Some ideas I haven't heard suggested lately, and I would like to know why. Please advise.
For Charity's Sake
Contributions to approved charitable and religious institutions should be deductible for those who use the standard deduction, in other words a deduction on top of the regular one. It is clear that one of the effects of the increased deduction from the Tax Scam Act from the Trump Administration was to reduce smaller-scale contributions from the masses--the big ticket guys had their deduction protected. Non-profits are suffering as a result. Smaller contributions are what broaden the public support for these organizations in their missions. The reduced response rate for mail and email that has resulted make the economics much more difficult. Ask any financial officer for a nonprofit, and they will tell you.
Yes, there is a big Federal budget deficit, which makes it difficult politically to propose something which reduces government revenue. It's not that big a difference, though; I would estimate at most about $100 billion a year, which could be covered with an increase in the tax rate for billionaires (which is itself not as huge an effect as one might imagine). This is a change which Republicans, who have always promoted the non-governmental sources of aid for the needy (at least pre-Trump), could get behind, as well.
The '68 Thang
I will admit there are some clear parallels between the chaotic 1968 electoral environment and this year's one. In particular, the rebellion among the youth to what they perceive is a lack of a viable choice in the two party nominees, the antiwar movement, a Cold War-type foreign affairs situation with Russia threatening Europe, a Democratic incumbent who fails to convince and the Republican challenger who is well-known, untrustworthy, but politically potent.
We must learn from history and elect Humphrey, not Nixon, this time.
Do not let the tragedy of '68 become the farce of '24.
For the Intractable Middle East
As we bring aid to Gazans with this new proposed port, we should take some people out who want to go to live in the West Bank. I read of a perfectly nice Palestinian settlement that needs people (Rawabi) Of course, the Gazan evacuees need to be vetted (Israeli checkpoints) and have a clean record. Families preferred.
Israel should accept any offer of a ceasefire of indeterminate length, not just the short time needed to exchange hostages, furnish emergency aid, etc. Any such deal which gets all the hostages out is a win. Israel would maintain Gaza locked-down (hopefully helping with the above evacuation, but that would need a new government), and breaking the truce would be a fool's mission: Hamas would do it anyway, but probably not right away. Israel could use the time to get a new plan; right now they haven't a clue what to do. Maybe have an election?
The ME/NE Option
Winner-take-all Is the Enemy....
It's unfortunate no one in New Mexico listened to my suggestion that we consider going the Maine/Nebraska route in '24. Each of those states has one district very much out of line with the state as a whole. To preserve domestic harmony (as relates the Presidential election in far-off Washington, D.C.), they agree to allocate their Electoral vote winners at a Congressional district level (with two for the statewide at-large winner), even though there's a fair likelihood that that district will go against the state as a whole, losing a vote for the winning side.
Now, in Nebraska, there is a move to cancel that law, and to vote all the state's electors as one. The first attempt failed, but there is a second afoot. Maine has countered with a law proposed to counter whatever Nebraska does.
What I argued was that there was an opportunity for New Mexico, equally far from the Federal overreach in our ranch, to grab some of that attention. In particular, it would be the 2nd Congressional District's time to shine. It's inconspicuous, on the border with Mexico but not an area with border fence nor migrant crisis--with a very close vote likely on the Presidential election.
This change would not be in Biden's favor, as the risk in the one district would be much higher than that of losing five Electoral Votes statewide, so why take the risk? The answers are two: one is to increase democratic participation, which would gain the area more attention to its needs; the second is to increase turnout in that district, one of the most at-risk Democratic holds in all House races in the country.
The counter, of course, is the nightmare scenario where the change comes in NM and goes badly, or instead, if NE-2 doesn't come through for Biden, and he ends up at 269. Which is a loss.
There are such scenarios, but they are no more probable than a host of other numeric outcomes, once we consider that the Electoral College vote is a throw of crooked dice. It's a random walk from the starting point of 303-235 that is the 2024 (post-Census reallocation) version of the 306-232 of 2020 and the same electoral result of 2016. Prove to me that any predicted outcome is more likely than that.
Home Health Care - I still think President Biden should announce the establishment of a Federal showcase educational institution to train home health care workers.
In Florida. It's not too late--there is something to gain, as the repulsive Rick Scott is an attractive target for the diverse opposition, and maybe they finally have a decent candidate to oppose him. Florida is one of the best Democratic states to target an upset, after North Carolina.
Immigration: Finally, the long-term solution to the immigration/Southern border migrant challenge: move the critical decision point away from the border, into Mexico. The US pays for land, building housing for temporary residence of applicants, does a major airport upgrade and employs both locals and US Border people to screen people who arrive at a safe point, under controlled conditions. Then, if their application is acceptable, they stay while their transfer is finalized (which is done through air traffic). If they are turned away, train fare to the coast of their choice to be deported.
This is a big-ticket deal to be negotiated with Mexico, but as allies and friends. I think we have the best chance for that, ever, with President Sheinbaum. It does seem expensive, but think of how much we spend today--this is a chance to displace that expense and thereby reduce it and remove it as a domestic political problem. We need to see it as our local version of a global problem with increasing peril for our stability Like climate change, and it is closely related.
I'm thinking somewhere like Monterrey, but I don't know. Correct me and propose some other location.
Social Security: Just don't cap the contribution at any income level. That cap makes today's tax regressive.
That fixes it, but I do have a cockamamey idea that could help: Those who have sufficient resources can make an irrevocable* decision to give up their payments, in return for which they get land. The land would be from Federal land, like BLM, or forest, and they would receive to a measure commensurate with their contribution history. There would be various covenants on the land thus received, that would survive the recipient to their heirs and be binding on those who purchase it. The recipient gets, effectively, a title and a badge. And any net revenue from the management of the land.
What's the point? Broaden ownership of protected land getting better management, save payout expense on people who don't need it. A legacy, like the old stakeholders. An example of "less government" that the Democrats could support.
* Of course, like an airline flight, you can make changes, but there's a penalty. I actually think Medicare and Social Security work extremely well.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment