Online Sales Tax

Sent to my Congressman and Senators:

Please vote against the online sales tax bill, at least in its current form.

This sounds like government trying to close a loophole, but then doing so by committee - coming up with the most convoluted solution possible.

First, the narrow focus of the bill  - which feels like a knee-jerk reaction - leaves other loopholes, such as catalog and phone sales, unless of course, the bill is incorrectly named.

It would be much simpler if all sellers simply collected taxes for where they are located, regardless of where the buyer is located. This would even be simpler than the current arrangement, where they collect tax for other states where they have arrangements.

In fact, this is already possible. A state can require sellers to collect tax on all sales and not exclude out-of-state buyers.

There is one problem. The federal government wants to fix the issue. But this is a state issue. State tax. State sellers. State buyers. State issue. Not federal.

If the federal government places restrictions on this possibility, then the current problem needs to be fixed, not more problems created, by removing improper regulations on the states, rather than creating yet more regulations.

Letter to my Senators: "Please REJECT the current healthcare bill."

I just sent this letter to my Senators, Jim Webb and Mark Warner.

--------------------

Please REJECT the current healthcare bill.

The current healthcare "reform" bill does NOTHING to reform malpractice suits, frivolous or otherwise, which are the major cause of increasing healthcare costs.

The bill requires, for the first time in US history and with neither legal nor Constitutional precedent, that all citizens purchase a product or service for simply living, and provides steep penalties for those who choose not to have the service.

The bill includes heavy taxes on the healthcare industry, which will further increase costs as these taxes are passed on to the customers.

The bill requires government-sponsored insurance "options", which inherently and unfairly compete against existing insurance companies, since the government plans have no need to operate at a profit, to break even financially, or to provide good customer service once the existing insurance has been run out of business.

The bill does not provide for private competition, as existing prohibitions against purchasing services from companies in other states are still in effect.

The bill continues biases against personal insurance coverage by not allowing tax deductibility unless the insurance is provided through an employer.

The bill includes government bureaucratic oversight, contrary to promises that "no government bureaucrat will come between you and your doctor."

As an example:

A "task force" has already been established that now "recommends" women who were previously recommended to get mammograms every year after age 40 now only get them every other year and then only after age 50. Just to be clear, the data has not changed, only the recommendations.

Right now, the United States has the best cancer survivorship in the world. If this healthcare plan is instituted, many thousands of women will die who would before have survived, and thousands of women who would have had a simple treatment and rapid recovery will now have to endure long, complex, painful (and expensive) treatments, because their cancer was not caught early.

In summary, this plan causes more problems without solving the existing ones.

Please both vote and speak against this horrendous plan.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor Confirmed for Supreme Court

I have said before that "race", someone's culture, heritage and background, are a person's flavor, a seasoning of life.

If someone is from Georgia, grown up with fried chicken and grits, that person is no more inherently "right" or "wrong" than someone from Washington State with their apples and cherries. Do you like New York foldable pizza better than Chicago's thick-crust pizza? Fine. Do you like Texas spicy baked beans better than Boston's sweet baked beans? OK. Neither is right or wrong, just personal preference, and someone should be neither qualified nor disqualified from public office on the basis of such personal culture.

Similarly, is not voting for someone exclusively because of skin color or gender the very definition of racism or sexism? I have no problem with a person being elected (or "confirmed", as the case may be) to office, who may happen to be of a particular heritage or gender, but nobody should be elected or confirmed primarily because of such bias.

Voting for such a person in large part because of a bias is just as bad as voting against the person because of a bias.

A Senator who confirmed Judge Sonia Sotomayor primarily because she has a Latina heritage is just as bad as someone who voted against Barack Obama just because he's black. There is no difference.