisions in health and emergency situations. All of this while providing the government with a clear definition.
We need to get the government out of places it doesn’t belong. We need to take personal responsibility for the relationships we have, and understand how we are defining those relationships. If it is a marriage you want then go to the church, synagogue, mosque, or temple of your choice. If it is a partnership, then the C3 Contract will fit the bill perfectly for all of our citizens, not just the citizens our judges and politicians think are worthy.
Did I miss the moment in time when religious freedom became something we voted on? If I recall, the whole reason people came all the way here, from Europe, on wooden ships was to avoid religious persecution. How then have we come to the point where the religious act of bonding two people through marriage has become something politicians stump on, judges rule on, and voters vote on. This is not about sexual preferences; this is about the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment and the right to freedom of religion. It reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
How did all of this get started?
In order to maintain control of ownership, debt, and taxation; the government once again stepped over its Constitutional authority. Through the Internal Revenue Service, and licensing laws, it has set up a legal definition for marriage. It has no authority to do that. If anything the federal government should be preventing individual states from defining marriage.
What’s next a legal definition of prayer? I can see it now, prayer as defined by lawyers and politicians. This wouldn’t just be limitations on where and when you can pray, but also how and with whom you can pray. How does that feel? Well, that is the legal equivalent of what our government is doing with the religious sanctity of marriage.
When the government stepped in front of the church, as the gate keepers for marriage, we started down a very slippery slope. By leaping over the dividing line, our political leaders have once again created a legal and political quagmire, which is the epitome of the term “religious argument”. Along with the expended time and energy, we’ve spent millions of taxpayer dollars arguing over rights which we already have.
Let’s look at what people want. First, people want to have the ability to define themselves as married in the eyes of their God. Second, people want to have the ability to share their physical lives together. Finally, the government wants to be able to define your union as a partnership, so that it can tax and impose laws upon you. So, the question is; “How hard can it be to satisfy everyone?”
Break it Down and Keep it Separate
It’s easier to find a solution if you just step back and break the problem down into its fundamental parts. First, marriage is a religious union between two people and the government has no say in it. Remember, the whole concept of separation between church and state. Second, let’s eliminate the term “marriage” from all legally binding contracts regarding ownership or debt. Let’s also eliminate the term from government documentation. Yes, that includes the IRS taxation law. This will create a clean break between church and state on the topic of binding relationships.
C3 Contract
Now that we have given marriage back to the religions, we still need to handle the day-to-day legal implications of two people joining in a life partnership. We need a definition which can be used to define couples who have decided to share their lives, property, and debt. I propose a Commitment, Cohabitation, and Collaboration contract, otherwise know as a C3 Contract. Every couple who wants to have all of the benefits, of what is now considered a legal marriage, would enter into this contract. It would replace the licensing process that states require and it would simplify the whole mess.
The C3 contract would be simple and could easily include a prenuptial agreement. The three C’s would be defined as follows: Commitment means that the two people are committed to each other until death, or such time that there is an irreconcilable breach of the contract. Cohabitation simply means that the two people must live together for over 50% of the calendar year. Finally, Collaboration means each person financially shares in all property ownership and is responsible for the other person’s debts and living expenses.
People always want to make this about same sex marriage, but there are many other people who would benefit from this shift in legal definition. What about two people in their golden years? They could improve their living environment and have the piece of mind that someone is there if they need help, without confusing the matter with any religious implications. How about two single mothers who could combine households to provide a better and safer living environment for their children? If both parties agree contractually, why shouldn’t they be considered in a legally binding partnership? The benefits would be huge. The C3 Contract would provide them a legal way to share expenses allowing them to improve their standard of living. They could also assume the “next of kin” status to make decisions in health and emergency situations. All of this while providing the government with a clear definition.
We need to get the government out of places it doesn’t belong. We need to take personal responsibility for the relationships we have, and understand how we are defining those relationships. If it is a marriage you want then go to the church, synagogue, mosque, or temple of your choice. If it is a partnership, then the C3 Contract will fit the bill perfectly for all of our citizens, not just the citizens our judges and politicians think are worthy.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Madoff to Head Banking Regulation
Now that I have your attention, I want you to realize that this headline might as well be true. Sen. Chris Dodd has been “the man” within the Senate Bank-ing Committee since well before the tragic collapse of our financial system. He allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to become a cesspool of junk mortgages. He allowed banks to become brokers and brokers to become banks. Now here he is unveiling a new finance regulatory reform bill that fixes nothing. Why are we allowing one of the people responsible for our financial failure to define the new rules going forward?
Sen. Dodd’s new bill of financial regulatory reform doesn’t address the key causes of the economic crisis. Let’s be clear what caused our problems: the Fed was too loose with their monetary policy, Fannie and Freddie were allowed to guarantee almost $1.5 trillion in junk mortgages, and as we have reported in previous articles, there was a total failure to regulate Credit Default Swaps.
How Sen. Dodd can ignore the Credit Default Swap issue is beyond me. Credit Default Swaps are insurance policies on bonds. Currently there is no transparency or margin requirement. How can you allow companies to write these policies without any collateral? This is what helped sink AIG and Lehman. It would be a simple process to create transparency on these financial devices, since we already require all other commodities to be traded through clearing houses and have collateral.
Finally, the use of mark-to-market evaluation for bank loans works in the favor of large companies and hog ties financing to small businesses. Please explain to me how this will aid the growth of jobs? It’s clear that Sen. Dodd and his committee have no clue and need to take a pass on this legislation. We can wait a year until we replace the current legislators with people that actually care about the future of the American people.
Sen. Dodd’s new bill of financial regulatory reform doesn’t address the key causes of the economic crisis. Let’s be clear what caused our problems: the Fed was too loose with their monetary policy, Fannie and Freddie were allowed to guarantee almost $1.5 trillion in junk mortgages, and as we have reported in previous articles, there was a total failure to regulate Credit Default Swaps.
How Sen. Dodd can ignore the Credit Default Swap issue is beyond me. Credit Default Swaps are insurance policies on bonds. Currently there is no transparency or margin requirement. How can you allow companies to write these policies without any collateral? This is what helped sink AIG and Lehman. It would be a simple process to create transparency on these financial devices, since we already require all other commodities to be traded through clearing houses and have collateral.
Finally, the use of mark-to-market evaluation for bank loans works in the favor of large companies and hog ties financing to small businesses. Please explain to me how this will aid the growth of jobs? It’s clear that Sen. Dodd and his committee have no clue and need to take a pass on this legislation. We can wait a year until we replace the current legislators with people that actually care about the future of the American people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)