If I Were King

• Repeal the 2nd Amendment
• Universal basic income
• Wealth tax
• Carbon tax
• Term limits for judicial appointments
• Drastically increase the inheritance tax
• Eliminate the cap on earnings subject to Social Security withholding
• Cut at least 8 hours from the standard work week
• Make D.C. a state
• Change "advise and consent" to a time-limited majority-vote veto
• Make Election Day a holiday
• Use ranked-choice voting or Condorcet voting
• Abolish the Electoral College
• Tax all churches (See here and here and here)
• Small tax on each stock market transaction
• Eliminate vice laws
• Bring back the Fairness Doctrine
• Drastically reduce corporate welfare
• Cut back the Defense Department, especially foreign bases
• Eliminate the filibuster
• Eliminate twice-a-year clock changes

Churches, taxes and politics

I sent the following letter to the Los Angeles Times (not published):

Churches, taxes and politics 

Trump vows to "totally destroy the Johnson Amendment," which bans tax-exempt nonprofits such as churches from participating in any political candidate’s campaign. 

Better yet: Tax the churches. Then they can politick all they want.

Fixing Social Security

In response to this op-ed column, I sent a letter to the L.A. Times last week (not published):

Andrew Biggs says, "A policy such as eliminating the $118,500 ceiling on wages subject to payroll taxes, a favorite of progressive advocates, would raise U.S. taxes to Scandinavian levels without fixing the long-term shortfall." He offers no explanation.

I strongly support eliminating that ceiling. Would Biggs or someone please explain why that wouldn't alleviate the shortfall?

After the letter didn't appear in the paper, I sent my question directly to Biggs, who did reply, saying

... eliminating the payroll tax ceiling would fix between 40-70% of the 75-year funding imbalance[, but] employers will “pay” the extra payroll tax by reducing wages for their employees [so that] less payroll is subject to federal income taxes, Medicare taxes and state income taxes. There’s also the way in which higher tax rates provide a disincentive to work....

I definitely still think such a simple fix for 40-70% of the 75-year problem is worth it. And if it helps decrease obscene wages and raises for the 1%, all the better!

Solar energy

Something I've been saying forever: What if solar got the same subsidies as fossil fuels? (Click on the graphic on that web page to enlarge it.)

Where's the fiber optic line to my door? ('06)

(Click the image to enlarge it.)

Still infuriatingly true! The text below is from 2006, but the graphic above is from Feb. 2010.

Link: $200 Billion Broadband Scandal

From the free book Broadband Scandal:

The Bell Companies never delivered symmetrical fiber-optic connectivity to millions of Americans though they were paid more than $200 billion to do it.

During the buildup to the 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act, the major U.S. telcos promised to deliver fiber to 86 million households by 2006 (we’re talking about fiber to the home, here). They asked for, and were given, some $200 billion in tax cuts and other incentives to pay for it. But the Bells didn’t spend that money on fiber upgrades — they spent it on long distance, wireless and inferior DSL services. Some headlines from Kushnick’s work:

• By 2006, 86 million households should have been rewired with a fiber optic wire, capable of 45 Mbps, in both directions.
  

• The public subsidies for infrastructure were pocketed. The phone companies collected over $200 billion in higher phone rates and tax perks, about $2000 per household.
  

• The World is Laughing at US. Korea and Japan have 100 Mbps services as standard, and America could have been Number One had the phone companies actually delivered. Instead, we are 16th in broadband and falling in technology dominance.
  

Wasteful public spending ('02)

I sent this letter to the LATimes in Oct. 2002 (not published):

The fiscal conservative in me balked at LACMA's plan to tear down buildings, but at least they initially said it would all be done with private money. Now they've changed their mind and want taxpayers to help. No way!

Hate TV ('87)

This letter of mine was published in the LATimes Dec. 1987:

Why does Aryan Nations get so much attention for buying air time to broadcast their offensive racist propaganda? When it comes to gays and lesbians, many self-styled "religious" broadcasters spew equally ugly, pernicious, hate-filled, violence-provoking lies. They've been doing it for years, and they make money at it, partly from tax exemptions we all pay for!

"Borrow and Spend" vs. "Tax and Spend" ('04)

I sent this letter to the LATimes in July 2004 (not published):

I sure wish someone would explain to me why supposedly conservative Republicans prefer "borrow and spend" over "tax and spend".

Even at today's low interest rates, this year's huge borrowing will cost us taxpayers far, far more over the long haul than paying now, via taxes. What's the fiscal sense in that? Oh, I forgot -- these legislators will be long out of office by then.