The Coming War with Iran

The Next War?

War-weariness is fairly high among Americans who have had to deal with over 15 years of war in Afghanistan and 12 years of warfare in Iraq. However, another war may be on the horizon in a country sandwiched between Afghanistan and Iraq. 

America’s hostilities towards the Islamic Republic date back to the 1979 Revolution which overthrew the American-backed Shah, Mohammad Pahlavi, and ensuing hostage crisis which still resonates in the American conscious. In 1983, Iran was also pointed to as the ultimate culprits behind the barrack bombings, perpetrated by Hezbollah, in Beirut which killed over 200 American Marines and dozens of French soldiers and civilians. The ensuing decades have seen small skirmishes between the Untied States and its allies against Iran along with numerous proxy conflicts. Yet a major military confrontation between Iran and the United States has yet to happen, and the results could be as bad as America’s blunder in neighboring Iraq or worse. 

The President-elect ran on a campaign that contrasted itself from the mainstream Republican candidates and from Hillary Clinton as a person who would have been against the war in Iraq and wouldn’t be as trigger happy. This wasn't a peacenik campaign though, the campaign was reeked with rhetoric about how America’s 21st century’s wars weren’t done right, not that they were inherently wrong to start with. This new administration seems to be chocked full of the same old faces who itched for war during the last decade with Iran. With a president who seems to follow the advice from the last person he talks to, this could lead to a conflict that is nearly 4 decades in the making. 

One cannot just invade Iran, as you have to have some sort of Casus Belli. With Iran, you have the same justifications as the Bush administration had with Saddam’s Iraq. Nuclear weapons and terrorism. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the Iran deal) has done its job in removing military aspects of Iran’s nuclear program, intensive inspections of facilities, and opens up the Iranian economy, yet the problem lies in that the deal is a perfect scapegoat for an American populace that doesn’t trust Iran. There are few members of Trump’s known cabinet that want to abide by the deal while most consider it worthless and should be shredded and insist the Iranians are inches away from flattening Riyadh and Jerusalem. This combined with any evidence (true or false) of a new Iranian military nuclear program could be a perfect excuse to invade the nation of 77 million people. 

Iran is regularly named as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, which is primarily attributed to Iran’s large network of support for Lebanon’s Hezbollah, but also of Hamas(but this support has been reduced recently due to differences over Iran’s involvement in Syria), Shiite militias in Iraq, and of Houthi rebels in Yemen. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps(IRGC) and specifically the Quds Force (roughly equivalent to Navy Seals or CIA operatives) play a major role in helping these groups carrying out their activities. Yet none of these groups have carried out large scale attacks against American civilian targets for years, in fact many of these groups, besides Hamas, is usually in direct conflict against groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS. These are not the same groups as the Salafist-Jihadi death cults that constitutes America's actual enemies on its War on Terror. 

Al Qaeda, ISIS, and up until recently, the Taliban have all been enemies to the Iranian state. Iranian forces helped America’s invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 in Herat and is currently embroiled in fighting in Iraq and Syria against Al Qaeda and ISIS. This hasn’t stopped many, especially among Trump’s inner circle of foreign policy ghouls, to tie Iran to these terrorist groups that Iran is actively fighting. The lack of scrutiny of many claims of Iranian-Sunni terror links that don’t lead to anything suggest that this any tie is either bullshit or as arbitrary as Iran’s short alliance with the United States in 2001. 

Now the ghouls. General Michael Flynn will be the new National Security Adviser. His job will be to guide Trump’s foreign policy decisions and will likely have the last say as he’d likely get to talk to the President the last. Now Flynn believes that regime change in Iran is the best way to stop Iran’s nuclear program and that Iran will continue to develop nuclear weapons as they are “evil.” Flynn believes Iran presents a “clear and present danger” and that the thought of reconciliation with Iran is “wishful thinking.” Flynn has also been reported to have pushed unsubstantiated links between the Benghazi embassy attacks and Iran. Flynn’s opinion on Iran would be worrying if he was alone, he’s not. 

Trump’s pick for Secretary of Defense in General James Mattis. Mattis is highly respected and is likely to be a great pick as Mattis wants improvements between the civil-military divide and is likely to make better weapon procurement suggestions due to his Marine background. Yet, Mattis is also on the warpath with Iran who he believes is not an actual state, but a “revolutionary cause devoted to mayhem.” Mattis has also suggested that Iran colludes with ISIS and ISIS is nothing but an excuse for Iran to spread chaos. Mattis’s grievance with Iran dates back to the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings, and throughout Mattis’s later career, there’s been constant criticism of his attitudes towards the republic. 

KT McFarland will be the Deputy National Security Advisor has repeatedly stated that Iran is a couple months away from a nuclear weapon and that the United States can either have regime change now, bomb Iran, or let them have the bomb. General John Kelly will be the Secretary of Homeland Security and has little connections with the Middle East, but has warned of a mythic Iranian threat in Latin America. Mike Pompeo will be the new director of the CIA has stated his intent on ripping up the Iran deal and doesn’t seem to have any reservations on escalating tensions between the two countries. Meanwhile, John Bolton, who is likely to be the next Deputy Secretary of State is more worrisome as Bolton has repeatedly called for the bombing of Iran, support for the cult-terrorist MEK organization(shared with Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich, two of the major campaign stalwarts), and American-backed regime change. Bolton’s a pure war hawk and having him in the new administration is a massive red flag as if the other appointments were not. 

Trump’s pick for Secretary of State is an interesting one, as Exxon exec Rex Tillerson doesn’t seem to have ties to anti-Iranian interest groups, but may not be much better. With America’s past experience with Iraq, having a fossil fuel company CEO be the last line of defense against the Untied States invading a oil-rich Middle Eastern nation is strange, but Tillerson may be the best option in convincing the president that open relations with Iran will deescalate tensions and can further improve American investment in Iran’s natural resources. That’s the optimistic take, as there’s certainly pessimistic ones. One rather pessimistic one is that Tillerson’s controversial relations with Russia may help America’s war with Iran by isolating Iran off from one of its only international partners. This is rather speculative as Tillerson has no known political slant towards or against Iran, but his appointment does little to calm the nerves. 

Elsewhere in the foreign policy blob are hordes of people waiting for the opportunity to strike Iran. Other former Secretary of State hopefuls like Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney have pushed for preemptive strikes and support for terrorist and insurgent groups within Iran itself. In Congress, many representatives and senators share the same hatred of Iran from Trump-backing Tom Cotton to anti-Trump John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The Republican schism over Trump can be mostly resolved by creating an external enemy, which Iran fits the perfect mold. Democratic opposition isn’t likely to strong as the Democrat’s Senate minority leader is the hawkish Chuck Schumer. Hillary Clinton isn’t likely to speak against a war mongering administration, and those who  would (libertarian republicans and leftist democrats) have been marginalized by the greater foreign policy sphere. The think tank dominated landscape of Washington DC is also a breeding ground of anti-Iranian rhetoric, thanks in part of funding from Israeli and Saudi groups who flood these think tanks with millions of dollars. 

The new president will be surrounded by men and women who believe Iran should be attacked and they are surrounded by the Military, the Saudi and Israeli lobbyists, the neo-con/neo-liberal think-tankers, the intelligence community, and finally an American populace that has no love for Iran. 

This all doesn’t mean that war is inevitable, but it is.

Donald Trump's Immigration Plan's Death Toll

"You're going to have a deportation force, and you're going to do it humanely" - DT

"Humanely?" 

I doubt that even if Donald Trump is elected that he’d be able to detain and deport ~11 million illegal and undocumented immigrants that are currently in the United States, but I find a shocking lack of analysis on what would be the human toll if such a policy was implemented at the end of the day. Such a proposal being "successful" in forcefully ejecting millions of people from the United States in a short time frame would not only levy heavy tolls on those immigrants, but also their loved ones, others living in the same communities, and people around the world that rely on American agriculture for their nourishment. This would also likely put many more law enforcement officers in harm’s way as well, putting them more at risk. We should know the risks involved in such a currently popular proposal and be wary of government's efficacy and efficiency in conducting population transfers not seen since the reign of Josef Stalin. 

Our current immigration policy is flawed in a couple ways related to the bureaucracy of the immigration process which can out people on waiting lists over two decades long, a bloated welfare system which some immigrants exploit (but usually is really about the same as or even less average American citizen), and that pesky drug war. These issues are rarely expressed in the immigration debate, but another overlooked issue is the human cost of deportation. Illegal immigrants are more susceptible to violent crime in America and are afraid to report crimes due to fear of deportation. Deportations are something to be feared as detention centers for these immigrants have been known to be poorly run and have histories of human rights abuses in multiple states across the US. Health care for immigrants in detention has been routinely ignored and have led to the death upwards of ~20 detainees yearly due to medical neglect and many more are subjected to inhumane treatment and sexual abuse, but many cases go either unreported or are covered up due to the lack of transparency in America’s immigration system. One such case is the one of Nery Romero, from El Salvador, who died in detention but officials still continued to falsely record giving him medicine after his death and there are other such stories. 

And many detained immigrants aren't real criminals

The deportation itself can also be dangerous to immigrants that are shipped back to their place of origin which is often riddled with dangerous actors which caused them to leave in the first place. Many immigrants, many of which are children, are abused or killed on their return to violent places such as the crime riddled and cartel controlled areas of Central America which have some of the highest homicide rates in the world. 

An aggressive deportation policy would also put many other people at risk, such as the family members of illegal immigrants or others in communities with illegal immigrants. A militarization of America’s police force over the years has led to over 50,000 SWAT team raids, mostly trying to conduct drug busts, annually which has resulted in numerous unfortunate deaths and botched raids along with the mass incarceration of non-violent offenders. To expand this militarization to immigration enforcement against ~11 million people instead of just ~120,000 odd drug dealers that are estimated to function in the US would likely lead to more unfortunate deaths and abuse across the United States at the hands of a militarized government agency that is almost guaranteed to infringe upon the lives and liberties of many Americans while they attempt to apprehend ~11 million people across the continent. All the while, crime rates may even rise if mass deportations occur in many cities as communities are ripped apart. Removing the threat of deportation to undocumented immigrants would also free up resources to go after the real threat of the minority of violent criminals who are undocumented instead of fighting a fruitless and tyrannical battle against all undocumented immigrants.

America currently deports well over 400,000 immigrants a year, but to reach a level to see 11 million deported over a 4 year presidency America would have to deport around 2.75 million a year without taking into account new immigrants that likely wouldn’t have too much trouble with finding a way around a wall. America’s deportation infrastructure may not be able to handle a 6 to 7-fold or more increase in deportations needed to rid the United States of its undocumented immigrants. Detention centers would be overflowing, and mass returns to dangerous areas would likely cause untold amounts of abuse and death and would put severe strains on communities and law enforcement in the United States. 

Another worrisome aspect of deporting all of the illegal immigrant population is that anywhere from 50 to 75% of seasonal agricultural workers are undocumented and help America feed itself and people around the world. What would be the implication of taking hundreds of thousands of manual labor agricultural jobs that Americans don’t really want do to food production? Short staffed farms would likely not be able to keep up with demand even if they tried hired legal citizens to make up the difference. World hunger has decreased over the years, but such a shock to the supply side of the world’s breadbasket could reverse this trend and cause more strife around the world. 

We can also look at other historic events of massed forced migrations to see how deadly they can become. Stalin utilized forced deportations of various ethnic groups such as the Volga Germans, Baltic peoples, and many other ethnic groups and farm owners to help cull their numbers. The "Trail of Tears” is another such example of a mass population transfer which is considered a dark stain on America’s history. It is important to note that these population transfers would pale in comparison to the deportation of 11 million people. 

Victimized children of Stalin's population transfers loaded into a cattle car

It’s ultimately hard to estimate how many people would die from a massive deportation regime that ejects all the illegal immigrants from the United States mainly because we don’t know exactly how many are being killed now by the current US government’s policies under Bush and Obama (and would continue under a new Clinton presidency). But we do know that nearly 15 die in detention and around 160 die after being deported to Mexico and Central America, and if you can estimate that 175 odd people die each year from America’s deportation policy and an expansion to a rate to export nearly 6 times as many people a year would come out to around ~1050 deaths annually for 4 years which would total 4200. This doesn’t take into account the likely exponential increase due to the huge expansion of the deportation apparatus which would be flawed with inefficiency and abuse, as with most government agencies when they expand, so the numbers could very well be much higher. This also doesn’t include deaths likely to spawn from botched law enforcement operations and the decrease in food production. 

This can be put into context against America’s civilian casualties in the War on Terror which doesn’t currently eclipse ~4000 casualties even including the 9/11 attacks. This low estimate of ~1050 a year would also be cover 15% of America’s total yearly homicides. Again, it should be noted that there is more evidence to suggest that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit violent crime than the native born Americans, so it’s dubious, disingenuous, and disgusting to claim that killing off over 1000 people a year in mass deportations would save lives. It's tax payer subsidized killings of at the least worse of ~4000 people, according to this educated guess, and possibly thousands more at its worst. 

Again, with almost no transparency in the US government’s immigration policies, lacking data on the total number of abused and killed immigrants, the overall vagueness of mass deportation plans, and the sheer scale of it all would put major error bars around this estimate which is more of a ballpark estimate than it is a really careful analysis. Though it is important to keep in mind the human toll of deportation when immigration policy is discussed, especially when policies would expand upon the brutality. 

Congressional Reform

Congress sucks, but it doesn’t have to. Or at least it can suck in a more representative, transparent, and balanced way. Here's some issues that I see with Congress as it exists, and my primate brain's way to fix it.

Problem: Dilution of Representation of the American Voter

Today’s political environment shows that the American voter is disconnected from what goes on in Washington and that the people that are suppose to represent the people in the House of Representatives is a shell of what it is designed to be.  

Solution: Increase the Size of The House of Representatives to ~1,200  

Originally the House was to increase along with population growth, but this was halted in the 1920s as population shifts caused the House to think more about their seats than about how to give representation to the American voter. So expanding the membership of the House should be a straightforward fix. More voices and ideas with a higher emphasis on local communities should make Washington politics more accessible to the average American.

Don’t worry about costs, because you can easily cut the salaries of the members of Congress by more than half to reduce the possible tax increase in growing the House.

There's a lot of room for salary cuts.

Problem: Lack of Real Choice

In the majoritarian districts, you can either vote for the candidate that has a shot at winning or you essentially “waste” your vote. There are rarely any moderate, independent, or third party options and you’re forced to vote for the “lesser of two evils.”

Solution: Multi-member Districts with STV Voting Method

Single Transferable Voting is a methodology that applies to multi-member voting districts. In essence it allows for people to vote for all the candidates that they like ranked from most preferable to least. If your top pick isn’t popular enough to gain a seat by reaching a certain percentage, then your vote is transferred to your second choice and so on. This system allows for voters to pick candidates based on their ideas and principles and not solely on party affiliation. The multi-member districts also allow for people that aren’t typically represented to have a voice such as rural liberals and urban conservatives while allowing 3rd Parties and Independents a better chance at competing for a seat.

What an SVT election looks like

What the SVT accomplishes in theory is it creates proportionally represented districts that better reflect voter ideals.

Here's a good explainer of the SVT as well. 

Problem: Infestation of Special Interests

Like flies on a rotting corpse, lobbyists have devoured our legislative body. Money is poured into congressional campaigns in exchange for favorable treatment even if it goes against the will of the people. This perpetuates the stagnation of Congress and debilitates any action that goes against a strong lobbying group. Yet to ban lobbyists you would have to limit the Constitutional right to petition the government.

Solution: Term Limits & Increased Transparency

In addition to adding new and diverse blood into Congress, term limits would make this a continual and fluid process that also cuts back on entrenched Washington lobbyists being able to fund their selected candidates to victory for countless election cycles. Limiting representatives to 3 two-year terms and senators to 2 six-year terms would be a useful measure in cutting back the power of special interests.

In conjunction with this, a publicly accessible database which would hold funding records and communication transcripts of lobbyist activities should be constructed in order to improve government transparency as well. Citizens should be able to find out which lobbyists are funding their candidates, which would further disincentives shady lobbying practices.

Problem: Lack of State Input in Federal Activity

The original role of the Senate was to be a legislative body that isn’t subject to populism and can check the powers of the Federal government which is a real concern for any group who doesn’t have their preferred party running government.

Solution: Tricameralism

The 17th amendment to the Constitution removes the States’ abilities to appoint Senators, and that’s overall a good thing to have them popularly elected. However there was a point to having the States choose in that it restrained Federal overreaches and is more immune to popularism. Creating a new chamber of Congress, made up of a single delegate from each state chosen by that state’s legislature every 5 years, would help promote State governments in Washington. This being a pseudo-democratic body, it would need to have it’s abilities limited kinda like the British House of Lords. It's role should be focused on reviewing laws and executive orders, while being able to halt legislation with a ⅔ or perhaps ¾ supermajority. It may not need the ability to draft legislation, but it may not be a terrible idea to give the delegates that capability. This would give states a pseudo-veto and a more prominent at the Federal level. It would also be a possible check against the populism that decays many democracies.

I'd call it the Federal Assembly or the Federal Council.

All this will likely never happen and would require something on par with revolution to happen anyway. Congress will continually be dysfunctional, corrupt, and divided between two useless bickering factions.

Guns

The United States is unique among developed nations in that it regards the possession of firearms a civil liberty, an idea that dates back to the American Revolution were armed citizenry rebelled against unjust British rule, and has more guns per capita than any other nation on the planet. American citizens later have used firearms to protect themselves, their families, their property, and their rights. The right to bear arms has been upheld in court repeatedly and it is insane to believe that all of America’s 300 million privately owned guns will be confiscated and destroyed. 

The United States also carries the burden of the right to bear arms. This has led to America having an exceptionally high homicide rate and is susceptible to mass shootings. There are many reasons behind the bloodshed ranging from the failed drug war to systemic poverty to mental illness to terrorism. To debate on the right to bear arms and this violence usually leads to views that ignore many of the underlying causes and polarizes the debate so that compromises become less likely. When measures are passed to try to reduce violence they usually are meaningless like bans on collapsible buttstocks or imported firearms or shoestrings. Of late, the idea of banning certain individuals from buying guns based on those individuals being on a secret government list and ignoring due process has become popular idea as well. 

It should be theoretically possible to protect the second amendment, reduce overall gun regulation, protect due process, and minimize gun violence. Smarter and simpler regulations and policies addressing the reasons behind much of the violence in America sounds like something that everyone should support but can’t agree on what the regulations should be and what policies to you enact to reduce violence. Here’s my policies that don’t focus on gun regulation, but would help in reducing gun violence:

• Economic progress of a land value tax and a strong social safety net via a negative income tax

• Non-interventionist foreign policy combined with a less of a surveillance state as explained here

• The end of the drug war and the criminalization of drug use with reforms to current drug patent laws to make needed medications more affordable, I'll try to address intellectual property stuff in the future. 

These 3 overarching policies would lessen stress brought by financial insecurity, decrease the threat of Islamic terrorism, and would stop the black market for drugs that fuels a large percentage of violence in America as well as other nations such as Mexico. It’s also worthy of noting that the a large proportion of gun violence occurs in certain neighborhood hotspots that can be targeted by police.  

For actual law on guns, I think dividing guns into two categories based on their action. You’ll have manual and automatic. Manual action guns would include revolvers, bolt-action rifles, pump-action shotguns, and other such guns. Automatic action guns would include things like a Colt 1911 or an AR-15. 

Now sales of manual action weapons should be easy and quick for adults who need a firearm. Revolvers, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles can provide security, home defense, and hunting services adequately. Sales of automatic action firearms should have a delay of 2 weeks as a federal policy. Mass shootings are primarily carried out by pistols with an automatic action and rifles with an automatic action being behind them. Revolvers and shotguns have been used in mass shootings, but fatalities are usually less than those in other incidents. You could also reduce the needless regulations on guns and gun accessories in the process. 

This 2 week delay would accomplish two things, first is to stop the spur of the moment person from buying a high capacity firearm and second for allowing local authorities to conduct an analysis of the purchaser. If local authorities are suspect that a certain individual of nefarious activities they can look into the matter and should be able to attain a warrant if needed. 

Now gun safety courses as a requirement for gun ownership are an idea that is worth exploring as well. At a federal level this has the capacity of devaluing the second amendment and the right to bear arms. At the state and local level the concept of gun training is more viable. Training courses would help in reducing accidents and would reduce the likelihood of a gun being stolen or taken by a relative or an acquaintance which are the major sources of guns of criminals outside the drug war driven black market. Local communities can decide wether these courses are needed or not by themselves and can decide what exactly is taught in the courses. 

There, I solved the gun debate. 

Death & Taxes, but Mostly Taxes

Taxes are an annoying and tendentious, yet they are ultimately needed to run government as we know it. However, as most Americans seemingly believe, our current tax system is broken. There has to be better alternatives right? I mean nearly every presidential candidate has proposed some sort of tax reform (that is pretty meaningless because congress ultimately levies and collects taxes per the Constitution), so are/were any of their ideas good? Without going into details, nope. 

I think there is a pretty revolutionary system of taxation that can help accomplish a plethora of societal ills from economic disincentives from progressive income and corporate taxes, disincentives to build from property taxes, suppressed wages from payroll taxes, economic inequality, urban revitalization, and urban sprawl. 

Sounds crazy, but this is the sales pitch for the Land Value Tax (LVT), a tax theorized by capitalism’s forefathers such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo and later popularized for a short time by economist/social critic Henry George in his book, Progress and Poverty. It’s a variant of a property tax that just taxes the value of a plot’s unimproved value. In other terms, the tax doesn’t factor in buildings and other improvements and rather just taxes the land. 

So in theory the LVT does not “punish” people who make investments onto their own property or those who make more income. If someone doubles their income, but the value of their land stays the same then their taxes do not increase. However, the LVT is widely regarded as a measure to fight economic inequality, as its tax burden falls mostly upon the richest in society as they tend to own much more land on average and more land in prime locations. Unlike a progressive income tax, an LVT almost impossible to avoid through overseas tax havens by the rich and powerful such as the ones exposed recently with the Panama Papers. This sorta means that the LVT combines conservative and liberal tax ideals of promoting growth and having the most well-off pay the their share. Or at least something like that. I don’t know what cons and libs really want with taxes. They don’t really make sense most of the time so its hard to know what they want. 

Suboptimal land use is another issue that the LVT tries to tackle. In urban areas, vacant lots and low-income areas would be built up and revitalized. Vacant lots would be a drain to the owners and would likely want to either develop the lot or sell it to someone who would, this would improve the area’s overall wealth. In lower income areas, lower tax rates for land would incentivize businesses to move into the area and in theory hire local workers and thus spurring growth. This would also occur in other lower income regions around the US, such as the rust-belt which has a much reduced land value per acre than the rest of the US. With the elimination of corporate taxes in the US and the implementation of an LVT would likely bring companies into the United States and in the regions that need them the most without costly regulations and harmful protectionist policies.

Optimal use of urban areas would also lead to more high density residential areas and would cut back on urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is a major source of habitat destruction in America, and cutting back on sprawl would enlarge and protect America’s countrysides and wildlife. Another benefit of this reduction in sprawl would mean a reduction in distances needed to travel and an increased use on mass transit, which would lead to a reduced use in fossil fuels for transportation. Pollution in general though would decrease land values and provide an an incentive to pollute, to combat this Pigouvian taxes are likely needed in conjunction with an LVT. 

Land values also seem to be a realistic tax base as well, as the overall value of privately owned land in the lower 48 seems to be greater than the GDP by a decent degree, and that’s without Hawaiian beachfront resorts and Alaskan oil fields. A 15-20% LVT should be enough to completely replace all current federal taxes. Errors in land value assessments don't seem to be too much of a problem in relation with modern property taxes either, and assessments should get more accurate overtime with better analytics being developed all the time. Applications of the LVT and similar taxes in localities in Australia, Denmark, and Pennsylvania and elsewhere have been on the large part beneficial to those communities. Removal of zoning laws, similar to Houston's zoning laws, may also be needed to fully take advantage of an LVT. 

This is before the big oil boom in North Dakota too. 

There could be some legitimate arguments around the feasibility of such as system wouldn’t work or not work as well as LVT proponents suggest, but I’ve never found anything to convince me that the reforming the tax system to be based off of an LVT would be bad. And I’ve looked. A lot. Probably for too long to be honest. I guess people who live in fancy mansions that have no income and golf courses would be the ultimate losers of an LVT, but I’ll assume that the mansion dwelling recluses aren’t a big portion of the population. I also don’t like golf. It's boring. 

The LVT was once a widely known and popular idea with supporters from a wide variety of political leanings around the turn of the 20th century. It slowly faded out of the public conscious after WWII though and today the idea of an LVT is fairly obscure. I don’t seem why this has to be the case though as it is just as relevant today as it was during the time of Henry George. I'm realistic though, and that's why this is on a blog that has a severely small viewership and not on a letter to our congressmen. 

Reforming Welfare?

America's welfare system is broken. Around 14 or 15% of Americans are currently in poverty, and that's not too different from when LBJ started his "war on poverty in the 1960s. It's sorta safe to say that LBJ's war plans against poverty were no better than his plans against the Viet Cong. Many more Americans, around half, are living with incomes under $30,000 a year.

What would happen if we just clumped the entire transfer payment system (Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) into just one program? Specifically a negative income tax (NIT). A NIT is what it sounds like, its a payment for those making under a certain amount of income based on a percentage of their income that is beneath that certain amount. It's sorta like the current earned income tax credit (which already is pretty effective), but it also creates a lower limit which creates a guaranteed basic income for those that don't have any income at all.

So here's a basic formula where the basic income would be $15,000 and payments would be provided until one makes $30,000 at a 50% NIT.

30,000 - Income = X

Income + (X * .5)

Under this formula:

A person making $0 will receive $15k.

A person making $5k will receive $12.5k ($17.5k in total). 

A person making $15k will receive $7.5k ($22.5k in total). 

A person making $29k will receive $500 ($29.5k in total).

What this does is it eliminates welfare cliffs that litter the current welfare system and create disincentives to work. In a NIT, the more money you earn, the more overall money one has in one's pocket. 

Another reason to like the NIT is that it promotes individual decisions in how welfare recipients spend their money. If they decide to invest it or start a business they can do so. If they decide to spend it frivolously, they can do that too. We should treat adults like adults and let them make their own decisions about how to spend the money. Why should the government act as a nanny over the lives of millions of people? It shouldn't. 

Economist Milton Friedman on the NIT

Now is the above $15k guaranteed income with a 50% NIT plausible? Well, I think it is a little optimistic, but the gross spending on federal, state, and local levels on welfare, health, social security, and pensions is currently ~$2.9 trillion. If you divide that by ~190 million, a generous approx. size of America's <$ 30k income earners and unemployed, you'll get ~ $15k per person which is the worse case scenario where no one has an income. So it's theoretically possible without actually raising taxes, but this doesn't take into account a ton of factors from child tax credits, health issues, and differences in state poverty levels so it is a rough assessment. 

One could come up with a slightly more complex way to distribute the funds of an NIT with regards to the complexities of the real world and could probably do so in a way that saves a bunch of money, with "bunch" being equivalent to billions. I'm not that person though. 

There are problems with the NIT in regards to fraud and a lessened incentive to work, but the current system already has these problems and likely in a more severe degree thanks to those welfare cliffs and the sheer number of programs currently in existence. 

I think it is obvious that an NIT is a superior way to fight poverty in combination with other reforms such as tax reform to lessen the burden on America's middle class and to promote private sector growth. If one thinks reform is needed to America's welfare system, then the NIT should be something to look at for a comprehensive bipartisan welfare reform. Too bad no political party of particular note supports the the idea. 

Terror and Liberty

America's civil liberties is part of what made our country unique when it broke off from the British Crown. They are the Enlightenment ideals that have been written down in our Constitution which sets the limits on governmental control over our lives. However, they seem to have been eroded away over time and this process seems to have kicked into overdrive whenever America is engaged in a conflict. The suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War (Jefferson Davis did this too), the destruction of German America during WWI, and the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII are all examples of gross overreach of government power over its citizens that turned out to be rather useless and embarrassing in the long term. Since 9/11, this urge to curtail civil liberties has popped-up again, and this time it might be worse than useless with the Patriot Act, NDA Act, mass surveillance of all Americans, torture, targeted assassinations, suspension of habeas corpus and all that jazz. You might say the Constitution may not ably to terrorists, but I disagree with this premise, as if the Constitution is the document that espouses what America stands for then why ever would you discard? Meanwhile, the erosion of civil liberties in America itself, and elsewhere, may actually be contributing negatively to the prolonged War on Terror instead of being a tool of actual counter-terrorism.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." 

Has America's efforts to protect us, its citizens, actually improved our safety? Well, its sorta ambiguous. America's security and intelligence apparatus has had successes in foiling some terror plots every now and then, but it is not effective. Also, many examples of foiling terrorists actually seems to be "honey-potting" certain individuals into supporting something they actually don't. In the meantime, the Bill of Rights is being abused by our government. You may not care about your rights, and that's fine I guess, but you are giving the government more control over how you think and act by doing so. Who is to say that the next government doesn't like the way that you act and considers you dangerous? Are you affiliated with "Black Lives Matter" or the "Tea Party," if so you've already been labeled a terrorist by somebody. I can realistically see both potential left and right wing American governments that would try to use these measures of suppressing the Bill of Rights by outlawing certain types of speech, searching through the records of their opponents, or even arresting opponents due to their ideas. I don't think a dystopian America is a likely conclusion though, even if a radical politician takes the Oval Office, but it is a possibility and that is why its important. *


So why do I think these violations of our civil liberties are causing more terrorism? Well, it is because when the American Government commits extrajudicial acts it gives fuel to their ideology. By killing people off the battlefield through assassinations, committing acts of torture, killing tens thousands of civilians, or suppressing their right to have their idiotic and backwards beliefs, we become almost no better than they. Or at least in theory as I think America is still, by and large, the "good guy." This is hard to accept as America makes these mistakes when our most atrocious acts relating to the Middle East interventions may not come close to the atrocities of al-Qaeda, ISIS, or whatever Salafist Jihadist organization we are fighting next, but it needs to be accepted. From the viewpoint of many people living in the Middle East, that are largely ignorant of terrorist attacks against the West, see it as almost the opposite. We end up creating more terrorists by the end of the day, and this is partially responsible why the number of Salafi Jihadists has increase ~10-fold since the 1980s. In order to win we must play by our own rules, that is how we will win the "hearts and minds" of people in the region by following a "superior" code of law. It is by fighting the just fight, even if it is harder than before, as it is the right way to conduct ourselves in both domestic and abroad. We can't afford to "act tough" when we know that this isn't an episode of 24 or a Tom Clancy novel, this is the real world which is more complex than "find the bad guys, stop the bad guys, kill the bad guys."


Why do I think this will work? Am I giving in to the demands of terrorists by tolerating their beliefs in a society? Can America and its allies continue to operate the way it has been while fighting the good fight? Well, I do think this strategy would work even though it may come with its own set of challenges. I also think that accepting some forms of Islamism needs to occur, maybe not immediately but at least overtime. This doesn't mean that the US Government should start adopting Sharia, as that is diametrically opposed to the 1st amendment. What this means is that voices calling for Sharia (or honestly anything, in my opinion) should be free to do so without worry that their beliefs will make them end up being needlessly tortured in jail cell. Can America actually start negotiating with terrorists, as Gen. David Petraeus wants to do? Maybe. I am honestly not worried about the ideas of Islamic extremism being promoted in a free society, as their ideas kinda suck and only a few people buy into it. We can then focus on finding those who are carrying out violent acts that hurt others and rely on goodwill and targeted surveillance on certain individuals to prevent larger attacks instead of forcing Muslim communities to be spied on at large, which is actually counterproductive. Get the government out of people's lives.


This isn't a new idea, as I'm fairly sure this idea is at least 225 years old. America today is already fairly open to a wide range of groups that have engaged in terrorism in the past and we've seem to be fine with now. Can the same sort of historical trend be true of Islamic fundamentalists? I don't see why not today's Islamic extremists can become tomorrow's Irish republicans or Basque separatists. Of course more things need to occur to stunt the growth of terrorism, and some comes from America's foreign policy decisions which can spur terrorism. America's wars need to come to a close and stop our support for tyrants, such as the Saudi royal family, needs to come to an end. This does not mean we should stop killing terrorists when need be, we should. We just need to do it better, if that is possible.


Building trust with Islamic communities through trade and personal voluntary connections should be the basis of America's future with our own Muslim communities and the Sunni Islamic World abroad. The fight against groups like ISIS and Boko Haram should continue, but we should focus our power in a more clean and just manner than it is currently. Will that be the case and will the constraints on our civil liberties be lifted? Not likely, as a good chunk of the American populace along with most politicians disagree with abiding by Constitutional restraints, not committing torture, and not going to war. I can dream right? I'm just an overly idealistic college student, so if this seems overly idealistic it probably is. Although I'm in company with Benjamin Franklin, which is good company in my opinion.



*There's other reasons why rights are important, but that's a brief explanation. As is this whole post on terrorism, civil liberties, national security, foreign policy, etc.