The ramifications of the Utility MACT are endless as the snow ball continues to roll down hill and get larger and larger so will the utility prices and job losses if it is not repealed.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
All of the Above, Including Coal, Makes the Most Sense
The ramifications of the Utility MACT are endless as the snow ball continues to roll down hill and get larger and larger so will the utility prices and job losses if it is not repealed.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Time to Eliminate the Internal Revenue Service
Nixon used it against his enemies. It currently targets Tea Party groups and apparently cannot keep conservative tax returns private.
The Internal Revenue Service has too much power over the lives of individuals, businesses, and non-profits. It can interpret laws selectively, subjectively, or not at all depending on who they want to go after.
But there is a simple remedy, one that I have kind of resisted in the past. That is to eliminate revenue based taxation entirely and replace it with consumption taxes. This would take a very specific constitutional amendment that wiped away old taxes and set strict limits on new ones.
Consumption based taxation is much less subjective. It does not require sifting through complicated rules and regulations. The federal government can charge x% on every item purchased. No need for audits or selective enforcement on educational non profits.
It is quite obvious that government cannot be trusted with many of the vast powers that it has assumed. Take the IRS off the list of agencies that can ruin our lives and harass us. Go to consumption based taxation.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
House of Representatives Fights Indefinite Detention Provisions
Historical and legal precedent are quite clear on the topic of indefinite detention of citizens. British law, from which American law derives its basic principles, placed suspension of habeas corpus (tantamount to indefinite detention) into the hands of the legislative branch. This followed many decades of kings arbitrarily jailing their political opposition, or extortion victims.
The problematic example is the Civil War. At its beginning, Abraham Lincoln unilaterally and illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and was slapped down by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney for doing so. Confederate combatants, however, upon capture were held until war's end.
Additionally, at the request of the state of California and against his intelligence team of J. Edgar Hoover and William Donovan, President Franklin Roosevelt ordered the indefinite detention of Japanese-America citizens during World War II.
Obama admitted that he signed the bill with reservations, but faced severe criticism from the Left. Forbes magazine quoted Mother Jones and the ACLU in the following:
“Obama’s signing statement seems to suggest he already believe he has the authority to indefinitely detain Americans—he just never intends to use it,” Adam Serwer writes at Mother Jones. “Left unsaid, perhaps deliberately, is the distinction that has dominated the debate over the defense bill: the difference between detaining an American captured domestically or abroad. This is why ACLU Director Anthony Romero released a statement shortly after Obama’s arguing the authority in the defense bill could “be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”
The NDAA Makes the Status Quo Worse
Glenn Greenwald makes a compelling case that the law gives the government truly frightening powers. He notes that section 1022 exempts US citizens from the requirement of military detention but still leaves the option open to the state.
“The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the“requirement” of military detention,” Greenwald writes. “For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.”
Terrorism is a threat to American security, this is true. But not as threatening as the Japanese or the Confederacy. As the country moves into its second decade since 9/11, there is little justification for these provisions. In fact, they are legally void since they contradict the Constitution’s stance on habeas corpus.
If there is an emergency, Congress can come together quickly and suspend the writ if needed. For now, it needs to eliminate these troublesome phrases from federal law.