An Immodest Proposal: Tax The Non-Profits

Frank Zappa wanted to tax the churches. OK, if we go down that road, should we not tax all other non-profit entities as well?

Two steps down that path and we are already looking for exceptions to the rule Tax the Wounded Warriors? Tax my alma mater? Tax my house of worship?

There is already a movement to alter religious entities' taxation status and its roots are planted not in rabid atheism, but in Christian fundamentalism. Some Christians believe that churches have an obligation to address political issues but in doing so, they would jeopardize their tax-exempt status. Fear of the taxman renders clerical silence on matters such as abortion, gay marriage, criminal justice, election fraud, and of course, tax policy. 

At what rate should we bleed the untouchables? I say at the approximate rate that we drain for-profit entities. What is the present corporate tax? What is the current capital gains rate? Non-profits do not always have capital gains, although groups that hold real estate certainly do. Being spared property taxes as well as federal and state corporate obligations, isn't every dollar Harvard or Yale receives a capital gain?

A system is only as good as its loopholes. Exemptions should be given judiciously and uniformly and should be more the exception than the rule. I will let the many channelers of King Solomon hammer out the details, but I will pound the table and shout to the heavens that certain entities are never spared.

Let us show no mercy to the non-profit health care sector. These hospital-gobbling monsters have shamelessly money-grubbed in a style that would make a Murdoch blush. Have they elevated the quality of health care along the way? There was a time when we could reflexively answer more yes than no. That is no longer the case. Let these bloodsuckers start chipping in on a system that has so richly rewarded them.

At the risk of muting the pulpit, let us tax anything that is remotely political. This would include the Brookings Institute, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, anything with ties to Mark Zuckerberg, and Planned Parenthood, to name but a few. Let's also tax the Democrat and Republican parties, every PAC, and every campaign contribution. Sorry Jane Sanders. That 15 percent you rake off your corrupt husband's campaign funds will be pre-taxed moving forward. Even decamillionaires need to pay their fair share.

Tax exemption for non-profits arose in a more innocent time. It was a time when many leaders believed in concepts like "social benefit" and "the greater good". It was an era when institutions were not vulnerable to political infiltration, capture and ultimately weaponization. Let's get with the times. Let's tax the non-profits.

 

An Immodest Proposal: Tax The Taxman

For the Union to survive, we will need a sound economy, minimal debt, a strong currency or currencies, and those conditions can only be met with the prior curtailing of federal spending. A tall order, no doubt.

Why not make revenue the only source of revenue? That is, why not suspend all current means of federal enrichment--income tax, corporate tax, capital gains--while taxing all state, county and municipal revenue at a one hundred percent rate?

Of course, this would mean that Uncle Sam would o longer play sugar daddy to his harem. This is an eventuality anyway. No grants, no funding of welfare or daycare or education or Section 8 Housing. The federal government would finance essential functions such as maintaining national defense, securing the borders and protecting our national parks. Entitlements, if they would exist at all, would be scaled down. Federal pensioners might receive a lump sum buyout. Austerity is not optional.

State and local revenues currently total about $1.9 trillion. Taxed at one hundred per cent, this would be our federal budget at baseline. States would immediately find their path to thrift. Schools might cut back on non-teacher salaries. State universities might eliminate disciplines of  dubious value. DEI coordinators might find greener pastures in the private sector where their predecessors have already paved a way at places like Anheuser-Busch.

Sooner rather than later, state and local taxes would decrease, and federal revenue would decrease in unison. Should that number creep too low to maintain essential functions, we jump start a low capital gains tax that was completive with the rest of the planet. Say eleven per cent, or half or the current non-competitive rate? If we really cannot function on this budget, we could gradually introduce new "revenue streams" to meet, but not exceed the shortfalls.

You get less of whatever is taxed. Why then, do we not tax the taxman? 

An Immodest Proposal: Eliminate The Secret Ballot

 What would be the advantages of eliminating secret ballots?

1. Voter fraud would be virtually eliminated.

2. Election integrity would be restored.

3. Transparent ballots would raise the bar of citizenship. Only citizens willing to publicly take a stand would vote.

What are the disadvantages of eliminating secret ballots

1. People could be wrongly harassed by government bureaucrats, possibly even arrested on inflated or even non-existent offenses. 

We already have that. Walking into the Capitol has been morphed into an insurrection.

Starting in the Obama Administration and continuing to this day, critics of the Democrat Party have faced bureaucratic and judicial abuse. Congress is currently conducting hearings on the weaponization of government.

The solution is to curb, and ideally eliminate, government abuses of power. Secret ballots have not prevented US Stasi from abusing its citizens.

2. Merchants, doctors, lawyers, etc. might lose customers/clients/patients if they participated in a transparent ballot.

Then again, they might gain revenue. There is already a consumer trend to financially support political allies and to shun political antagonists. 

Isn't it significant how the policeman, the Postal worker and the history teacher votes? Shouldn't this be public knowledge for all government employees? 

What about pharmacists? Ministers? Housekeepers? Is one's voting record important in making an informed choice? 

Secret ballots have brought us chronic voter fraud. It is time to eliminate this practice.

An Immodest Proposal: Defund Minneapolis

If a municipality denies fundamental services to its inhabitants, is it still a municipality? Should Minneapolis be recognized as a city or is it just a vast, unincorporated area in Hennepin County? These are philosophical questions, but they are serious questions. If the police are defunded, what legitimacy does the City Council or Mayor's office have? Should they also be defunded?

If the police are defunded, should not the courts also be defunded? Should they turn the courthouses into pricey condos? I might suggest public housing but if there is no legitimate public sector in Minneapolis, you can't very well have public housing.

Would the citizens of Minneapolis be worse off if their municipality was dissolved? Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota would be obligated to fill the void and let's face it: they could not possibly do a worse job than the current administration.

Defunding the police in a city of 3 million might not be the brightest idea we have ever encountered but funding the toxic buffoons who mismanaged this once-respected city is on par with that momentous decision. 

Maybe some good will come from all of this. America's cities have been turned into hell holes by the Democrats. Detroit. Baltimore. San Francisco. Too many to list. The longer the Dems are in control, the worse shape the metropolis. Maybe if we defunded our dysfunctional cities, we could replace them with something better.

An Immodest Proposal: Trump Rallies At GOP Offices

There is much to be said about the March 20 Congressional hearings starring James Comey. While the Dems used the opportunity to coordinate their partisan talking points, the more numerous GOP members left a lot of questions unasked. Gowdy, Nunes and Stefanik had shining moments but the other Republicans wasted our time.

The Republican Congress seems to have no vigor or urgency to defend Donald Trump from the Washington establishment. I don't give a damn what district they come from, they were not sent to Washington to play footsie with Maxine and Adam. It is time that they either support this administration or face a primary challenge in 2018.

On March 4 of this year, pro-Trump marches were held throughout the country. It confirmed something the opposition does not like to admit. Donald Trump faces little, if any, voter remorse. He is making an effort to do everything he promised. He seems to be gaining popularity for keeping his promises.

While the March 4 events were well-attended, they seem to have missed what should have been their target audience. The rallies should take place outside the offices of GOP Senators and Congressmen. Skip the Dem offices. We will never win with those people. Instead, try to imagine a Saturday where rallies take place outside of 241 Congressional offices and 52 Senate offices. Maybe then, the GOP could reacquaint itself with its base.

This proposal has the added benefit of allowing me to stay in my easy chair and watch the events on TV. I would love to attend such a rally but I have a Dem Congresswoman, two Dem Senators and the nearest GOP rep is hundreds of miles away. That makes this immodest proposal all the more appealing. March forth once again!

An Immodest Proposal: Arm Recruiters

President Obama is not shy about issuing executive orders. Why not write an order mandating that all military recruiters carry sidearms? Requisite training will be provided.

ISIS is targeting unarmed military personnel. Recruiters are sitting ducks. Let's give them a fighting chance.

An Immodest Proposal: New Debate Format

I gave been kicking this one around for a while and for whatever reason the smart people aren't knocking on my door to harvest mu ideas. Go figure.

This is easier to explain by example:

First, We seed the candidates based on past presidential runs, current and length of political position and lastly, name recognition.

So the GOP would have a field that looked something like this.

1. Rick Santorum (Highest ranked 2012 candidate).
2. Rick Perry.
3. Gary Johnson.
4. Mike Huckabee.
5. Lindsey Graham.
6. Chris Christie (I like to stagger governors and senators to make for more interesting debate.)
7. Marco Rubio (More or less arbitrary assignment over Rand Paul as both joined US Senate in 2010.)
8. John Kasich.
9. Rand Paul.
10. Scott Walker.
11. Ted Cruz.
12. Peter King.
13. Bobbie Jindal.
14. Jeb Bush.
15. George Pataki.
16. Donald Trump.
17. Ben Carson.
18. Carly Fiorina.

The Democrats would have a field that looked something like this.

1. Hillary.
2. Bernie Sanders.
3. Martin O'Malley.
4. Jim Webb.
5. Evan Bayh.
6. Michelle Obama.
7. Charlie Crist.
8. Ben Affleck.
9. Lyndon Larouche.
10. Bill Maher.
11. Brian Williams.
12. Candy Crowley.

Now we need a network to pull this off. We can use my Youtube channel until another venue develops. We can split the ad revenue. Here goes.

On a Monday night Carly Fiorina battles Ben Carson in an hour long (minus commercials) debate. There is no moderator as such. The candidates ask each other questions which reveals as much about them as do their answers. The closest thing we have to a moderator is a minimum wage guy in a suit who rings a bell if a candidate exceeds his time limit or restores order should there be a breach of protocol.

In this format, the audience decides who wins the debate. As with "American Idol" supporters call one of two numbers, one associated with Carson, one with Fiorina. Calls cost one dollar and a small percentage goes to the hosting network and the rest goes to the candidate's campaign. In this example Carson wins so he squares off against Trump on Tuesday. The winner bumps heads with Pataki on Wednesday.

This is not a detailed blueprint. It's not a perfect system but it would be better than anything we have seen in the past. As anyone can vote, Dems and Indies could vote in the GOP debates and vice versa. I don't see that as problematic and there are ways to get around that should it bother certain people.

The logistics of getting twenty candidates on one stage on the same evening....giant ugh! This proposal also addresses issues of fairness. The moderator is non-existent and thus cannot ask tougher questions to one candidate or to ignore one of the twenty.

The seeding might be done on the rank of campaign coffers to give the back of the pack more chances to earn revenue.

Parties might share the wealth by allowing last in the nation places like Vermont, New Jersey and Indiana to host the debates. They might also adopt a different state every night format.

The beauty of this debate format is that it could be repeated just as soon as one debate cycle ended. They might even start new debates before the prior series of debates ended. A preliminary to main event to be enjoyed by hardcore political dweebs.

Other considerations. If there is an excessive number of candidates they might consider a second tier series of debates to be viewed by those people who lament that there are but three C-Span channels. So whoever wins the second tier qualifies as the first night debater in the big show.

The powers that could be might consider pruning the number of candidates with each successive debate. Say the first series had eighteen. The second would have seventeen. the third sixteen and so on.

The powers that could be might also consider changing the format so that the later debates with smaller fields could only receive votes from registered party members. This would reduce the overall number of voters and also reduce the revenue. They might compensate by charging each voter say five or ten dollars. They might also allow additional votes for political party office holders.

As I said, this is just a rough sketch but this would be more engaging and more interesting than what we have done in the past. It would also generate revenue. Best of all, we wouldn't have to look at George Stehanopolous for any reason. Mr. Nine Figures is 86. Can there be a better selling point?

An Immodest Proposal

If the Dems want to "forgive" ex-students their college loans they should offset this expenditure by taxing the institutions who benefited from the mass fleecing. I propose a surcharge of 20% on all tuition over $10,000/year. The surcharge will also extend to expenses like textbooks and  lab fees and room and board and shall be levied until such time that the taxpayer is relieved of the burden created by this act of erasure.