New Identity

People make mistakes and have indiscretions.  There was a time when those errors and lapses in judgment were contained within the community or within the family, sometimes discretely and sometimes not, and that upon leaving that community, those indiscretions would in theory be left behind.  It's important that people do have the opportunity to begin again, to not have to be constantly reminded about things that are no longer relevant in their life in which judgmental people often use this as a pressure point to keep others in their place, all under the guise of "full disclosure".

 In today's world, getting that new identity, receiving that new start, is difficult to accomplish for many reasons.  First off, there is the proverbial "shooing yourself in the own foot" problem that is presented by the ubiquitous use of social media outlets in which photos, comments, or videos that were posted by yourself or others in which you are in a compromising positions can be an annoying source of constant embarrassment in which apparently the party never ends, even though it ended for you a while ago.  That is why applications like snapchat are so relevant to people, because it allows you to maintain control over photos that you send through your phone in which they self-destruct on the recipient's phone after a few seconds.   Instead, too often when we post or we send something through social media, even though later on we may delete our original, copies of our post are completely out of our control. 

In the corporate world, things get much more serious beginning at the time that we are born, as our Social Security number that is assigned and mandated for us is for all practical purposes also our national identification number.  Despite some rather listless consumer protections, this means that our education, our health, our finances, and other pertinent information therefore stick to us like glue, in which we can never opt out.  For instance, if you make some bad financial decisions, or have some financial hardship thrust upon you by being laid off, this data will be placed onto your credit report, in which you will suffer the consequences of this unfortunate event in regards to higher loan rates, restricted credit amounts, and even lessened employment opportunities, for a minimum of seven long years!

People mature at different rates, some much later than others, and people do not always remain the same.  For some people the past is a very definite prologue of the future, but for others, the past is truly the past, and they are a changed person.  Government documentation allows outsiders to often get a distorted view of ourselves, in which we are processed and valued, sorted and stacked, making the individual by definition to take a backseat to the data.   It shouldn't be that way, at a minimum; people should be allowed a reset button, a real second chance, a fresh start, or a new or revised identity.

Our national identification number is pinned upon us, whether we are ready for it or not, in which a significant amount of people don't understand or comprehend the ramifications of decisions that they make in a moment's time which will define them for all practical purposes.   Through our national identification number, incriminating information is used against us, perhaps even unbeknownst to us, and lessens our opportunities and our quality of life.

Maturity

Too many people, young as well as old, like to play the 'blame' game and refuse to take responsibility for their decisions and their life.  But your life is specifically defined by the decisions that you do make.  When you are an infant, your choices are relatively limited, and your decision-making process is immature.  An infant believes that the world revolves around them, that they should be fed when they demand to be fed, and washed and cleaned when they demand to be washed and cleaned.  This should just be a stage in life, but too many of us are infantile in our demands and needs well into adulthood.  As adults we want whatever that we want, right now!  We also get frustrated when we don't get our way, when people don't listen to us, and don't bend instantly to our needs.  We may not say it out loud, but it is always "me, me, me".

It would be better for us if we instead grow out of our infantile stage and recognize that our world actually consists of other human beings with their own needs and desires.  In order to grow and mature, we must therefore maneuver our way away from seeing the world with just our own set of eyes, but instead make the effort to see the world from another set or multiple sets of eyes.  While making this transaction there isn't any reason to assume that we know what other people are thinking, we can in fact learn much more by engaging others in conversations in which we are attentive to what they are actually saying and how they are behaving.  Often, the things that people discuss with you are quite simply the things that are most important to them.  Learning what other people are about will surprise you as you find that their priorities, perspectives, and personality may intersect with yours in certain aspects and be quite divergent in others.

Taking a real interest in other people is a definite sign of maturity.  You will find that as you reach-out and are more engaged with others that other people will reciprocate the same to yourself.  If, on the other hand, you are always in a hurry, always in a rush, always about yourself, always 'multi-tasking', you cannot expect that other people will express any real or deep abiding interest in you and your activities.  If you are trivial and shallow with others, you can expect that in whole people will be trivial and shallow with yourself. 

If you want friends in life, be sincere, interested, and friendly!  If you want mature and valued people in your life, treat people in a way in which they know that you value them, you value their friendship, and you value your conversations and time spent with each other.  Being immature is a habit; it doesn't have to be a habit that you carry with you for all of your life.  You can discard this habit and replace it with another.  Often the change that you want in this world, in your life, starts with yourself.  In the hustle and bustle of everyday life, slow things down a bit, contemplate, think, reflect, engage, smile, be friendly, be compassionate, be sincere, and be you.

Land Ownership and Freedom

When you are born, you own your own body, later you will own your own labor, and eventually if things go well, you will own your own land in which you will possess personal property, a dwelling, and the belief that your home is your castle.  While in theory you can live just fine without you owning your own home, there is something quite powerful and secure about being on your own property, free and clear.

The obvious disadvantage of not owning your own home, is that you are at the mercy of your respective landlord, and while people may very well vote with their feet, how if your feet won't take you too far, or further to this point, how if the landlords that you wish to bargain with, aren't interested in bargaining with you.  While there may be plenty of laws on the books that will protect you, the wheels of justice move excruciatingly slow and always favor the rich and powerful. 

When you don't own your own home, you are by definition, under the mercy and care of some other entity that in all probability does not have your best interests in mind.  It often doesn't matter how much money that you make, the clothes that you wear, your educational achievements, if at the end of your day, it is at the discretion of the powers-to-be as to where and how you are able to lay your head down to sleep.  Further to this point, when you are a renter, when you are a tenant, your personal freedom is further compromised by virtue that you are not the owner, therefore upon such and such notice or such and such law, the dwelling that you reside at, that contains your personal property, can be entered into for such and such purposes under some sort of due notice.  When things are going well for you, this may not be much of a bother or a burden, but in times of chaos and injustice, you will find that your personal position is far less than ideal and rather burdensome to be in.

Land ownership is power and it is control, and lack of these things places you in the uncomfortable position of the graces of good government, something that historically has been in rather short supply.

Additionally, when all hell is breaking loose, owning your own land at least gives you a foundation in which to make a stand on, whereas without it, you are fighting a war without a structure to help protect and to defend you. 

It is often said that you really don't appreciate things till those very things are wrested away from you.  Wars, many, many wars are fought over land, its value, its location, its minerals, its water, its people, and history is replete with the victors taking the land and the vanquished relinquishing control of said lands.  When you lose land you are all the poorer for that lost, and when you gain land you are all the richer for that gain. 

Land ownership, in the hands of the many, are the ultimate defense against the few and corrupt who would wish to take it away.  When many people are together that have similar interests, similar principles, similar assets, and similar desires, they are a powerful force that can turn back those that wish to take their land and their freedom from them.  Big government and big corporations have but one abiding objective, to see that they increase in power and influence over you, and that therefore you, the individual, do nothing to stand in their way, and without land your stand will be one on which you will defend yourself on those proverbial shifting sands.

Jail

Just the thought of jail brings immediate depressive feelings to most people.  Being incarcerated in jail, is that depression come to life in which your freedoms of movement, of thought, of time, of control of your physical body, are now severely restricted, and consequently these freedoms have been ceded from your control, and replaced by the State's control.   Given these rather dire circumstances, most people in jail are eager to be in contact with loved ones and welcome their visits and correspondence.

In my community, a new jail recently opened in 2012, and you would think that this modern jail would encompass security, justice, and compassion with state-of-the-art equipment, but it really doesn't and this jail has significant and fundamental flaws. 

The biggest flaw and mistake by far that this particular jail makes is that you, an upstanding citizen of the United States, are not allowed to physically visit with an inmate within the facility.  Yes, you are allowed to talk to the inmate via telephone, per prescribed rules, and you are also allowed to video-call the inmate per prescribed rules but physical contact is forbidden and even a face-to-face meeting in which Plexiglas or similar separates you from the inmate are also forbidden. 

This deliberate policy of non face-to-face visitations and non physical contact is both a cruel and unnecessary punishment.  It does a deep disservice to something that is both very human and also very necessary for no good purpose.  While the inmates in jail are there for various reasons, some of them are there for simply being not able to post bail for the particular offense that they are accused of.  Matthew 25:39 exhorts us to: "… when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee."   This jail doesn't allow true personal visitations as if the jailors there believe that they are above moral law, that they are allowed and permitted to be our judges.

While no doubt, those that run this particular jail, can come up with all sorts of reasons and excuses as to why they don't allow physical visitations, unless it is Counsel for the inmate, none holds water to the truth, which is that these visits are disallowed primarily out of spite and out of a misplaced belief that inmates don't deserve courtesy and respect, but are now mere property of the State. 

There are other things within this jail program which cost innocent family members both time and money, while allowing middlemen to get rich from these actions.  For instance, don't think twice about bringing in some of your mother's home cooking, inmates can't accept food from family members or outsiders, but they will accept commissary food items from mycarepark.com, as long as you have the money to pay for this service.  If you want to hand some money over to your loved one in jail, you aren't permitted to pass money onto them directly, you must instead use the smart deposit kiosk located at the jail for a fee and a minimum amount.  Inmates aren't permitted to accept letters, only postcards, but it's also against the jail's policy to accept a postcard with a stamp.  Also, forget about bringing in a Bible or other books to an inmate, they must instead be soft-cover and be mailed directly by the publisher or bookstore, and the amount of books cannot exceed three within any 30-day period.

Does punishment reduce crime?  The United States has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, but it's hardly crime free.  Bad laws, bad jails, and bad justice breed only contempt for the law.

The Unrated DVD!

Mass media entertainment companies are all about the money.  They like to take a movie that you are well familiar with, perhaps even one that you saw at the movie theatre, and somehow put a new spin on it, that will make you want to see it again.  While there are plenty of different spins, such as "director's cut", "extended version", and so forth, the easiest and quickest way to get that almighty dollar is the "unrated" version.  For the uninitiated, unrated, sounds like it's on the edge, that whatever you saw in the theaters or wish to see is going to now be something way and well beyond those limits.  Unrated--sweet!

The truth of the matter is far less envelope pushing.  The creators of these films are large media organizations that have no interest in pushing the boundaries of the public's taste outside of a respected norm, and these movie creators are well aware that they need the imprint of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and their "voluntary" rating system in order to get nationwide distribution of their particular movie.  When a specific movie is presented to the MPAA there will be a give and take as to what will or won't be allowed within the editing of the movie to achieve that final rating certification grade.  When certain big-budget firms are on the edge of a particular rating, they will use an experienced and connected go-between to work out the creative differences between what is desired by the studio and what is acceptable to the MPAA, in which smooth talking, political skills, and a certain charm will pay dividends for both parties.

Therefore, when cuts or modifications are made to a movie in order to achieve a certain rating, directors and editors of said movie are well aware as to what scenes were deleted, modified, or truncated and that version of the movie still exists as an alternate unrated and uncertified copy.  Consequently, it thereby becomes relatively straightforward to present in the future for the DVD set, an unrated version of the same movie with the previous scenes that have been excised or compromised in some way, becoming part and parcel of the DVD that is released to the public.

Of course, that is just one version of how an unrated DVD comes into being, a far more cynical version, is a director or editor of a particular movie, just adding in some additional curse words, or nudity, or more graphic violence, that previously weren't part of the original intention or version of the movie being released, but for purposes of marketing an unrated version are tagged onto the DVD in order to capture those unrated DVD sales.

In actuality, unrated DVDs are for the most part, the same as the movie, with a modest amount of more scandalous material added to it, in order to lure in unsuspecting buyers that they are receiving something that is substantially more in substance than what was shown at the movie theaters and to whet these viewers addled-brain appetites for more excess, when in actuality it's pretty much to do about nothing.

The rich, the poor, and the middle class

What defines a great country is the percentage of people that are middle class, because it is the middle class that are the salt and the good earth of that country.  You can define the middle class in a myriad of ways, but the most meaningful one to me, is that you are middle class if you are receiving little or no aid from government agencies, have your own home, your own vehicle, and a median income that is no worse than 25% less than the median for the median income in your community to up to 100% more than the median income for your community.  For instance, in 2012 the median income in the United States was $51,017, so an income range of $38,263 to $102,034 would be considered to be middle class.  That is not to say that those with incomes under $38K are then defined as poor, or that incomes about 102K as rich, but rather that those would be better defined as lower-middle class or upper-middle class, depending on their actual numbers, as contrasted to the poor and the rich.

There is a great disparity in income and assets for the rich and the poor in America, in which that gap has only widen over the last few years.  The rich are getting richer, and the poor are struggling and would be getting even poorer, if not for the great society safety net that is provided to them.  The ncleg.org reports that: "in 2012, 46.5 million people were living in poverty in the United States—the largest number in the 54 years the Census has measured poverty."  Whereas for the rich as reported by the nytimes.com we find: "the income share of the top 1 percent of earners in 2012 returned to the same level as before both the Great Recession and the Great Depression: just above 20 percent, jumping to about 22.5 percent in 2012…"

In America there are three worlds, the world for the rich, the world for the middle class, and the world of the poor.  In the world of the rich, we continue to see the growth of luxury residential complexes, capital investments, and high-end shopping centers with the most prestigious stores frequented by the rich and those that aspire to be rich, whereas the poor are under-served by virtually all the common amenities that we would desire such as safe parks and open spaces, grocery stores, shopping centers, good schools, restaurants other than just fast food, and the like.   The middle class are caught in-between these two worlds, worlds which vary from the darkness of despair and injustice to the pinnacles of power, money, and success.

The nytimes.com reports that: "in 2012, the top 5 percent of earners were responsible for 38 percent of domestic consumption, up from 28 percent in 1995…" In constant 2012 dollars the peak median income in America was in 1999 at $56,080 and in 2012 this had decreased 9% to $51,017.  Yet in those ensuing years, there was only one year in which our GDP growth in the United States was negative, but somehow the aggregate, inflation-adjusted median income decreased in that same time.  The conclusion is clear-cut, the rich have gotten richer, the poor have increased in numbers, and the middle-class has both decreased in numbers and lost income overall. 

The trend-line is clear, America a country that prides itself on being a beacon of hope, freedom, and liberty, has morphed and degenerated into a country that is clearly unequaled in its distribution of income, opportunity, life choices, justice, and dreams.

The Bigger our Government, the stronger our chains

A Government that can do all things for you is the same Government that can take away everything from you.  The Government at its worse is pure force, which will usurp everything from you, and at its best Government follows a quid pro quo philosophy.  They say there is no such thing as a free lunch and particularly when those benefits are provided by the Government; you can be assured that this is indeed so.  The Government provides us with retirement benefits, health care benefits, student loan benefits, food benefits, housing benefits, and all sorts of benefits not specifically enumerated, and in return Government  expects total loyalty from its subjects when it comes to the ballot box, when it comes to war, and when it comes to compliance with Governmental needs.

Citizens that believe that their shelter, nutrition, and health needs will continued to be met by their Government without any sacrifice or obligation on their part are missing the big picture.  There is always a price to pay for the receiving of benefits from Government agencies.  Always!    This price depends upon your stage in life and your capacity to serve the Government.  You will, for instance, be incarcerated by the Government for failure to adhere to certain standards or you will instead be the enforcer that makes sure that those recalcitrant citizens know their place.  Your children and your children's children will 'voluntarily' join the military or paramilitary or intelligence agencies or other agencies as needed for the Government or your benefits will be wrested away from you.  Obedience to the State will be rewarded with the necessities of life, and disobedience will be punished with the lack and access to those very necessities.

The Government has the capability of co-opting nearly everyone because their status is protected and upheld by legislation, law, and the power of arms.  Those that believe they are independent will find out soon enough whether they truly are independent, because without gainful employment, without access to money, without credibility and status, your ability to ply your trade is severely compromised.  Virtually all public companies that engage or contract with the Government are compromised and are willing to bend to the dictates of their pay-master.  Privately held corporations and individuals may or may not have freedom, depending upon how far up or how far down they are on the food chain, but when the law and the power that supports the law are felt like boots upon their supine neck, they will understand the true meaning of words like "freedom" and "subservience".

The bigger our Government gets, the stronger the chains are that bound and contain us.  When the Government knows our business, monitors our personal life, controls our educational and later our employment opportunities, the battle is effectively over.  A country once known as the land of the free and the home of the brave is a shadow of that once proud past.  True freedom comes from the autonomy of the individual in which we have the opportunity to do the things that we ought to do, and true bravery is the strength of character to fight for right in the face of wrong.  Those worthy patriots have for the most part been swallowed or eliminated or compromised by the State.

Senior Citizen Discounts

Senior Citizen discounts start at age 55 at a significant amount of stores, then considerably more are added at 60, then a few at age 62, and finally at age 65, if you're going to get a discount at a store or restaurant that offers discounts for seniors, than 65 is the last age hurdle that you will need to clear.  However, if you were to ask the average man or woman at age 55, whether they felt like a senior citizen at age 55, the universal answer would be no. 

Newspapermedia.com did a study on how America shops in which their 2011 paper which was based on the shopping habits of just over 2,500 adults and was conducted in the Fall of 2010, broke the shopping categories down into age groups of 18-34, 35-49, 50-64, and 65+.  There were fourteen purchase categories in which the 50-64 age category led in three of them, and the 65+ category lead in zero of them, and finished dead last in all of them.  The WSJ reported in 2012 that the age group 25-44 planned to spend $820 on Christmas purchases, but the 45-64 age group was not far behind at $760.

With life expectancy in the USA, at 78.7 years of age, is it possible, perhaps probable, that the moniker "Senior Citizen Discount" in which there are plenty of those discounts available starting at age 55, really just a setup to get those that are 55+ to spend money in particular stores on particular days in order to boost sales at the small expense of an additional discount?  The obvious answer is yes.  I mean, what's the point of offering discounts at a true seniors' age, such as 70+, when at that age they, for the most part, don't have the energy, the desire, or the interest in shopping like they once did?

After all, President Calvin Coolidge stated that: "…the chief business of the American people is business." Clearly, the senior citizen discount is to get bodies through the door in which many of the businesses, set up their specific senior citizen discount on a specific day in which business is normally known to be on the slow side, such as Tuesdays and Wednesdays, so that the mega-grocery chain Kroger will offer their senior citizen discount on Wednesdays, whereas Ross stores offers theirs on Tuesdays, and Michaels Stores does the same.

For those that have been designated as senior citizens for these promotions, times have never been better, as they can take advantage of the extra discount, feel privileged for having done so and save some money to boot.  Senior citizen discounts aren't going away anytime soon, in fact, they are here to stay and probably will continue to expand, the designation of such a discount sounds fair to the average American, because it seems fair to offer senior citizens a discount for all their labor, sacrifice, and work that they have provided throughout their lives.  Of course, the discount is democratic, it sure isn't merit-based, and it definitely isn't restricted to toothless little old ladies that can't stand erect anymore.

Our Constitution and Our Liberty

The United States would not be considered historically as the beacon of freedom for the world, if not for our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Our Declaration of Independence declares: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."  Additionally, our Constitution in its preamble declares: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." These sentences contain the touchstone of America and in their words rest the entire meaning of our existence. It is of critical importance to recognize that our rights to life and liberty are inalienable rights that are provided to us by our Creator, and not by our Government, and further that these inherent or natural rights supersede the rights of our Government, in which our Government is to be our servant and not our master.

Unfortunately, the above viewpoint seems to be currently out of favor and instead we have courts that instead of ruling on the correct enforcement of law instead make new law.  This is not the intended purpose of the judiciary and to make matters more pernicious, it is this judiciary that once appointed to their posts, are appointed for life, creating an unwelcomed situation in which the people are unable to remove from their posts the very power that oppresses them.  Additionally, the judiciary acts and believes that they have a monopoly on the interpretation of the Constitution, if this then is so, the Executive and Legislative branches of our Government are virtually toothless in stopping the Judiciary from enacting or interpreting laws which are injurious or detrimental to the Constitution and to the people.  In fact, our Constitution as enacted is a Constitution of delegated powers in which powers that are not specifically enumerated are reserved to either the States or to the people themselves.  In short, over time, the Judiciary has overreached its boundaries, having infringed upon our liberty, which is in contradistinction to natural law which impresses upon us that our liberty is the reason for the Constitution being ratified in the first place and consequently anything that abridges our liberty and is not specifically enumerated within the Constitution is in violation of it.

Judges that believe that our Constitution is a living and breathing instrument, subject to the mores, times, and conditions of our age are out-of-touch with the actual intended meaning of the Constitution.  Either we are a people born of individual liberty in which the highest form of our Government that we have consented to is that we the people are its sovereign rulers with inalienable rights, with the only legitimate purpose of Government being to ensure that our rights are not taken from us through either foreign or domestic enemies or we have a Constitution which means whatever some Judge interprets it to mean, subject to his rules, his penalties, and his enforcement, in which we will either obey this edict or suffer the consequences for not doing so.

Either this is a country of liberty or it is not.  Our liberty comes not from our Government, but from our Creator.  Any Government that means to take away our life, our liberty, and our pursuit of happiness, is a government at odds with our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence.  Our Constitution was created and ratified to assure ourselves that these protections and these rights would never be violated without consequence and that as Thomas Jefferson said: "whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."  

Our Government, unfortunately, has become a law unto itself, and we merely its little pawns.  This is far from liberty, far from freedom, and far from what we fought for and what we stood for.  It is up to us, to reassert the American way, piece by piece, brick by brick, inch by inch, or to be crushed by its tyranny.

Liquor advertising on Television

Advertising is a powerful medium, all the more powerful, when it is displayed on your TV in the comfort of your home in which you can see and often relate to a short story about the product that extols its benefits and attributes through the power and polish of advertising and marketing people who know their business and how to target their particular clients' ads for maximum effectiveness. 

Liquor advertising had been absent from TV from 1948 through 1996 by a voluntary ban from the industry itself, but in recent years this voluntary ban has been lifted and TV ads for liquor have been running consistently on cable TV stations, before recently migrating over and encompassing the major networks such as NBC and CBS on late night TV shows.   This change of heart by the liquor industry relies on its confidence that they will not receive any blowback from these ads that would negatively affect their previous ability to advertise on TV for wine and beer in which losing television access for these products would be a devastating blow to them.

The trade association that represents the liquor industry is the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS) in which they have particular standards that their members must adhere to.  For instance, DISCUS states that the basic principles of their members when advertising are that: "digital marketing communications should be placed only in media where at least 71.6% of the audience is reasonably expected to be of the legal purchase age."   This principle says a lot about the liquor industry devious advertising standards when you realize that DISCUS is only discussing what their advertisers "should" be doing with their ads, using "reasonable" expectations, in which no more than 28.4% of viewers are of illegal purchase age.  The standard that DISCUS sets in which it is acceptable that up-to nearly 30% of their audience are viewing a product that they are not of legal age to purchase is a standard that is set far too high, especially considering the dangers of using said product.

The National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. (NCADD) states that: "alcohol is the number one drug of choice for America's young people, and is more likely to kill young people than all illegal drugs combined."  While you can make a very strong argument that liquor ads should be allowed on television because the product is legal for adults age 21 and older, you can make an even more compelling reason why those same ads should not be readily available for those that are underage.  The voluntary standard by DISCUS of at least 71.6% of the audience being of legal age is a percentage which is tragically too low.  DISCUS should amend their Code of Responsible Practices to increase that threshold to at least 90%, effective immediately, or find themselves endangered to a ban on all television advertising such as the tobacco industry suffered in 1970.

DISCUS states in their preamble that: "the overriding principle of our Code is to market our products to adults of legal purchase age in a responsible and appropriate manner."  It is high time that we held these purveyors of alcohol to this standard, a standard that they should only be too happy to comply with, or have them to suffer the consequences of their irresponsibility for a product that mandates it.

Government Debt Burdens Future Generations

Our current national debt is at 17.5 trillion dollars which equates to around $55,000 per every man, woman, and child in the United States which is an absolutely staggering sum of money that is owed by the citizens of this country.  But it gets much worse, as there are unfunded off-balance sheet liabilities which have not been factored into our true federal deficit for such items as government-guaranteed mortgages, government-guaranteed student loans, FDIC guarantees, social security guarantees, Medicare guarantees, and other trust funds guarantees, in which these off-balance sheet liabilities may total up to as much as 70 trillion dollars as estimated by economist James Hamilton of UCSD.  As bad as that is, it's shocking that our national debt did not first cross the 1 trillion dollar mark until 1982, so in the last thirty years, this government has run up a stunning and unprecedented deficit which is left for future generations to pay for.  This is both morally and fiscally wrong.

Our current deficit which continues to grow larger each year is the legacy that we leave our children and our children's children. I ask how fair is it to make the younger generation responsible for our parent's debts and our parent's bad decisions in which we had no part of it, no votes on it, and no power to prevent it, but yet upon their death their debts become our debts.  We read in Proverbs 13:22, "A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children…", but the inheritance that our forefathers leave to us, are an unreasonable and an almost immeasurable debt, which is the equivalent to a double-taxation or worse on our earnings and income, forever. 

Thomas Jefferson stated that "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living," and not thereby to the dead.  Further to this point, we may ask, are the living to be the slaves and servants to the dead?  It's not difficult to understand the importance of not being in perpetual debt.  When you are in debt, your monies are compelled by law to go to your legally-protected creditors against your desired will, in which should you resist your fate you will suffer the indignity and the consequences of the removal of your personal property, liens on your salary, or a combination of both. Your diligent labors will no longer be a means to advance and sustain yourself and your family, but instead will become an instrument for your debt masters to extract all that they can from you.  This means that for all practical purposes you are not your own man, and further that you will never be your own man, and that you are compromised, easy to manipulate, and weak.

America has become a country in which there is a rush to take everything that can be taken, to be entitled to everything that one can be entitled to, without thinking through the consequences of those actions.  You cannot continually create something out of nothing nor repeatedly wring the bread from the sweat of other man's faces without facing the day of reckoning yourself at some point.  Karl Marx said: "Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury, and bankrupt the nation.”

It is high time to demand fiscal restraint and accountability from our government.  The buck, my friend, lies with me and you.

Exploitation of Illegal Immigrants

In 1969 it was estimated by http://immigration.procon.org/ that our illegal immigrant population in the USA was approximately 540,000 in a nation of just over 200 million peoples, which works out to a percentage of about .27% of illegal immigrants in our nation.  Fast forward to 2011 and that estimate of illegal immigrants had grown to a staggering 11,500,000 in a nation of about 312 million peoples, which is a percentage of 3.69% illegal immigrants within our borders.  This means in those 42 ensuring years that our total population in America increased about 54% but our illegal immigration population increased a staggering 2000%.  This could only have come about by empowered interests in our nation aiding and abetting this massive increase in illegal immigration. 

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that in 2006 that 57% of illegal immigrants in America originated from Mexico, with an additional 24% from other Latin and Central American countries for a total of 81% of immigrants coming from primarily Spanish speaking countries that reside within close proximity to the United States.  While the USA is obviously a much desired nation for immigrants, whether illegal or legal, in order to maintain residency here, one must have some means of income or support.  Part of that support comes from our welfare society that has been created and expanded over the last few decades, and part of that income comes from performing jobs that are low-skilled, labor-intensive, have few language barriers, and are prevalent. 

Illegal immigrants are heavily employed in America as cooks, fast food employees, construction labor, housekeeping, gardening, janitorial duties, painting, and agricultural work.  In any business that is labor-intensive, the cost of the labor is of utmost importance to the owners of that business, whereas the makeup of the peoples performing that work is of little or no importance.  In fact, owners and managers of fast food restaurants like to pride themselves on their openness in hiring unskilled labor and in their increasing of diversity within the workplace.  The real answer, however, is that they like cheap, exploitable labor, and what better way to do so, than to take advantage of peoples that are both illegal and unable to speak or write English well.

America has actually gone back in time to bring back conditions similar to our antebellum days,  changed a few things here and there to give it a more palatable taste, and gone about business as usual.  Ask yourself this question, how is possible for not only the sheer numbers of illegal immigrants to get across our border, but for them to find shelter, employment, food, health, transportation, and the means not only to survive, but also to be able to through their sweat-labor, dedication, and thriftiness, to send back home funds to their impoverished brethren. 

America is quick to point out success stories of illegal immigrants, those that have gone on to apply and get granted citizenship or to receive their green card, become entrepreneurs in their own right, become bi-lingual, and to proudly wave the American flag, but all of these stories are built around a familiar foundation.  That foundation is that these immigrants are too often, exploited, abused, mistreated, ostracized, and often live lives that aren't even worthy of second-class standards.  Their masters, however, sip their proverbial mint juleps, and enjoy their modern-day plantations built upon the backs of those that only wish for the opportunity to straighten them.

Diesel Fuel

Our cars and trucks are primarily powered through petroleum, a hybrid fuel of petroleum and ethanol, a hybrid combination of petroleum and electric, or diesel fuel; although there is a multitude of other power and fuel sources for cars that are used in America, the primary ones are the ones listed above.  The first question to ponder when looking at these fuel sources is to know the overall British thermal unit (BTU) or heat energy for each of these fuels and their numbers are listed in order as follows:

                Diesel                  138,000 BTU

                Petroleum          118,000 BTU

                Ethanol                 76.000 BTU         

Clearly then we can see that diesel is the most efficient of these fuels by a considerable margin.  Currently, diesel fuel is priced higher than petroleum but part of the reason is the higher state and excise taxes for diesel fuel as contrasted with petroleum, and further that our refining infrastructure is setup for petroleum which far outsells diesel in the States. 

According to the U.S. Dept. of Energy, in 2001, 51.8% of car sales were diesel in the European market which contrasts to the USA in which just 3.2% of auto sales in 2012 were diesel.  This doesn't make a lot of sense in which diesel fuel is more efficient, fuel economy is better, and engine life is longer.   In almost all cases diesel cars depreciate at a significantly lower rate than petroleum base cars and this fact overcomes their purchase price being initially more expensive.  Unfortunately, in America, we have a tendency that when we see the same car such as Volkswagen Golf offered as either a diesel based vehicle or petroleum based vehicle, to notice exclusively that the diesel price of said vehicle is perhaps 10% higher, therefore we instantly conclude that only an idiot would buy the diesel version since the initial cost of the car is higher, gas stations typically devote no more than two pumps to diesel, and the cost of the fuel that runs the car is higher.  That is the disadvantage of not actually running all the numbers through which when taken into account factors such as: fuel efficiency which lowers the amount of money that you spend on fuel, depreciation, and upkeep (diesel engines have no spark plugs) clearly shows in most cases that diesel is on an overall cost basis: cheaper.  In fact, for the Volkswagen Golf as estimated by bankrate.com the savings over three years and 45,000 miles is approximately $5,013 for the Volkswagen Golf diesel over its gas version.

While the USA spends a considerable amount of time and resources on alternate versions of fuel for cars which run the gamut from vegetable oil to solar to electric, right in front of our noses, is a solution that will increase our fuel efficiency, is well proven, highly available, and can be scaled up in a very short period of time.  In the world of diesel v. petroleum, it is the USA that is the outlier.  That position needs to and should change. 

BMW in Spartanburg

There are plenty of foreign manufacturers that assembly their vehicles in the United States such as Acura, Honda, Hyundai, Infiniti, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Toyota, Volkswagen, and BMW in Spartanburg, South Carolina.  The United States is definitely not noted or known for its low labor costs but these mega-conglomerates recognize that labor costs are just one small component of a much greater whole in which the biggest factors in their opening of automobile plants in the USA approximately thirty years ago can be laid down to these three factors:

1.       Quid pro quo/free trade agreements

2.       For decades the USA was the largest auto market by sales volume in the world and now is second only to China

3.       Tax incentives

Vehicles are known as big ticket sale items in the world,  and with an average sale price of a new vehicle in the USA being just over $30,000 in 2012, the numbers involved in this industry are positively staggering.  Therefore, it is in the best interests of foreign manufacturers to come to a negotiated agreement with the government of the United States that allows these manufacturers to preclude tariff costs or to reduce them substantially based on certain contingencies being met, so that their vehicle prices are competitive with other manufacturers in the United States.  The United States is far too lucrative a market to pass up or to not take advantage of in all of its aspects, especially since the USA's transportation and ports are first rate, its labor force is available and scalable, its labor holidays are reasonable, its manufacturing capability is state-of-the-art, and further that the United States does not mandate using Union labor.

Additionally, the United States is somewhat unique in the world in that each of its fifty states competes against the others, in regards to incentives, tax rates, cost-of-living, and amenities.  In fact, it appears that States within this country will fall over themselves in providing special tax incentives and tax breaks in exchange for commitments in capital and labor investment.  Unfortunately, for most cities, the politicians that negotiate these deals on behalf of their citizens are not seasoned entrepreneurs with sophisticated business acumen but mere pretenders at the negotiation table.  This results in press releases that spin the job creation in one way, while saying little or nothing about the tax giveaways and other incentives that undercut the very deal that was made.

To make matters worse, too many city and State government lack transparency in their business deals in which the citizens have an absolute right to know.  Additionally, situations in which a certain manufacturer is provided special tax incentives and deals, means that the playing field for other businesses in the community is unlevel and consequently that their burden of taxation is unnecessarily higher.  The Nerve recently looked at BMW's $900 million expansion project in Spartanburg and through the Freedom of Information Act they were able to determine that: "...in a Dec. 2, 2011, application to the state for incentives, BMW said it had 3,822 permanent, full-time jobs in the entire state as of Jan. 1, 2011, – slightly more than half of the number that was cited in the press release."  In addition, "records … for BMW's latest expansion project show that the company will receive millions, and possibly tens of millions, in incentives over time."  Finally, "the incentives agreements for BMW’s latest expansion project allow job development credits if the average wage for the new employees is at least $15.12 per hour, which, based on a 40-hour work week, is slightly less than the 2011 per-capita income for the county."

Is BMW good for Spartanburg, or is it mainly good for BMW?  For fiscal year 2013, BMW's yearly revenue was just over $76 billion dollars, with a net income of over $5.3 billion dollars, whereas the city of Spartanburg just voted itself a yearly operating budget of $33.6 million dollars for fiscal year 2014.  I wonder just how badly outclassed Spartanburg was in its negotiations and their continued negotiations with BMW and how little it would take for those select few that represent Spartanburg in these talks to be compromised.  Further, because BMW sells high-end automobiles and SUVS, you would think that there would be plenty of middle management and upper management jobs within the corporation that would quite pay well.  No doubt, these jobs do exist; they just don't seem to exist at any meaningful level in Spartanburg.

USA Arms Sales

You can't have it both ways; that is to say, you are not going to make the world a safer place by manufacturing and selling military arms that have the absolute capability of wreaking havoc and destruction throughout the world, whether or not the buyers of these arms are your allies or not.  The more arms that are manufactured and sold, the more potential there is of destruction and harm. Additionally, there is also the reasonable fear that some of these weapons will ultimately fall into the hands of those that are not our allies, perhaps even avowed enemies of ours or 'allies' in name only.  Also, affiliations of countries and regimes will change based on political upheaval or political expediency but the weapons sold will remain in their possession. 

Those who profess the adage that there is peace in the strength of having a strong military, strong armed forces, state-of-the-art weapons and the like, are missing the point.  While military strength certainly has its place, so does moral suasion and moral courage.  The more weapons that are sold to foreign countries that you do not have control of, the more balls that you are juggling, and the more balls that you are juggling, the greater the chance of error.

The economics of arms sales are also a grand disservice to most of mankind.  While these sales are of great benefit to giant multi-national corporations such as Lockheed Martin. Boeing, and Raytheon, they aren't necessarily a real benefit to the recipient countries.  Countries such as Algeria, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco all rank within the top 15 countries in expenditures for imported arms, yet these countries are either relatively impoverished or have massive wealth inequalities within their borders.  The arms sales to these countries as a whole are not beneficial for the peoples that live there, because these expenditures don't provide food, shelter, or employment; these purchases instead are perhaps beneficial for those that are the privileged, the military, and the elite class. 

According to the NYtimes.com, the overseas weapons sales for the United States in 2011were over $66 billion, yet the world as a whole is no safer for these sales having been made.  To fight modern wars, you need modern weapons, such as helicopters, aircraft, missiles, tanks, radar, technology, knowhow, and the spare parts that go with them.  All of these things cost a lot of money and the price to keep pace with your neighbors is a continuous game of one-upmanship which never ceases.  For instance, sales that are made today do not appear to satiate a country's needs, instead they appear to place recipient countries on a never-ending binge cycle of additional sales which are bigger, better, and more advanced than the previous goods.

Saddam Hussein spent billions upon billions of dollars arming Iraq and strengthening its military forces but what did it ever accomplish?  Iraq attacked neighboring Iran in 1980 but this long and costly war ended in a stalemate in 1988.  Then Iraq attacked Kuwait, partly in order to cancel a $30 billion debt incurred during their Iranian war, but ultimately Iraq was subsequently defeated by allied forces in a matter of weeks.  Finally, in 2003, Iraq was attacked by mainly USA forces in which the total and unconditional defeat of Iraq and its military forces was accomplished in less than sixty days.  What then had Saddam Hussein received in benefit for those billions upon billions of dollars wasted on military expenditures?  Nothing, but death, destruction, and defeat.

Tipping

According to wisegeek.com the average American spends about $2,700 on eating out each year and although I don't have that number further broken down by restaurants in which a tip is expected as opposed to fast food restaurants in which a tip is uncommon, that dollar expenditure by Americans is in aggregate in the billions of dollars.   In North America, tipping at sit-down restaurants which offer table service is expected, and in fact, based on the salary of the wait staff that serve you in which the majority of these servers make less than minimum wage per state law, it is mandatory for these servers to receive good and consistent tips in order for them to make ends meet.  What is surprising about this whole thing is the tip that you provide to your server is neither something that you are legally compelled to do, nor is consistent from table-to-table nor person-to-person nor dining experience-to-dining experience.   You, the consumer, have absolute discretion, subject to social pressures, to tip the amount of money that suits you.

While it is suggested that your tip range should be in the 15-20% vicinity, tips can widely range outside of these boundaries, depending upon the dining experience, your financial situation, your mathematical skills, and your personality.  I believe that the restaurant is doing you and their servers a favor when the bill is presented to you with suggested tip percentages of 15, 18, and 20 percent already calculated out, since there are such a significant amount of people that are either math deficit or excuse proficient when it comes to paying an appropriate tip.

Although tips have been a standard in America for a number of years, tipping and the compensation of servers in other countries does vary considerably from the American standard.  For instance, in Japan, there is no tipping permitted, and in many European countries tipping has been replaced in the most part by "service charges" in lieu of a tip, although a smallish tip of 5% or so is not considered out of the ordinary. 

But just because tipping in America is the norm, doesn’t mean that the model should be continued in its present form.  The main problem with the American model of tipping is the fact that the amount of money that a particular server will make is unnecessarily inconsistent based on the consumer having the power to withhold appropriate tips from servers as a form of punishment, ignorance, or cheapness.  A better model would be akin to the European model in which a restaurant will make it clear to its patrons that in lieu of tipping the wait staff, that a service charge of 18% has been added onto the check for all table service (but not take-out) and additionally that no tipping will be expected from sit-down diners.  This model is both simple and straightforward, additionally; it allows the restaurant to take better control of the distribution of the monies received from the service charge so as to fairly compensate cooks, busboys, hostesses, and other members of the restaurant, should management of said restaurant be so inclined.

The only real perceived negative of the service charge replacing the previous tipping policy is that some consumers might resent this new program, that is why it is important not to make this proposed change mandatory for all restaurants, instead make it a choice by the restaurant management itself and let the market sort it all out.  As for the wait staff, they too will have a choice, and I suspect most of them will prefer the new policy of a service charge, which appears both fairer and more consistent.

The Money Elite and their favoritism of socialism

The United States loves to spread the lie that the wealth of this country is honestly earned and evenly distributed subject to the laws of capitalism and individual human effort.   While there is little doubt that there are plenty of successful people within America that are indeed upstanding, hard-working, and play by the rules in both a legal and moral sense, there are also a select few that are able to bend the rules to their ego and to their desire.   In America, there most definitely are laws and rules that are setup to enhance the money elite and their power brokers and to serve their needs and their purposes.  In the USA, in virtually any business activity, the field is not level; it favors some and thereby opposes others.   

Quite frankly, the rich want to maintain or to increase both their money and their power, and those that have the political means to assist them in doing so will best maintain their own power and influence in providing these certain elite with that assistance, while those that can judge issues or issue rulings in the favor of these privileged elite will also benefit from their particular governance.  The wisest thing to remember is that the rich and powerful will never willingly give up any of the material advantages that they have and will do everything to protect and to foster their continual profit at the expense of others.  This is a zero sum society, in which there are winners and there are losers; winning gives you power, money, influence, and options; whereas losing at best builds character, and at worse destroys you and everything that you believe in.

The question then becomes why would the money elite favor their particular brand of socialism or socialism at all?  This is a very valid question which has some equally pertinent answers.  One does well to remember that the true money-elite are out-numbered by not just 99:1 but more like 999:1, or in all actuality, at an even higher ratio.  In order to maintain their existence, let alone their power, they must have control over the law, politics, media, and force.  Getting all of these things to work in the master's hands is not easily accomplished, unless you are able to offer to those that provide these things, lesser kingdoms that will satisfy them.  For the law, you offer honors and certain judicial power, for politicians you offer fiefdoms and lackeys to serve them; for the media you allow them to provide and profit enormously from mindless entertainment of any sort as long as they also provide the appropriate propaganda; for the military/police you offer battles, killing machines, and respect.  In all events, you make sure that these essential people are well taken care of and therefore have something of value worth protecting and fighting for.

Still that doesn't answer the question at hand in which the vast majority of Americans are neither the elite, nor the favored classes; it is for these people that socialism raises its ugly head.  In any country, there is a vast amount of people who are not interested in working, in applying themselves, or in educating themselves and are all too happy to be complacent and relatively passive if given food, shelter, and entertainment, in return in which their only duty is to acquiesce.  Because of the sheer numbers of these peoples it is desirable to disarm them, and for those that will not comply, to incarcerate them for having not done so.  For the people that make up the engine that makes America run, the workers, whether blue-collar or white-collar, that are diligent in applying themselves to their duties each and every workday, for these workers you most tax them, nickel and dime them, frighten them, indoctrinate them, promise them, and sell them the political illusion of choice, in which no matter which lever they press, the result is, in effect, the same.  Their purpose is to enrich the money-elite; in return they should be satisfied with their 'free' healthcare, 'free' schooling, 'free' military/police protection, and their 'free'dom. 

The money elite cannot afford a free-for-all, they, above all things need both law and order that supports them and their status.  This can best be done with a population which is distracted by wars, rumors of wars, secularism, or by entertainment that amuses them.   The money elite favors giving the mass of humanity just enough of the American dream to make them believe that the dream that they have amassed is the dream, whereas in actuality it is a sham.  The money elite cannot afford to be challenged and will not allow a challenge to their status and to their power, therefore the siren song of socialism is sung to the public to make them believe that there is only so much to go around, and it's fairer if we all share in it together, equally. 

The Dow Jones

The equity stock market has plenty of indexes that purport to represent the market, but the daddy of them all is the Dow Jones, named after Charles Dow and Edward Jones, who formed the nucleus of Dow Jones and Company, the future publishing company of the Wall Street Journal.  The Dow Jones Index was first published in the WSJ on May 26, 1896, and the average consisted of 12 stocks in which the simple addition of the closing price of the 12 stocks created the closing price of the Dow Jones.  By 1928, the Dow Jones consisted of 30 stocks and this remains true as of today, nearly 100 years later.  The oldest surviving member of the Dow Jones index is General Electric and the index itself makes few changes.  From the years 1999 to 2009, there were a total of eight additions and subtractions from the Dow Jones in which for most years there were no changes to the index at all.

The U.S. Stock market has approximately 5,000 stocks that trade on a given day, yet the Dow Jones represents just 30 stocks and it is considered by many to the be the "market" because these companies represent the "blue chips" of the U.S stock market.  Consequently, when most pundits report on the market on a given day, this reference is almost always referring to the Dow Jones and its 30 stocks.   Most of the names of the 30 stocks that make up the Dow Jones are recognizable to most people, (e.g. Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Disney, and IBM) because these stocks are huge corporations with massive sales, global presence, and market capitalization.  The Dow Jones is often seen as a proxy for the economy as a whole and that is why so many people pay attention to how the market is doing on a given day.

The one flaw within the Dow Jones average is that the "Dow" weighs companies solely by their share price as opposed to weighing them by their market capitalization, therefore you get the strange phenomena in which Visa at a current stock price of $222.81 and with a market capitalization of $141.18 billion dollars has a substantially greater influence on the Dow as compared to Cisco which has a current stock price of $21.82 and a market capitalization somewhat comparable to Visa at $112.66 billion.  Consequently, Visa has a current weighing of 8.75% on the Dow, making it the #1 influence on the index whereas Cisco current weighing is a mere .86% or a ratio of just over 10:1, conversely on a market capitalization ratio that ratio would be just 1.25:1.  Additionally, Visa has the lowest yearly revenue by far of any component on the Dow, and its market capitalization is also in the bottom five, yet Visa has the biggest influence on the Dow.  Quite simply, because the Dow weighs companies by their share price, instead of market capitalization, or by some other fair metric, certain companies within the Dow will have an outsized influence on the Dow price and others will have significantly less influence.  As it stands today, creating your own Dow Jones index is as simple as purchasing the exact same amount of shares of each Dow component.

The Dow Jones could change its formula for creating the index and perhaps should change it.  For instance, by market capitalization, the two biggest stocks are Apple and Google in which neither are part of the index and neither has any hope of being part of the index because of their very high stock prices of $532.36 and $1218.26, respectively.  Google, itself, if it was part of the index as currently formulated would be well over 33% of the weighing of the Dow.  Therefore, in absence of either Apple or Google splitting their shares and assuming that their market capitalization remains at or near the top, the Dow Jones will change its formulation sometime within the next decade in order to maintain its relevance.

Taxpayer funded Stadiums

You can virtually always count on mega-rich owners of sports franchises using their power and influence to fleece taxpayers of their chosen city to subsidize and to build their sports stadiums.  The most egregious stadiums of public waste rest In the NFL for two primary reasons: the size and capacity of the stadium itself and the fact that the NFL can't guarantee more than ten home games a season (two: preseason, eight: regular season).  It doesn't take a genius to recognize that a state-of-the-art stadium that costs upwards of $650 million or more and is created primarily as a NFL stadium is a colossal waste of both money and space, yet 14 new NFL stadiums have been built since 2000.

Too often these stadiums are built without true taxpayer approval, the deep-pocketed owners instead preferring to do the runaround and deal directly with the city council or the mayor itself, as it is far easier to convince a handful of empowered people of the supposed benefits of a new stadium than to take the risk of putting the vote to the ballot.  The taxpayers will often be stuck with any or all of the following: a small increase in their sales tax rate, or hotel occupancy tax, or car rental tax, and an issuance of bonds to cover the expenditures needed to create the stadium and its inevitable cost overruns.

Of course, the proponents of the stadium building are always quick to point out the benefits of having such a modern and state-of-the-art facility.  It's great for the city image to have or continue to have this particular sports team, it will bring in spending dollars from surrounding communities, it will create jobs, and it will increase the value of the land surrounding the stadium.  Most of these statements are made up of whole cloth or close to it.  Instead, mayors, city council members, and other influential people within a city should be reminded that they have an absolute obligation to be good stewards of the public's money and not to build edifices around a wall of lies.  For instance, Los Angeles hasn't had a NFL team since 1995 and is the country's second largest media market.  Is LA any the worse for not having a team?

As bad as these matters are, what makes them worse is the shelf-life of stadiums continues to get shorter and shorter as time goes on.  In the NFL, in recent times, there have been five stadiums that were abandoned or demolished before they ever reached thirty years of occupancy.  Why is it that new stadiums have to be built as compared to a more sensible solution, such as the renovation of existing structures?  The oldest stadium in the NFL is Soldiers' Field in Chicago, which was built in 1924.  The only other stadium that has been in existence in the NFL for longer than 50 years is Lambeau Field in Green Bay, Wisconsin, all other stadiums in the NFL are no older than 38 years old, a mere blink of an eye in time, when historic stadiums such as the Roman Coliseum have been standing for over 1,900 years and was in use for approximately 400 years or possibly more.

Stadiums cost a lot of money and this money should ideally be spent by the owners or the sports franchise itself, and not be something that is tacked onto taxpayers and unjustifiably takes away from necessary and sensible infrastructure usages such as roads, plumbing, schools, public services, and the like.

Sin Taxes and Alcohol

I do support sin taxes for items such as alcohol, tobacco, gambling, legalized marijuana, and would like to see sin taxes added onto porn (including all adult media and strip clubs).  But first, what is a sin tax?  A sin tax is a form of excise tax which is placed on certain specific commodities, such as tobacco, and not placed on other commodities such as milk. That is to say, it's a special tax placed onto special items in which these items are not mandatory to procure in the normal course of everyday affairs, that they are in fact, discretionary expenditures by the consumer and additionally are perceived by the general public as being something less than wholesome.  Further, an excise tax when applied to a specific product often has more than one excise tax component, that is to say, there will be the federal excise tax, the state excise tax, and in some instances a municipal excise tax applied to the particular product; not to mention the usual local and sales taxes applied.  Some people criticize sin taxes as being a form of regressive taxation, because it impacts poor people at a higher percentage of their income as opposed to rich people, but that is true of all taxation which is not progressive in nature.

Sin taxes, however, are not equally applied in fixed percentages to products, the specific excise tax rate varies from product to product and how it is applied.  A case in point is comparing the excise tax rate for both federal and state levels for tobacco and alcohol.  For instance, in April 1, 2009, the federal excise tax rate for cigarettes increased from .39 per pack to $1.0066 per pack, an increase of 158%, whereas in the last 55 years the federal excise tax on beer has been raised just once, in 1991, and consequently from 2009 to the present there has not been an increase in the federal excise tax rate for wine, beer, or spirits.

State excise tax rates vary from state-to-state, but taking recent history and only concentrating on four northeastern states that already had very high excise tax rates we can do a comparison of tobacco v. alcohol over the years 2008 through 2013.  Each of the states of Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, and New York increased their alcohol taxes during this period, but Maine which increased their wine and beer excise taxes by 116% got this tax increase reversed by referendum within the same year, so in actuality, their wine and beer excise taxes didn't increase.  The aggregate increase for these four states was 16.25% for the wine/beer/spirit categories.  Over the same period of time, their cigarette excise tax in aggregate increased 33.51% for these four states, but this increase is really even higher, if we were to include the NYC excise tax of $1.50/pack which I have left out of this calculation.

Looking at this somewhat small footprint of time and states, from a state excise tax level of tobacco v. alcohol, the tobacco increase over the years of 2008-2013 is more than 100% higher than the alcohol excise tax.  In regards to the federal excise tax of tobacco v. alcohol, the tobacco excise tax rate increased 158% while the alcohol excise tax rate increased 0% (it remained the same), and all forms of alcohol have remained the same since 1991.  While each state is entitled to raise or lower their excise tax rates per their discretion and/or voter and legislative approval, it is puzzling why tobacco has suffered such a huge increase in its federal excise tax rate in which in 1991 it was increased to .20/pack and now stands at $1.0066/pack or an increase of over 400%, whereas alcohol after seeing its federal excise tax increase in 1991, has not had it change since! 

One can only conclude that the lobbyists for alcohol must be amongst the most effective lobbyists in all of America, because alcohol is certainly not a product that is without its demons and abuses.  It is high time that the federal government increased substantially its taxes on alcohol in which at best they have fallen asleep at the wheel, and at worse, have been compromised.