Birth Certificates and Voting

Ben Smith's blog entry Missouri Republicans push birth certificate questions to oppose 'tyranny' reports on members of Missouri's state legislature supporting a state constitutional amendment reading:

For candidates who are required by the Constitution of the United States to be natural born citizens, the secretary of state shall request an official copy of the candidate’s birth certificate. Other certifications, such as a certificate of live birth, shall not be accepted. Should any candidate fail to provide an official birth certificate within thirty days of the request by the secretary of state, his or her name shall not be placed on the ballot.

This potential amendment is under attack from those of liberal persuasion charging that this amendment stems from nothing more than conspiracy theorist charges that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, but let's look at the amendment. What it says is that for candidates who are required by the U.S. Constitution to be born on U.S. soil that the Secretary of State shall request an official copy of their record of birth and that record of being born in the United States be delivered to the Secretary of State within 30 days of the Secretary requesting it. Aside from what may have sparked the support for this amendment, it requires that candidates "officially" prove that they fulfill those requirements. What is the down side to that?

I would suggest to MO representatives that they are probably going about this the wrong way albeit that I have no problem with the amendment. Singling out the natural born citizen requirement invites opposition from those who would say that is just the latest chapter in the conspiracy theorist nut-ball attacks on the President. What MO representatives should be combating is general election reform in addition to this amendment. How many stories were there in the last few elections about voting fraud? Wherever there is an important state in national elections, groups like ACORN and lawyers descend to that state in order to boost the vote for their candidate and to get the votes they don't like thrown out by the courts. How many times do we here of possible fraud in elections? I have no doubt that people are voting more than once, undesired votes (apposed to improper votes) are thrown out, or people who are not eligible to vote are voting. I think that our voting process needs an overhaul to prevent fraud or at least the appearance of fraud.

We often hear lately of the importance of confidence in the market place. How about the voting booth? We need to make sure beyond any doubt that 1) the people who are candidates for offices are eligible to serve and 2) the people placing votes are eligible to place them. Since I live in Tennessee, here is what I would suggest for Tennessee.

Combating Illegal Voters:

Every American has a voter registration card. Lets make everyone reapply for voting eligibility every year. Here is what you will have to provide:

1. Proof that your body is linked to the name you will use to vote.
2. Proof of United States Citizenship.
3. Proof you are a resident of your state.
4. Proof you are a resident of your voting district.
5. Proof you have obtained the correct age or other qualifications to vote.
   
6. A voting database to reference applications for voting to compare the name you are applying with to names being applied for in other states and also names of deceased.
7. Failure to satisfy these requirements means you do not have the privilege of voting
8. Every new cycle, the voting "roster" is purged; to vote in a subsequent election requires reapplication.

Combating Vote Tampering:

1. I am very suspicious of electronic voting. We have so many problems with computer systems. I believe that the ease at which the 1's & 0's can be manipulated may prove too tempting to resist. With paper ballots, although more resource & time consuming, the ease and temptation to tamper with election results would be dramatically less. -- How many of you have seen what computer code is used to tally the votes? How many of you would understand that code even if you saw it? How many of you can count a stack of papers? See my point?
   
2. At least, a percentage of votes should be selected at random and audited to check for the accuracy in maintaining a sound and accurate voting process.
3. The results of such audits should be published.
   

Combating Illegal Candidates:

1. Create an office (and this may already exist) where anyone who would like to be on the ballot must prove with official documents their fulfillment of the requirements to the office for which their candidacy will seek. Age and country of birth requirements could be met with a copy of their birth certificate for example.
2. Requirements and fulfillment of those requirements by candidates will be published.
   

Combating Corruption by increasing barriers to serve:

1. I have very little patience for corruption especially in government. I figure if you are going to seek the power of government, your taxes should be audited. If you don't pay your taxes properly, you shouldn't have the power to influence how much the rest of us pay. Not only do I think this should apply to elected officials, but also to appointed ones as well.
2. Background Checks. If you can't purchase a gun without one, you cannot seek an office or be appointed to a position which has the power to wield the power of government. Let me remind you that the power of government and lethal force are one in the same.

If we don't have control of our elections, the people have no power or voice. Transparency is crucial to this process, and election policy must be oriented in the prevention of fraud from either voter, candidate, or elected official.


Really agree with what you read? Really disagree? Somewhere in the middle?....Let yourself be heard in the comments!
_

What We Don't Understand About Debt and the Force of Government

On CNN's website Paul Steinhauser posted a blog entry about polling regarding fairness and approval of the bailout plan for people who can't afford to pay their mortgages.

Poll: Majority say Obama mortgage plan is unfair

In the commetns, Michele wrote:

March 4th, 2009 6:18 pm ET

My husband and I have a mortgage. We bought our house when we got married 3 years ago. We made a decent household income ($75,000) and could easily afford our $153,000 home with a payment of $875 a month. We had savings, paid down our student loans, and began to plan for retirement (we are now 29). Then, my husband's company closed, due to the onwer's extramarital affair and ensuing divorce (easier to close the company than fight over it in court, I guess). There went $50,000 a year - 2/3 of our income. I take home $1,200 a month as a Catholic school teacher. We also have $300 in student loans. My husband has been looking for a job- any job. Our savings will help us for a while, but not forever. We've done everything right, as far as contacting all our creditors and explaining the situation to them. Most are willing to work with us, but not all. We've never been late on a bill and are current on our mortgage, but are terrified how long we can go on like this. The irony is that even if we wanted to sell our house, it wouldn't help us since our home is only "worth" $125,000 in the current market. We'd still owe almost $25,000 if we sold it now. This is so sad. We NEVER spent beyond our means, and it is heartbreaking for people to think because we might lose our home that we were somehow irresponsible. Things happen. Not everyone with mortgage problems is to blame. I wouldn't wish this on anyone, but you do have to be in the situation to understand it.

This seems to be an example everyone who supports the mortgage bailout would have us see as an example of who should be "helped out." A family with $75,000 in income was working to pay off a $153,000 home. In terms of mortgages, this doesn't seem to be an example of overstretching of personal finances, right? Even with their student loans, their total loan payments are close to $1,200 a month. With a $75,000/year income, this is pretty manageable, right? How many of us would see that situation as one which we would volunteer to find ourselves in? I would.

There is, however, a couple points which Michele writes which are not true, but seem to be part of the conventional knowledge about debt held by Americans these days. Michele states that, "it is heartbreaking for people to think because we might lose our home that we were somehow irresponsible," and, "We NEVER spent beyond our means." Both of these statements are based on at least one of a few assumptions:

1. It is normal and appropriate for anyone to have a mortgage which they can plausibly pay back with their current financial status.
2. Spending more money than you have on a home is not spending beyond one's means, but responsible.
3. Everyone has a right to a house.
4. The risk associated with debt is only unfair when one cannot afford their payments.

Debt has become such a ubiquitous normalcy in the United States that it is no longer perceived as anything other than par for the course let alone dangerous. Due to car loans, mortgages, credit cards upon credit cards, student loans, etc.; the average American has a net negative value. That this is not dangerous cannot be further from the truth. For any loan, mortgage, or line of credit; you must be able to predict the future for there to be no risk. If you cannot, debt really shouldn't be used. Otherwise, you and only you assume the consequences if something should occur which causes you to become insolvent.

Michele, if you buy a house with a mortgage, YOU ARE SPENDING BEYOND YOUR MEANS! If you cannot repay the mortgage you willingly signed up for, YOU HAVE IRRESPONSIBLY ACQUIRED A MORTGAGE YOU CANNOT PAY FOR.

Let's not forget that government is force. If you support the bailout of anyone, regardless of how good it makes you feel to do so, you support the theft of property at the point of a gun. To illustrate this I'll propose a hypothetical situation. I, in response to the mortgage bailout, decide that I do not want to subsidize everyone's mortgage payments. So, I refuse to pay the taxes associated with the portion of your mortgage you are trying to force me to pay. The IRS eventually finds out about it, and begins to take action. They try to seize my property to pay the taxes and penalties and have me brought up on charges of tax evasion. An officer comes to my home and says that I have to give over my property and accompany him to the local jail. I refuse on the principal that I am not responsible for the contracts of which I am not a party. The authorities would no doubt try to use some tool, whether gas or other non-lethal use of force, to incapacitate me or make my resistance to jail and seizure of property less comfortable than surrender. If I continued my resistance, the authorities would then attempt to physically force me to leave my home. At this point, there are two outcomes assuming I continue my refusal to pay your bills: I with use of my own weapons repel the authorities, or the authorities with the use of their weapons force me to comply. Ultimately, I could be killed for refusing to pay for your mortgage. If you support bailouts whether corporate or personal, you condone this situation. There is no other stance.

I do not believe that the correct government's role is one of by use of force to have one person pay for another's bills. But what recourse do we have? First, we have go abandon the debt culture. If America were to pay down their debt and increase savings, there would be no need for mortgage bailouts. If you have a mortgage which you can't afford, sell it even if it is at a loss, and begin to dig yourself out. It may take a while, but you will not put others at the end of a gun as to steal the benefits of their proper financial decision making.

Second if you either work yourself out of the hole or aren't in a debt hole to begin with, start small. Spend within your means. If you don't have $200,000 for the home you want but do have $60,000 in savings, buy a $55,000 home. It might not be where you want to be; but remember, this is temporary. This will give you a base of operations (you actually own by the way) and you still have capital left over! While you are in your temporary home, save with vigor. In Michele's case, their income was $75,000 a year. If you lived on $30,000 (which can be done, many survive on much less), it would leave $45,000 each year to go toward a future home. You could purchase a $200,000 home in under four and a half years. In addition to this, YOU DON'T PAY INTEREST!! If you mortgage a $200,000 home at 6.5% for fifteen years, you will pay $313,598.65 (mortgagecalculator.org). Buying cash saves you $113,598.65! $113,598.65!!! This is not even including PMI. Including PMI, you would save an additional 15,000 making the total savings for buying cash $128,598.65!! If we approach our own finances in a responsible manner, not only do we spare our neighbors of subsidizing our irresponsible behavior but it's cheeper!

Remember Michele we talked about earlier? She and her husband bought their house 3 years ago. They have had 3 years to pay down on this mortgage. If they had followed what I proposed, they would have bought a small home in about the first year of their marriage (assuming no savings on the date of their marriage). That leaves two years for saving at $45,000 a year. They would have $90,000 of savings toward their home. That is only $35,000 less than the home they are struggling to pay for right now! They would be able to purchase with cash and own their home this year! Even if her husband lost her job, they still have $90,000 on hand. In this situation, they prosper! Eventually her husband will find another job. They will be back on course for buying there home soon. Not only that, but they won't send the government to point a gun in my face to force me to pay for a mortgage they don't need and shouldn't have! Now, tell me which situation you would rather have.

$25,000/year income, a mortgage you can't afford plus student loans, the ability to make $75,000/year;

or,

$25,000/year income, no mortgage, some student loans, a home you own, $90,000 in savings, and the ability to make $75,000/year.

I don't know about you, but I'll take the latter.

Really agree with what you read? Really disagree? Somewhere in the middle?....Let yourself be heard in the comments!
_

If I Were To Run For President

I would pledge:

1. Never to raise taxes outside of emergency spending. Emergency spending could only be applied to national security, national disaster, or civil engineering emergencies. (See: Support Item 2)
2. Never to go to war without a congressional declaration of war,
3. Never to engage in or support deficit spending,
4. To submit a budget with a 20% cut in spending in the first year.



I would support:

1. The implementation of the FairTax along with the repeal of the 16th amendment (Support Item 3)
2. Changing the budgeting process to only spend taxes levied from citizens the following year within 4 years. Any funds for “emergency spending (See: Pledge Item 1)” would be levied from the citizens only when the following properties are included: a.) A time limit not to exceed the duration of the emergency, and b.) A tax cap as to limit the amount of tax collected to not exceed the cost of the emergency. Ideally emergency spending would be covered through the purchase of bonds,
3. The repeal of the 16th amendment,
4. The repeal of the 17th amendment allowing for appointment of Senators by state legislatures,
5. An amendment or legislation limiting the Commerce Clause only to issues regarding participation in interstate commerce; or preventing the legislation of commerce based on the premise that by not participating in interstate commerce, intestate commerce is affected,
6. An amendment limiting the 14th amendment to apply only to persons born of U.S. citizens,
7. An amendment or legislation acknowledging the right to own property,
8. An amendment or legislation clarifying the 1st amendment’s statements on religion to disallowing any branch of government, either through legislation or opinion, to comment on the exercise of religion,
9. Legislation allowing Medicare & Social Security enrollment to be optional,
10. Legislation banning earmarks or other projects unrelated to national security and interstate commerce (Roads & other civil engineering spending) designated for individual states.
11. Deregulation of the energy production industry (particularly oil product production) as to reduce the cost of production,
12. Domestic oil acquisition,
13. Immigration reform by supporting the following (in order): a.) Legislation outlawing the consumption of federal services, programs, or money by illegal aliens, b.) Legislation severely penalizing business hiring illegal aliens, c.) Free passage for illegal aliens returning to their country of origin,
14. Legislation banning government schools & government involvement addressing topics for educational study,
15. School Choice and vouchers,
16. Returning the Dollar to an asset based monetary unit,
17. Term limits applying to service in either congressional houses,
18. Legislation banning legislation criminalizing thought as in “hate crimes,”
19. Legislation requiring the names of legislators proposing any spending to be attached to the specific proposals,
20. Legislation requiring the identification of voters of national elections.
21. Legislation allowing for the participation in government programs (such as medicaid, medicare, and social security) optional,
22. A 10th Amendment commission to identify federal legislation/policy in conflict with the 10th Amendment.



I wrote this last year during the presidential primaries.

Really agree with what you read? Really disagree? Somewhere in the middle?....Let yourself be heard in the comments!
_

Deficit Spend or Bust

This morning on 100.3 FM WNOX's Hallerin Hilton Hill show, Dave Foulk interviewed University of Tennessee economist Mathew Murray. Mr. Murray's comments on national policy regarding the economy stated a few things. Included with his comments were the following:

1. The only option the government has to encourage the economy is deficit spending,
2. Tax cuts would create more debt.

His stance on what would be appropriate for government to do to rebound the economy is absolutely ridiculous. I've attended UT. I know there is drug use by a portion the students, but I had not realized this has spread to the faculty in the economics department. Government has spent money faster than the economy grew since about 2000. This is a reversal of the declining expenditure of money as a percentage of the GDP which has been occurring since the 1980's when TAXES WERE CUT. Murray is saying that if government spending is reduced along with tax cuts, this would not only be detriment to the economy but result in greater debt? The only way this could be true is that the "debt" he was speaking about would be the government taking out more loans or, the more likely scenario that when the economy rebounded from less spending and fewer taxes, people would borrow money due to the the benefit of their own personal finances allowing them to believe that they could competently repay such loans.

Public finance is not so complicated that you need economists to say what would be beneficial to the economy especially on the basic ideas. The single most influential factor in stimulating the economy is more money in the pockets of individuals. If people have money, they'll spend it. They will spend it on bills, food, consumer electronic devices, investing in the market, investing in business, paying employees, et-cetera. People retain the most money when the least amount is seized from them in the first place. Economists are needed only when one is trying to fine tune economic policy. It is outrageous that anyone could say that tax cuts would result in more debt. I'm not an economist, I just live in reality.


Really agree with what you read? Really disagree? Somewhere in the middle?....Let yourself be heard in the comments!
_

Unlicensed Remarks

Welcome to Unlicensed Remarks. Entries will be posted from time to time about my thoughts about current political occurrences. Since I do not hold any degrees in political science or history, hold any political office, or have any authority in any political party; my remarks will only serve to articulate my own positions which should harbor no authority unless you happen to be of the same mind, are convinced of your error of disagreeing with me, or have the great pleasure of changing my mind.

Now, I know many people feel very deeply about certain issues in which the challenging of their position can elicit a less than cordial response. I'll try and think up some guidelines for commenting on the posts, but the standing rules are that above all; this blog is intended for the INTELLIGENT discussion, challenge, defense, exploration, & debate of ideas. Insults of any kind to me or anyone who contributes, comment spamming, mindless babble, or being a general artard won't even be posted. Passion is welcome and encouraged...just be willing to be disagreed with gracefully. No one will care if your wrong. I'm sure I'll be incorrect from time to time; try and catch me. Let me know if you agree or not and why.
_