SnakeRiverLib

Who likes the IRS?  Who likes the tax code?  I would think if anything could be done in the swamp, it would be tax reform.  It would be so simple.  Flat tax?  FAIR tax?  Take your pick, doesn't matter to me, except that if we were to go with the FAIR tax, we need to eliminate the 16th amendment.  Eliminate deductions, period, and drop the rate accordingly. Did you know that Russia has a 13% Flat tax?  I like it.  Yes, I would pay more, but I think all should have to pay something.  Right now, the tax code is not about collecting revenue.  If it were, it would be a simple rate, and it would be simply a percentage of what you earn.  No deductions, no tax credits, no this, that, or the other.  A minimal IRS to ensure compliance by EMPLOYERS withholding  the proper amount.  No $600 Billion a year in tax planning, preparation, and compliance. (yes, that is an accurate number) But it isn't about revenue, is it?  It is about CONTROL .  If you do THIS. .. tax credit.  If you

The answer to all you whiners about the Electoral College. and those that wanted to know. Wahh   But the popular vote.  Shove it.  This ain't a democracy.  It is a Republic.  Period. Wahh  Small states have outsized influence.  Yeah, well, it is the states that decide the Presidency, not the uninformed public, thank heavens.  See the 1st answer Wahh.   Slave owners wrote the Constitution, counting blacks as only 3/5ths of a person.  Are you kidding?  Every single person that makes this argument should be banned forever from voting, regardless of race.  This was a compromise that benefited the north, not the south.  By limiting the population by counting slaves as 3/5ths actually reduced the influence of the South in the House of Representatives. What is the problem? A State's representation in the Electoral College is simple.  One member for each Representative a state has in the House, and a member for each of the two Senators.  Oh, and for some stupid reason, the D

Can we get an amen to repealing the Seventeenth Amendment? If you have forgotten, the 17th took away the voice of states in the Senate.  It was a progressive idea to have a house in Congress more insulated, by way of its six year election cycle, from immediate voter retribution.  Much ado was made of the Senate not being elected by the voice of the people, and how "undemocratic" that was. (you know, like the Democratic Republic of North Korea)  Of course it wasn't democratic.  This nation was a Republic.  The states were represented by the Senate.  The States, as sovereign states, not representing the people, but the state government. Let me know what you think of this option.  As the 17th specifically addresses how to replace a  Senator, could you infer that a method, say through the state's constitution, could be created to recall a Senator?   I am a realist, and know what the odds are of that occurring.  Short of repeal, which would require a 2/3 vote in the H

Today the President signed an Executive Order(EO) changing the Affordable Care Act.   I had argued that this is where the President needed to go.  A libertarian would never have done an EO to make a fix to the ACA.  We needed an apolitical President using the powers assumed by previous presidents to do it. It isn't birth control that is causing health care costs to skyrocket.  It isn't preventative care that is causing it.  It is the number of people choosing to be criminals and remain uninsured rather than try to afford premiums and deductibles that were part and parcel to the "Affordable" Care Act.  What people need is a safety net.  So, what does the EO do? Allows people and businesses to form associations, to pool together and buy insurance. It allows for competition across state lines. It waives the mandate for the minimal coverage requirements.  This allows people to buy the coverage that really matters, catastrophic coverage.   The expansion of He

You probably have heard the name.  Do you know the case?  And why I would bring it up now? For those that don't, the Dred Scott case was decided in 1857 by the US Supreme Court.  It ruled that if your ancestors were brought to the United States as slaves, then you could never be a US Citizen, regardless of whether you were currently a slave, or a free man.  It is universally considered one of the worst rulings in the Supreme Court's history. So, why does that matter today? This fall the Supreme Court will hear the case Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission .   To sum it up, a baker has been accused of discriminating against a gay couple because he refused to provide a wedding cake, citing religious beliefs.  This is only one of many like cases that have come up recently.  Some of these businesses provided their services for the very same people that they are now accused of discriminating against.  It isn't the individuals that they are discr

We are divided.  And divided we are weak. Weak in spirit, weak in love for fellow man Weak in the face of enemies, foreign and domestic. If you think that this division started with the election of President Trump. then stop reading, and go somewhere else. If you think that this division started with President Obama, same. If you think it started with Bush, Clinton , Bush, Reagan, Carter , Ford, or Nixon, same. Senator Obama ran as a uniter, which he threw in the trash once elected.  Two statements can sum up the division that he created. 1. "Never let a good crisis go to waste" (okay, that was his Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel) 2. "Elections have consequences, and we won" He told Republicans when they wanted a seat at the table to discuss legislation. For President Obama, he had the Democrat party as a rubber stamp. (I could mention that he could have used that on Immigration reform, but didn't, but I digress) for two years.  And while it cost the