Not so fond of Ben Bernanke, though. For real? Person of the year?

(Yes, I’ve been busy. I’ll be more active here when I have the mental stamina.)

Last week I listened to streams of meetings of the Human Space Flight Review Committee.  While listening, I was reminded of how many people I know see the space program.  When I say I’m going back to school either to get an aerospace or mechanical engineering degree, I usually get greeted with  overwhelming enthusiasm.  People who’ve known me a very long time, especially, know that the dream of working in this arena goes back to my earliest grade school days, and that I’m certainly bright enough to do it.  All I need is to figure out the “how.” But there’s that other camp, who react to my news with wrinkled noses and confused faces.  They start talking, and it becomes clear that they view the space program is a big laser light show, full of dazzling displays of expensive frivolity.  In times where the economy is sinking, it’s a wasteful indulgence in their eyes.  The practicality is lost on them, and they just kind of boggle at me for a bit.   Usually they recover, after a little bit of listening to me rave about how happy it would make me, and leave me with something along the lines of, “well, you are pretty weird.  I guess it does sound like a good fit.”

Over the past week I heard a lot of talk about how NASA is failing to capture the imaginations of adults and youth alike.  Most of the people at these conferences had a vested interest in NASA, so they were looking to rekindle the pioneering spirit of Americans.  My daily interactions confirm the lacklustre image that human spaceflight has taken on lately.  More and more often I’m hearing people rant about how we need to get rid of that “waste of a space program.”  This, from Alabama natives — who have cell phones in their pockets, who use the Internet daily, and probably ate a microwaved meal or two in the last 24 hours!  It’s becoming a more mainstream, accepted viewpoint that NASA is utter frivolity.

Now, I do understand there are valid concerns with how money is being spent, and what goals the government and private industry should play.  When we’re talking about health care, no one (well, almost no one) starts shouting about how we don’t need doctors anyway, do they?   When we argue about education, even those people who would abolish the Department of Education still believe in the value of education.  They just don’t want it dictated by the government.  But with human spaceflight, people will skip arguing those issues and start arguing that humans have no business leaving our atmosphere, and everything we need to do can be done with robots, end of story.  The status quo is just fine, thankyouverymuch, why do we have to push forward any further?  Unfortunately, when people start talking in such terms, I tend to shut them down before they can get very far.  While I’m glad that my passion is evident, I really would like to understand why people feel that way.

It exasperates me that 40 years ago NASA’s work was our shining achievement, but now they’ve fallen largely out of favor.  It’s not a matter of squandering money, either.  Unlike most government spending, NASA’s work has paid for that investment hundreds of times over in returns to the quality of life of the people.  Working on a shoestring budget, NASA has continued to do wonderful work that outstrips their own projections by years and years.  Look at the shuttle!  We’ve made do with equipment that is far past it’s prime, and people are suggesting that we still try and extend the life of the shuttle a few more years.  That kind of thrift is extraordinary, but we take it for granted now.  NASA’s exceptional track record is the reason, yet it’s vilified consistently and incorrectly as a boring, wasteful program that does nothing for anyone but a few academics in ivory towers.

Is it a breakdown of the PR machine? Are people frightened?  Or just plain unimaginative? 35 years of not leaving Earth’s orbit?  Bored now?  Unable to see past the next decade?   I imagine all of those factors are in play, as well as a disenchantment in general brought on by economic downturns.  Whatever it is, my children don’t need to be coaxed into understanding how important space exploration is.  They see it naturally, without any (intentional) proselytizing on my part at all.  We look into the beautiful black openness of the skies and see possibilities and hope.  Listening to that kind of negativism and lack of vision always just strengthens my resolve to want to be a part of those who get us out there into the stars.

This started out as reply to some really good, discussion provoking comments to my earlier article about taxes.  Once my response grew past 3 paragraphs, it was time to move out of the comment box.

Like many issues in politics, the Catch-22 involved in reforming the tax code is apparent to everyone.  A huge overhaul of the system as-is would require so much effort and money to enact that it seems insurmountable.  On the other hand, things can’t go on like this much longer.  Tax revenue is becoming more precious than ever, and it is being lost in the morass of complexity of the current tax code.  My belief is that the Catch-22 doesn’t exist, really, beyond a marketing ploy to reinforce the status quo.  The lobbying industry is very good at spinning information the way it needs to go, and they would be largely extinct without the current tax code.  Our legislators have a vested interest in keeping things as muddy as possible too.  Transparency is one of those key terms that is talked up a lot, but really, lawmakers have absolutely no interest in pursuing it.

An astronomical amount of money funds the IRS and millions of dollars go to simply deciphering and complying with the existing code.  That energy could be converted to transferring the system to either of these programs or even another grand idea that hasn’t been thought of yet.  Of course, then, eventually, we’d be seeing government bailouts for ex IRS employees.  Both the Fair Tax and the Flat Tax plans are far better than what we’ve got out there, largely because they are simpler.  The plans would also do a lot of loophole closing and general tax evasion.  Each plan would do that in very different ways, but either would get rid of a lot of corruption as well.   This would lead to more tax revenue by itself.

As I stated yesterday, the Flat Tax plan generally is proposed as a 17% flat rate for everyone, business and individuals alike, with nothing but a personal exemption.  Dick Armey has been pushing for a flat tax plan since the early 90s, and Steve Forbes developed his own plan recently thereafter.  Both plans are very similar and use that same 17% rate.  The way the plan is laid out, it would be mildly progressive because of the personal exemption.  Those below the poverty line would not be taxed.   Globally, other nations have been adopting a flat rate, as do some of our states.  It’s a far simpler, easier system than what we have, but the current hatred of the rich makes it a hard sell.

From my personal experience, the Fair Tax seems to be an even harder sell, and that may be its downfall.  There are no deductions or exemptions for the Fair Tax.  Yes, there would be some ability to exert control over how much taxes you pay in a year, because everything sold at retail level is subject to it.  (Everyone would get a monthly “prebate” to offset the cost of basic expenses at the poverty level.) So, yes, if a family didn’t want to give a single penny to the government, they could find ways to buy second hand or be self-sustaining.  The flip side of that is that sales tax is much easier to enforce than income tax.  Never buying retail is a very rigid stance to take, and far more people currently evade income taxes than would bother to go to that extreme.   It also completely does away with the income tax altogether, and is simply a sales tax, just like is already collected almost everywhere. Since those mechanisms are in place, it shouldn’t take much after the upfront changeover to add in another tax at the register.  The back end of collection would mean a different way of collecting federal taxes, but there is existing infrastructure that could be converted to easily tracking the numbers.  If the 16th Amendment is repealed, then there will be plenty of IRS officers looking for a new job.

The reason that the Fair Tax wins out over the Flat Tax for me, is that the Fair Tax is not an income tax.  Income taxes are problematic for a number of reasons.  Some people have equated them to slavery.  While I wouldn’t go quite that far, stating that the return on my labor is owned in part by the government does chafe a bit.  Philosophically, I’d much rather the tax be collected on purchased goods.  The real issue is defining “income,” however.  Income taxes can double tax some, and allow others to simply pass with no enforcement at all.  That’s one of the reasons that what started as a fairly simple, temporary measure grew to be the monstrosity of tax code we see today.  A flat tax today could be tweaked and coddled into growing back into a mess.  While a national sales tax could be susceptible to over-legislation and corruption as well, it would not be as easy.

This crisis is the time to make some bold moves, no matter how scary it might be.  Doing away with income taxes altogether might just be a bit too much change, and so the Fair Tax might not have the realistic shot that a Flat Tax would at being passed. I’m sure that many will argue that, at best, I’m idealistic and naive to believe that any bumps in transition from our existing income tax scheme to one of these simpler, superior ones would be shortly righted.  I still want to talk about it, though.  The types of change I’m ready for, the country isn’t, and I know that won’t change unless all those people getting mad and “teabagging” tomorrow start endorsing solutions that pull even more people in, so we can reject more of the same.

Every April, everyone has taxes on the brain, even if they’ve taken care of things months ago.  Yesterday was America’s “Tax Freedom Day.”  In theory, that’s the day that the nation has earned enough money to pay off our tax burden.  Awfully late in the year, isn’t it?  It’s actually earlier than it has been in recent years.   Tomorrow is the deadline for income tax filing.

All of these taxes, astronomical as they seem, are probably not even going to touch the hole that our current financial stimulus package is digging.  And oh yippee, the incentives to buy houses that people really can’t afford, make me a little bit more nauseous every time I see them.  You know the ones I mean, those commercials on TV that “now is the time to buy a house, have an $8000 tax credit!”  Everything else aside, does no one realize that those homes are going to be in the same situation in just a few years?   These measures are making it easy for people who can’t really afford to get a mortgage to get a mortgage, on top of rescuing people who can’t pay their current mortgages.   The downward spiral is just going to continue tightening unless someone allows us to just hit the bottom already!   People don’t learn when they don’t get appropriate consequences.  Radical change is necessary, something to shake up the current mind frame of relying on measures like spending our way out of a financial crisis.

Obviously, our tax system is ridiculous.  Surely we can all agree on that, even the people in love with the current stimulus package.  There are so many pages upon pages of complexity, that most people who file their taxes online with no help but a computer program are making errors.  Online filers usually have a computer to check the simple math, and I know that when our tax returns were even filed with typos, they were summarily rejected.  One of the reasons for that complexity is corruption.  K Street is filled with lobbyists and advocates that are currently earning every penny they are paid, finagling breaks for their employers.

There are going to be Tax Day Tea Parties all over this country.  This movement has been accused of being “AstroTurf” — that is, a fake grassroots movement.  Honestly, I’m feeling rather jaded right now and tend to sympathize with that sentiment.   The street full of people who are furious at the Democrats for policies that will result in raising taxes may think they are completely sincere, but blaming the Democrats for the situation is disingenuous.  Policies have been corrupt for a long time, and the current system just encourages more of it.  Discussing real change is imperative. Railing against the powers that be is nice, but solutions are in order.  Hopefully, whether these movements are fake or not, people will start opening their minds to new ways of looking at things, instead of business as usual. There are a couple of tax plans out there that I am aware of that really excite me.

The Flat Tax system is a far simpler alternative to our current system.  Under it, everyone above the poverty level would pay a standard 17%.  This would apply to individuals or businesses.  Every individual would get a personal exemption, but no loopholes or special circumstances would apply.   This plan has been floating around for over a decade, and a few years ago brought back to attention by Steve Forbes.

For years, I’ve been a fan of the Fair Tax system.  Even though it’s on loan in Louisiana right now, I even have my own first edition printing of The Fair Tax Book, signed by John Linder and Neal Boortz.  This last presidential election it got a little bit of press, but not enough. The Fair Tax is a national retail sales tax on new goods, with food and other essentials being exempted.  The 16th Amendment would be repealed, and no more income tax.  It would be a progressive tax system, because rich people simply do spend more.  Still, the millionaire next door could control the taxes paid by controlling consumption.  It would discourage wastefulness and encourage responsible monetary habits.  That would mean more reducing, reusing, and recycling, too.  Bonus! I really do love this plan.

As tired as I get from banging on the same drum year after year, I hope people are truly thinking this week.   Letters need to be written to congressmen, people need to vote, people need to write about the issue, even when they’re feeling jaded.  We all need to get involved.  At those Tea Parties all over the world tomorrow, or simply if you are sick of it all, talk about solutions. I’m really encouraged when I hear people willing to think outside of the box, instead of clamoring for more revision of the same old system.

This week, the House of Representatives shocked me. Admittedly, I’m pretty jaded. The whole scandal over AIG bonuses being handed out despite the fact that the government taxpayers were bailing them out didn’t phase me in the least.  In fact, I was amused that people wanted to run the AIG scoundrels out of town on rails, when any parent could tell you that rewarding bad behavior only encourages more bad behavior.

But then, when Congress decided to respond to public outcry, and the bill for a 90% tax on the bonuses recieved by AIG and other bailout companies passed, I was stunned.  My first thought was, Can we be any more corrupt? Obviously we can, and we’re getting there fast. My second thought was remembering that kind of action is forbidden pretty early on in the Constitution, right?

Easy enough to find. From Article 1, Section 9: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

For a while there, I was having trouble finding other people similarly outraged.  Instead the masses seemed in approval of this, and my head kept spinning. I just KNEW I hadn’t lit up my crackpipe Thursday.  Now, it seems that awareness (and disapproval) is catching up as the ramifications of punitive after-the-fact taxation suddenly dawn on the public.  Jay Leno even mentioned it when he interviewed President Obama, but of course, the President’s comment that his bowling was “like the Special Olympics or something” caught much more attention.

Yesterday, MSNBC asked, “Is that AIG tax constitutional?” Apparently some people think it is, but thankfully the bill has the Senate to travel through first. Let’s hope our Senate behaves more responsibly than the House did.

Update: First thing this morning, I read that President Obama agrees with me about the nature of the bill that passed the House.   I’ll be interested to see the Senate version.

From reason.tv

Tomorrow, Alabama Senate Bill No. 132 goes up for vote. Locals know it as the “Free the Hops” Bill, because of the non-profit grassroots movement behind it. It’s a very big deal around here. A bill was introduced into both the House and the Senate to raise the state alcohol limit to 13.9%. The redundancy gives the supporters more chance to get their legislation passed, and is a fairly common tactic. The House version passed last week, as did a similar bill to update wine laws.

In general, I dislike beer. I don’t drink it, mostly because of the taste.  I’m sure FTH supporters would suggest that maybe that’s because I live in Alabama and have never tasted good beer. Still, I have no particular interest in this legislation on the surface. Furthermore, I find it a bit aggravating how well educated the general population is about this piece of legislation, especially in a city where our illustrious Mayor Langford ignores reality and no one bats an eye. Many generally don’t bother to inform themselves on local issues, but everyone has heard of Free the Hops.

I really should pay more attention, though.

Alabama is losing revenue due to the restrictions on the free trade of alcohol.  Brewing in Alabama is extremely difficult to profit from due to antiquated laws.  Tourism dollars are being lost. Allowing beers to be sold here that people have been buying when they go to Georgia would obviously help the local economy.  My Father-in-law was mentioning the other day that whenever someone leaves for Georgia or Kentucky, he sends some money for a few bottles of Madeira because it isn’t sold locally due to alcohol content.  And of course, he uses it for cooking. ( He prefers ouzo for serious drinking.)

Freedom, even in areas that hold little interest to me, is always worth pursuing. Our alcohol content limits are really a  small scale version of Prohibition, and that was really about legislating morality.  The arguments against loosening restrictions on alcohol content usually come down to preventing drunk driving and underage drinking, which are covered by existing laws anyway.  The grassroots campaign for the cause has been highly effective, with a massive viral marketing and education push. To see the public take interest in anything political is always encouraging, especially when the public is pushing for less government involvement.  What can be learned from this campaign that can be carried over into more urgent issues?

I just got off the phone with a friend of mine who pointed my thoughts towards the stock market and politics.  Now I see that the Dow was below 6500 on opening this morning.  Conversations keep popping up lately centered around job security, market forces, and how the sky is falling.  Additionally, I actually recently heard someone use the term “selfish individualism.”  (Seriously.) It reminded me that one of the comments a few weeks ago on Sarah’s blog led me to the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Apparently, economic times being what they are, people have been buying lots of copies of Atlas Shrugged.  This is encouraging news to me, even though the headlines today sound as if they are being sniveled out by James Taggart himself.  Even if the reader totally disagrees with Ayn Rand’s message, a truly honest mind cannot help being convicted to examine the integrity of their values.

“One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary.” – Ayn Rand

Allowing the market to fail and right itself without government interference is the practical solution that isn’t being considered.  Those people who lost their jobs after the dot-com bubble burst still are alive today, and many are thriving.  Failure isn’t the end of the world.  Let irresponsible banks and institutions fail and a truly free economy rise from the ashes.   But no. Laissez-faire economics — too scary.   Actually, so few people seem to realize that this wasn’t the free market acting on its own, and that governmental interference into things set up a large part of the problem.   I heard an NPR piece recently where the commentator actually said, “The free market has had its chance, now it’s time to get some adults in there to fix the situation.”

That was a paraphrase, but the word ‘adults’ was used to refer to the government.  Is that where we are, as a nation?  The government will save us all?  Since they do such a great job keeping things on the up and up in Washington, we want to hand over our own lives to them.  Anything to not be personally responsible for ourselves.  If we fail, at least it will be because the government made us.

“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” -Ayn Rand

When Ron Paul ran for president last year, those of us who supported him were weirdos and nuts (which suits me fine.) To look outside of the major players was dangerous and extremist, “even if he did have some good ideas.”  Of course it was.  True individuals are always dangerous.  I didn’t expect him to win, nor did I expect his ideas to get out there to the extent they did.  I’m tickled that so many people heard the message.  I think that the fact that people are buying copies of Atlas Shrugged may very well have some relationship to his candidacy last year.  Even if it’s not directly related, I’m equally thrilled to hear of this boom in people reading the book.