Fair Tax for all!

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

--Winston Churchill

Past history has shown us that there is a disparity between the two major parties in this country. Historically, the Republicans have espoused a love for smaller government and lower taxes. Democrats, on the other hand, have seen fit to try to put every aspect of daily life under the auspices of the federal government, and pay for it by increasing taxes on the "rich". Keep in mind that your definition of "rich" and a Democrat's definition of "rich" may not exactly coincide.

In the last couple of years, I have come to the conclusion that the two parties have the exact same love of big government. The only difference between the two is that the Republicans don't want things to happen quite as rapidly as their liberal counterparts. Then again, the federal government has increased more under the first administration of George Bush than it did under both terms of Bill Clinton.

Aside from the dreadful lack of constitutional education in this country, and the constant political brainwashing performed by government-run schools, the biggest problem that this country faces is the detestable income tax system we all live with. Some of us live under the immense weight of the tax code, while others live off of the largesse that the politicians spew out to the "less fortunate" of society.

What we really need is genuine tax reform. I don't mean a simplification of deductions or a reduction of rates. The current tax system is akin to that rusty 1973 AMC Gremlin in the bushes. It needs to be scrapped and replaced by a 2005 Corvette. Likewise, the current tax system should be scrapped and replaced with an alternative that will offer the high performance boost that our economy needs.

My choice is the Fair Tax proposal, put forth by U.S. Congressman John Linder. (You can read the proposal here.) While this plan provides for the continuance of the transfer of wealth to those who have not earned it through government social programs, it does dramatically change the tax structure from a mandatory tax to a voluntary one. This is a good change in that under this system we could actually choose the amount of tax that we pay.

For those who didn't follow that link and read the bill, the Fair Tax can be summarized thusly: Abolish the income tax and the IRS and institute a national retail sales tax. That sure is a lot simpler than the current system, isn't it? The percentate of sales tax has been calculated to be in the 18-23% range, and while this seems excessive, keep in mind the amount of embedded taxes we already pay.

An example would be a purchase of $50. Of that $50, approximately 22% is in the form of embedded taxes. What are embedded taxes? Embedded taxes are the taxes that the manufacturers of all the components of said product paid (and passed on to their consumer, the final producer) as well as the taxes paid by the final producer and passed on to the store, as well as the taxes paid by the store and passed on to you, the consumer. Got it? The Fair Tax does away with that embedded 22%, bringing the cost to you, the consumer, to $39. Let's just assume that the federal sales tax rate will be 23%, the highest discussed. Add the sales tax to the cost of the item and you have $47.97. You have just witnessed a net reduction in cost of goods to the consumer by just over 4%.

Another thing to keep in mind is that under the Fair Tax you will no longer be paying any payroll taxes (Medi-scare, Social inSecurity, etc.). All of these government programs will be covered by the income from the Fair Tax. So instead of going from having 15% of your paycheck swiped from you up front, you get the whole thing. On top of that, every month the government will refund to everyone the amount of taxes that they have paid on the necessities of life, such as food, clothing, and shelter. Now, here's the one place I disagree with the Fair Tax proposal. The proposal is to cut checks or make bank transfers to rebate this money. If those on government assistance can have their EBT cards, why can't taxpayers under the Fair Tax system have their Tax Rebate card? It's not feasible to write that many checks, and I don't really want to give the government access to my bank account, even if it is just for deposit. Just a thought to those of you at Fair Tax headquarters.

The real strength of the Fair Tax is that it eliminates taxes on corporations. Not that corporations ever paid taxes in the first place -- they just added their cost of taxes to the price of their product and passed it on to you, the consumer. Without corporate taxes, however, the United States would instantly become the place to be for a corporation. There have been stories in the news about companies moving offshore to escape corporate taxes. Imagine the rush to come back to the United States if all corporate taxes were instantly eliminated. We'd have companies banging on the door to get in, and the economy would absolutely explode. Unemployment? It won't be a problem, since there will be more jobs than we can fill.

The absolute best part of the Fair Tax (to me, anyway) is the reason it will probably never pass. Politicians have turned class warfare into an art, and they practice it mercilessly. Every election, you hear the Republicans screaming that the Democrats want to raise your taxes (and they do) and you hear the Democrats screaming that the Republicans want to cut social programs (and they used to). With the passage of the Fair Tax, all of a sudden this kind of campaign rhetoric becomes useless. Everyone pays the same tax, and they pay it based solely on their desire to spend. The use of the tax code as election leverage is not available any more, and most politicians won't give up their leverage.

I encourage you to all visit the Fair Tax website and learn more about this bill. The implications for our economy are overwhelming, but it will never happen without a grass-roots uprising. It's time to get active.

Thoughts on Social Security

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

--Winston Churchill

One of the Bush Administration's main objectives for the new term is the reform of Social Security. As a member of the sub-30 age group, at least for a couple of more years, I have to say it's about time. From the time I started receiving a paycheck, I have never thought of Social Security as something I could count on. I've always considered that deduction from my paycheck as money lost that I'll never see again.

Since I've always considered the Social Security deduction nothing more than government-sponsored theft from my paycheck, I'm looking forward to at least being able to take a little bit of that money and investing it in a private account. At least that much will be mine. The dirty little secret about Social Security is that there is no account with your name on it. Your deductions just get put in the big communal pot, and if you happen to live long enough, you might see a little of it every month.

The real problem with Social Security is that the money we've been paying in isn't there. It has been appropriated by politicians for uses other than it was intended. It's been happening for years -- politicians in Washington have put forth grand social spending plans, for which funding was not available in the general fund. To make up the shortfall, they simply siphoned the funds from the Social Security trust fund. By sometime in the next decade, all that will be left in the Social Security trust fund is a bunch of IOU's.

That's why reform is desparately needed. With private accounts, you will own your account, and the money in it. The politicians will have no rights to siphon that off for their grandiose spending plans, which is one of the reasons that they will fight tooth and nail to prevent it. Another reason that many of the liberal persuasion will fight any kind of reform is that privatization returns at least some of the control of the people's future to them. In the mind of a liberal there's nothing worse than an individual taking responsibility for their own well-being. When that happens, they are no longer relying on the government for their future, and to liberals, everything should be a function of government. (Never mind the Constitutional limitations on the federal government -- those have been ignored for decades. But that's another topic.)

The frustrating part of the whole Social Security reform business is the stance of groups who ostensibly have the well-being of senior citizens in mind. The AARP is at the forefront of fighting any kind of reform, regardless of the fact that the current system will be bankrupt in 2018. By fighting against reform, they are dooming those who will be alive and relying on Social Security in 2018 to a life with none of the promised support. My belief is that the AARP's opposition is more political than anything else. I base that statement on some of the claims the organization has put forth regarding reform.

The AARP claims that the Bush Administration wants to cut benefits. Not true. Everyone who does not qualify for a private account will receive all of the benefits that have been promised to them. There has been no proposal put forth by the Bush Administration to reduce benefits to current Social Security recipients, or even for those who are rapidly approaching retirement.

It's fearmongering tactics such as the ones being used by the AARP that lead me to believe that they are more concerned with politics than with the well-being of America's seniors. The question for us now is are we going to let them sway us from acting to save a system that is rapidly sliding down the tubes? Are we going to let the fearmongering by liberals in Congress and their lapdog organization the AARP keep us from setting up a system that will provide even better for future seniors than the current system does for current seniors?

The answers to these questions lies in how much backbone the Republicans and conservative Democrats (is there such a thing, now that Zell Miller's gone?) in Congress can muster. Truth be told, I don't have much confidence in Republicans being able to muster any backbone. The chances of that actually happening aren't borne out by history. If anything, the chances are better that the Republican majority will fold like a wet noodle in the face of lies and fearmongering by the left. Unfortunately it happens too often.

In the meantime, I'll be making my retirement decisions without the promise of Social Security. There's no way I'm going to count on a system that will have been bankrupt for twenty years by the time I retire.

Why I Play Poker...(and it ain't the money!)

Whether he likes it or not, a man's character is stripped bare at the poker table; if the other players read him better than he does, he has only himself to blame. Unless he is both able and prepared to see himself as others do, flaws and all, he will be a loser in cards, as in life.

-- Anthony Holden ( from "Big Deal" )

I'll confess -- I really enjoy playing poker. If my wife reads this, I'm sure she'll be rolling her eyes. She's not big on the whole gambling idea, and I don't really blame her. It's easy to get addicted to, and you can lose everything you own. It's happened to better people than me. That's why I don't play for money. I play at the freeroll tournaments that are being held in nearly every bar in the Atlanta area. No-Limit Texas Hold-Em Poker is the biggest thing to hit Atlanta since Sherman held his little barbeque.

So if I don't play for money, why do I play? It's a question that I'm asked often by my lovely and understanding wife. The answer is not as simple as it may seem. When I really think about why I play, several reasons come to mind.

The first reason is because I'm a geek, and I love the math involved. Odds, outs, percentages, they facinate me. It's one of the reason I love to watch poker on TV -- you get to see the players' hole cards and the percent chance they have to win the pot at any given time. I've always liked math, and the math involved in poker is more than basic, to say the least. It changes with every turn of a card.

The second reason is the psychological aspect of poker. At its most basic level, poker is a game of psychological warfare. The most important weapon is being able to read your opponent. Can you bluff them out? Are they holding the best hand? These are questions that you have to answer without the benefit of current information. You have to answer these questions for yourself based on past experience. Your observation skills and memory are your best friends in this case. You have to remember how someone plays. For instance, I played with someone who I found would fold his hand if you bet the exact amount he had in his stack. If you just went all-in, he was likely to call. Think I won a couple of pots against him with nothing? You bet I did. I took his weakness and exploited it. Psychological warfare.

All that aside, the main reason I play is because the game's just plain fun. It's a good way to get together with friends, aquaintances, or plain strangers and have a good time. Especially when you're playing in a freeroll tournament. It's very rare that someone will leave mad, because what did he lose? He paid nothing to enter. And where else can you have five hours of fun for free? Last I checked, the arcade wasn't giving away tokens for free.

I play because I enjoy it, and for no other reason. I don't have a driving desire to win, I have a driving desire to have a blast. And I do, even when I bust out early. I have found that playing for the sheer fun of it makes it easier to be a good player. When you don't feel that your manhood is riding on whether or not you get taken out by the guy (or gal) across the table, you become a much more levelheaded player, and thusly a much better player overall. When you take pride out of the equation, it allows you to assess your own weaknesses frankly and honestly, and your play moves up a level.

So for those of you who play, have fun at it. Don't let it become an obsession, but have fun. For those who have never played, give it a shot. You may find that you are pretty good, and you may have found a new pasttime.

Private Space Flight Cometh

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.

--Socrates, 500 B.C.

 One of the most exciting news stories of 2004 was the completion of the quest for the X-Prize by Burt Rutan and his Scaled Composites crew. In case you missed it, Burt and company managed to launch the first private-sector astronauts into space, recover them safely, and repeat the feat within two weeks. And they did it all without any help from the government.

The feat that they accomplished is all the more amazing in that the space vehicle (SpaceShipOne) is made completely of composite materials and utilizes no heat shields. Hopefully NASA is paying attention. The recovery is accomplished without the violent re-entry that we've all become accustomed to seeing through the use of a shape-changing spacecraft. The tailfeathers of SpaceShipOne rotate upon re-entry and cause the spacecraft to flutter back to earth like a shuttlecock, instead of burning its way through the atmosphere, a-la the Space Shuttle.

It has always been my belief that left to our own imagination and inventiveness, that man can overcome any obstacle, and Rutan managed to overcome an obstacle that NASA continues to just deal with. Rutan made a lot of noise in the days and weeks leading up the the launch of SpaceShipOne needling NASA for their inefficiencies, and while somewhat mean-spirited at times, it was right on the money. The shuttle has been in service since what, the early eighties, and in that time what has changed to make space flight safer? Not much. The safety of the crew still relies on extremely fragile heat shielding tiles upon re-entry. I sincerely hope that NASA sits up and takes note of the fact that re-entry can be achieved much more safely.

But that's not the point of this missive. The point is that private space flight is coming, and coming fast. It won't be affordable enough for the masses to begin with, but neither was airline travel. Now, I can fly from Atlanta to San Francisco for a hundred bucks. The same will be true of private space flight.

BBC News has an article (go there) detailing the involvement of the billionaire founder of Virgin Atlantic airlines Richard Branson with Burt Rutan in the creation of the first private fleet of spacecraft. The sole intention is to take civilians into space, and in coming years to do it cheaply enough to allow almost anyone to make the journey. The exciting part is that the spacecraft can take off from one location and land in another. Could this be the future of trans-oceanic flight? Quite possibly, and the implications of that are dire for trans-oceanic airlines of today.

This appeals to me because it is reminicent of the beginnings of aviation as we know it. We're looking at the beginning of a new era of human flight, and when you realize that you're living in a time when history is being made and appreciate it, it's all the more amazing what Rutan accomplished. He didn't just win a million-dollar prize, he took the sole ownership of the realm of space away from governments and placed it firmly in the lap of private citizens. The challenge in the future will be keeping the governments of the world from attempting to quash private space travel in the name of "safety".

It's an exciting time to live in. I'm glad I'm around for it.

The Year of "Little One"

A baby is God's opinion that the world should go on.

--Carl Sandburg

As of midnight last night, this officially became the year of "Little One". "Little One" is our first child, due to be born on June 5. We refer to "Little One" as "Little One" because we have made the rather uncommon decision to not find out the sex. Some may think that this is strange, and not conducive to being prepared. Leila and I, however, have no real preference on the sex of our child (and so what if we did?).

Our main argument is that there are so few good surprises left in life, why shouldn't we just let this one happen on it's own. This is our first foray into the parenting world, and I have a feeling that the surprises that "Little One" will leave us will be nowhere near as pleasant as the surprise of finding out the sex upon birth.

Both of us are extremely excited about the forthcoming birth of our first child. I have to say, Leila is an absolutely gorgeous pregnant woman. She's also got a mother's instinct that cannot be denied. My fervent hope is that I will turn out to be as good a father as she will be a mother. I do not doubt my desire to be a good father. In fact, one of the only things I asked for specifically for Christmas was a book or two on being a good father. My worry is in the execution. If I screw up a program at work, I can go back and fix it. I'm pretty sure the same does not hold true for being a parent. I've got one shot at it, and I can't blow it.

All anxiety aside, I can't wait to become a father. My only question is what do I do if it's a girl? Not that I don't want a girl -- I truly don't have a preference. It's just that I have experience with boys. I used to be one. I have exactly zero experience with little girls. Plus, I'm pretty sure that a little girl will grow up to become a teenager who'll want to date. I'm also pretty sure that she'll want to get married. Scares the bejeezus out of me. But it's all part of parenthood.

All in all, I can't wait. I'm loving Leila being pregnant. She's absolutely glowing (and I didn't really know what that meant until she became pregnant!), and aside from the nausea, she's doing very well.

What a year it's going to be. The year of "Little One"!