A Small Step Back on Judge Moore

I'm not writing a retraction.  Not completely anyway.  But I do want to walk back slightly in light of the allegation that came out shortly after I offered my ideas on Roy Moore. 

In my initial article, I professed that there had been nothing illegal in any of the allegations, which had all been 35 to 40 years ago.  They were creepy as hell, but no laws were broken in any of them.  In a situation like that, the level of time that had passed can makes it forgivable.  It's not like he was asking a 14 year old out last week.  40 years is a long time for lapses in judgement to be corrected so long as no laws were broken.

The last allegation came out shortly afterward, and it was considerably more violent than the previous ones.  It was still over 30 years ago, but it goes beyond just innocent dates between two people who's ages are outside of social norms.  According to the New York Times, a former newspaper, a Beverly Nelson laid an allegation of battery toward Moore that took place late in 1977 behind a restaurant that she claims to have worked at during that time.  I'm not going to waste time going into the details that the mainstream media have plastered all over every screen they can get access to, or the conspiracy theories and evidence that the libertarian right have thrown out to try and discredit the story, but I do have to say this.  I strongly stand by the right that Moore has to be innocent until he is proven to be guilty, but Assault and Battery is an issue that should be investigated at this point.  Since there is no conviction, there is nothing that disqualifies him from serving in the Senate, short of public opinion.  But, pending the investigation and trial, public opinion is up to the voters of Alabama to decide upon.  McConnell, Trump, or any current sitting Congressman have any right or position to pass judgement.  Allow us to let the legal system sort this out.  That's what they are there for.

I stand by the thought that this whole situation stinks to high heaven.  Most political commentators on the right seem to echo each other that it's awfully convenient that Moore was a political figure for 3 decades before any allegations came forward right when he's about to win an election that holds the slight Senate Majority.  I'm mostly disturbed that in addition to them coming out, they didn't surface until after the primary election results were cemented in.  And the final allegation didn't come in until after the vast majority of conservative pundits agreed that as long as nothing illegal happened, it was creepy, creepy water under the bridge.  The primaries are the point that I keep coming back to though.  Alabama has a "sore loser" law on the books.  It was initially meant to protect the candidate that the people had chosen from attacks by his (or her) former opponents going into the general.  But what it means is that should Moore get hung in the court of social media, considering that no investigation could be completed before the general election, the Alabama Republican Party can't put anyone else up in his place.  The seat would have to fall to the ever unpredictable write-in process, or simply be conceded to a Democrat.  Considering the lead that Moore enjoyed for as long as he did, one can't help but entertain the idea of the conspiracy that would destroy a special election campaign that would have otherwise been won much like all that have followed since Trump started appointing cabinet members. 

In light of Beverly Young's accusation, what do you think of the whole situation?  Do you think he did it? Do you think he was set up?  I always welcome comments and discussion both here and over on Twitter.  My handle is @edsblogtw1tter if you want to follow me to comment or read previous articles from my feed.  If you like what you've read, go ahead and hit that like button, and consider hitting the retweet button as well.  That would be cool of you.  Remember, never take the words of journalists, bloggers, or podcasters as Gospel.  Find all the facts, and draw your own conclusion.  Thank you for reading.

The DACA Kids

In the spirit of bringing people together, former comedienne Amy Schumer posted an Instagram picture that stated "Dear Ivanka, I see you're following me on Instagram. This Thanksgiving I would be grateful if you use the influence you have to advocate for a CLEAN Dream Act by December. Every day that passes without a clean Dream Act means anxiety and deportation for immigrant youth.  7,901 youth have already already lost DACA and 122 more will lose it each day.  Thank you and happy holidays."

In light of this bit of comedic genius, it's time to write the article I was planning on writing right up until the Alt-Right Democrats in Charlottesville decided to start a battle with the Antifa Democrats and we fell into a faster-than-light paced news cycle that just started to slow down this past week.  While the Dream Act was expiring, I gave the entire situation some thought, and I found the solution I feel would be the fairest for everyone involved, and will stay within our laws.

One thing to keep in mind about the Dream Act is that it is largely considered to be illegal.  Boiled down to it's most basic elements, all that Act means is that Former President Barack Obama chose not to enforce a Congressional law.  The fact that he put paperwork and forms on it doesn't change the fact that it was a large executive overstep.  Regardless of that fact, the kids are here right now, and we have to figure out the best move going forward.

Although it may not be the most popular opinion, I hold to the opinion that I've always held.  All undocumented immigrants, including the "Dreamers" have to go.  Currently, those who were designated as Dreamers were dependent children who came over the border with their illegal alien parents.  I think that currently includes people up to age 35.  The parents of the dreamers are also welcome to stay under their own Act, but it's ambiguous as to whether the Act protects them once their children are no longer dependent.  For all intents and purposes, the Dreamers are Illegal Aliens, or undocumented immigrants as our politically correct friends on the left like to say.  I feel right now that the most fair way to figure out the DACA situation is to just start over.

The first step in my plan is that all Illegal Aliens have to leave the United States, whether through deportation or willful exit.  For most of the adult Dreamers out there, they really shouldn't have any sort of excuse, either.  With the Dream Act in place, there is nothing on the books that's preventing a person from applying for a resident alien visa, a work visa, or even citizenship.  Once the exodus has begun, though, and before we move down into a case by case basis, we can expedite the process of making illegals into citizens by first breaking them into three groups.

The first group is Illegals who have committed major crimes.  Everyone gets speeding tickets or popped for driving without insurance or a license.  However in the case of crimes like theft, murder, rape, or even DUI, we need to make a stand.  If  you are an Illegal alien and you're guilty of a high crime, you get deported and you're not welcome back.  End of story.  There are tens of thousands of people who want to go through the process and come in legally and abide by our laws.  I definitely think that we should be catering to those people.

The second group will be the people who are here illegally, who have committed no other crime beyond immigration law, and have turned themselves over and left willingly.  If the plan goes through, it would be beneficial for these people to actually report to an ICE agent, as a show of good faith.  There would be a burden of good measure to fall on the ICE agents as well to be honest with the federal government as well.  Anyone in this group goes out of the country without prejudice, and are welcome back with open arms as long as they go through the legal process this time.  Since many of them are trying to contribute to the advancement of the American Society, I would put a provision in to help expedite the process to get these people resident alien visas and work visas quickly.  The only requirement would be starting outside the country, the way that millions of people have done legally for 200 years.

I've laid out what to do for the worst illegals among us, and I've made a proposal for the best of  the best.  But there is that group in the middle, and I really hope that if our immigration officials adopt these ideas and keep their words, this group will be incredibly small.  If you are an illegal alien who's committed no crimes aside from immigration law, and we have to come find you, you will fall into this category.  I feel that I'm being fair.  My proposal is essentially amnesty for all, as long as you go back and start on the other side of the border (and haven't killed anyone, of course).  I don't feel it's excessive to ask for cooperation from the other side.  With that in mind, I also feel that it's fair to impose some sort of penalty if ICE has to expend resources for your compliance.  The best way to solve this, to me, would be a short suspension of your visa privileges.  I don't mean anything excessive, either.  6 months minimum/3 years max seems absolutely fair, and it should go on a case by case basis depending on the amount of struggle the alien puts up.  While it's fair to impose a penalty,  I don't necessarily think it's right to slam the door completely on the otherwise law-abiding immigrants who will, in the end, help improve our GDP.

Lastly, I want to touch on the people who aren't "dreamers", because they would probably wind up getting the short end of this proposal.  I am absolutely in favor of extending this proposal to all illegal immigrants, whether or not they were in the DACA program.  I grew up in rural Wisconsin, and I worked in foodservice a lot growing up.  I've heard all the stories from bitter people about how "those damn illegals are just in here, working for pennies and not paying any taxes."  Let's be completely honest, though.  a 45 year old Guatemalan guy who jumped the fence 25 years ago and has been dodging INS and ICE ever since may be working for cash under the table to avoid his income tax.  However, in 44 of the lower 48, it's statistically impossible that he's gone that quarter century without paying sales tax.  It's a very small victory, I know.  But he has been contributing to both the economy and the state and local coffers.  We do have to be fair, and if we extend an olive branch to one group of illegals, we really do have to extend it to all of them. 

Do you have a better solution for our dreamers and illegal aliens that is also fair to our naturalized citizens and current resident aliens?  Or do you think we should just give them all broad brush amnesty? I always welcome comments and discussion both here and over on Twitter.  My handle is @edsblogtw1tter if you want to follow me to comment or read previous articles from my feed.  If you like what you've read, go ahead and hit that like button, and consider hitting the retweet button as well.  That would be cool of you.  Remember, never take the words of journalists, bloggers, or podcasters as Gospel.  Find all the facts, and draw your own conclusion.  Thank you for reading.

Should your Rent Payment affect your credit?

I never heard any credible confirmation of the claim that I'm bringing forward, so at the time it may have just been fake news.  The story did disappear almost as fast as is showed up.  The claim was that Trump, along with various other Republican politicians and hopefuls had suggested requiring that all three major credit bureaus apply rent payments to your credit score in a way to boost the economy.  I've been mulling the idea over in my mind for a year now and I've had a lot of thoughts on this from both sides of the argument.

When I started doing research to try and find who it was that initially said this, I actually found out that Equifax is actually using this method voluntarily.  According to http://www.experian.com/rentbureau/rental-payment.html property owners have the option to report on-time and late rent payments to the bureau.  Other websites recommend finding and renting only from properties that offer the service in a way to help move your life forward, but I will come back to the benefits of that later.

One of the biggest beliefs that typecasts people into the Republican Party is the belief that the Government should get out of private business.  One of Trump's biggest promises during his campaign as a Republican was "For every new regulation, two have to go away".   With his business background, it's obvious to see how our President can hold disdain for these types of rules that make it harder both to grow your business and hire on more people.  While it's been downplayed and mostly ignored by most news stations and commentators, our Congress has actually met and exceeded this particular mark.  Fox News host Sean Hannity regularly cites in his show that our legislators have averaged 16 regulations stricken for each one they have brought forward.  It would be hard for me, given that I am in favor of as many regulations going away as we can get away with, to then go to Speaker Ryan (my District's representative), and request that he legislate a demand for how FICO, Transunion, and do business, along with all of the individual property owners across the country.

But maybe we can sell it. 

According to liberal news headquarters, CNN, the US is on it's fastest growth in 3 years as of August.  Hiring for careers is on the rise.  Career data processing giant ADP reported 237,000 jobs added in August, according to the same article.  Home prices are rising steadily, and the fight for $15 has mysteriously disappeared as many of the members have found employment in those numbers outside the minimum wage market.  All of this is coming only on the promise of tax reform and the repeal of the ACA.  And we can do better.  What do you think would happen if the people who had to default on their mortgages and cars suddenly had credit?  What if the people who grew up into this economic recession that have never borrowed money suddenly had payment history?  What if the people who desperately need a reset on late student loans had the creditworthiness to get them refinanced into lower interest rates and get the payments affordable again?  Homebuying is on the rise after we had some of the lowest home ownership rates in history, but there are still millions of American workers who can now afford a home, but can't get a mortgage in spite of the fact that they've been throwing money away in rent for years.  It may be more prudent for people to buy a $1500 car with cash, but the market on those pre-owned vehicles is starting to get really rough as more and more customers are fighting over those cars.  It sure would be nice if we could inject some more new cars into the market and drive some of the used car prices down.  Millions of people look at a product or service that isn't being provided every day and tell their co-workers that if they had some money or could get some money, they could provide or improve the product. 

Convincing the big three bureaus to get behind a bill that would require credit reporting of rent payments on time would not be difficult.  Increasing credit scores across the country would simultaneously increase the demand for the services of these entities, as well as increase demand for homes and new cars.  I'm sure Ford and Century 21 would be happy to lend their support as well.  I know that the people involved would get behind the measure in leaps and bounds.  I actually think the only people who might have a problem with it would be the rental property owners.  Rental property is in huge demand right now and most of the rent prices do, unfortunately, reflect that.  When Rebecca and I moved into our apartment, she showed me an ad for a place just down the road from us that was for sale.  The listing was for a three-bedroom home with property that would be half of what we are paying in rent even with a high interest rate.  Property owners do not have to be competitive right now for renters.  If a guy backs out on a place, three more are in line right behind him waiting to rent the place.  With a down economy and so many people with bruised credit, continuous renting is a vicious cycle that leaves people with no help to their scores, and no equity.  Those who rent also have very little in the line of a way out. 

Do you think that finding ways to increase credit in today's America will boost the economy?  Would a legislation like this help you at all, personally?  I always welcome comments and discussion both here and over on Twitter.  My handle is @edsblogtw1tter if you want to follow me to comment or read previous articles from my feed.  If you like what you've read, go ahead and hit that like button, and consider hitting the retweet button as well.  That would be cool of you.  Remember, never take the words of journalists, bloggers, or podcasters as Gospel. Find all the facts, and draw your own conclusion. Thank you for reading.

Roy Moore

Earlier in the week, allegations came out compromising the reputation and polling numbers of Judge Roy Moore in Alabama.  Three women came forward and accused the Judge of asking them out when they were in their teens.  With all of the allegations of recent misconduct among celebrities and producers, it goes without saying that all of these accusations against Moore must be very recent, and they need to call into question Roy's judgment in current affairs.

Wait, this was all 40 years ago?? AND there was no more than kissing involved??  So why are we talking about this??

The full seriousness of the situation is a bit sickening, but I'm not talking about the what Moore did.  The Judge is a good man who's been in the limelight of Georgia politics.  He gained fame by wanting to keep the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall, and was running in polls in double digits above his Democrat Challenger.  Then suddenly, this situation came up, and more voters are seriously questioning him, along with many potential Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle.  This accusation is nothing new.  With Hollywood awash in accusations of sexual harassment and assault that happened recently, it's only natural that they would start coming out of the woodwork on conservatives.  The cases have ranged from minor nuisance to near life destroying, but nothing has put anyone in any sort of career jeopardy as of yet.  Slate reports that liberal mega-donor Harvey Weinstein has had allegations laid against him as recently as 2015.  However, the media seems to be hinting that all of his rapes and assaults were nothing but a mistake, and all will be forgiven once he goes through rehab for sex addiction.  But Moore kissed a 16 year old when he was 32, and the liberal left is ready to nail him to the crooked cross over it. 

Rationally, can we really look at a dating issue in the late 70s as a measure of someone's capacity to do his job today?  This is not a "boys will be boys" argument that the opposition loves to paint us with whenever we try to rationalize the situation.  What I am about to say stands on the assumption that all of the allegations are true, which has not been proven yet.  American Citizens do enjoy the privilege of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but that is a conversation for another time.  What's realistic is that any of these accusations happened 40 years ago.  I can attest to the mixed mindset of an early 30s male, because that's where I am now.  I don't know much about Moore's personal life at the time, but I do know that if he was 30 and still single, especially in the 70s when 18 year olds got married to each other every day, he was going through some weird thoughts.  Before I met the wonderful woman who I've spent the last 2 years with, my stomach twisted at the thought that I wasn't in my final relationship with, and this is a time where young marriages are becoming more and more uncommon.  Furthermore, this was 40 years ago.  I can safely tell you that I'm nowhere close to the same man that I was 10 years ago when I moved back to Wisconsin from Massachusetts.  Hell, the transformation in the two years between when I moved there and when I moved back made me almost unrecognizable to even my family.  And I am not alone.  Millions of people have quit drinking, settled down, raised families, gone back to school, left their retail jobs for careers, fixed their credit, bought cars, started businesses, and found religion in spans ranging from 1 year to 20.  Realistically, none of the allegations have included any sort of intercourse, and while a 32 year old going on a date with a 14 year old is just wrong, the law defines the illegality at insertion.  Moore may have had some lapses in judgement in his early 30s, but the stories are clear that when he was told to stop, he stopped.  And he's had 40 years of experience to shape his judgment and right and wrong since then.  I'd personally be more interested in policy decisions that Moore made in 2007 than dating decisions he made back in 1977.

All of this is assuming that any of this even happened in the first place.

If you think that Moore should be crucified for going out with high school girls in the 70s, or if you want to sound your voice in support of him, please comment either below or over on Twitter. That's @edsblogtw1tter.  I look forward to seeing a discussion form.  Remember if you like what you read, consider hitting that like button, along with that retweet button, or share the link on Facebook or other social media.  That would be cool of you.  Remember, never take the words of journalists, podcasters, or bloggers as gospel.  Gather all the facts, and make your own decisions. 

Still More Tax Reform

We have a Tax Framework.  It's not a bill yet, but it's a proposal.  It seems to be a major compromise with Democrats, and there is a lot in the bill that I disagree with; but you'll be hearing most of the same disagreements from all conservative pundits.  One of the biggest questions I have, obviously, is how much my taxes should fall.  Everyone who is in favor of tax cuts is asking themselves that same question.  The other question is one that came up right after the election, but has fallen off to the wayside:  Can we have a tax plan that is retroactive?  These are two very important questions to the majority of the middle class, and they really go hand in hand in a weird way.

Across the beginning of the year, conservative pundits Ben Shapiro and Sean Hannity both made statements on the idea of tax cuts being retroactive to the 2017 tax year.  Shapiro's comments fell off after a couple episodes of his daily show, but Hannity kept the idea pumping for months upon months.  I stand firmly behind the idea of making a retroactive tax cut.  In fact, I think at this point, it's almost essential.  It's now November and the ACA, though stripped, is still intact.  That, and tax reform were supposed to be done in the first 100 days of the administration.  Had the tax reform been done on it's regular schedule, there would be no question as to whether it went on the '17 tax year.  But the fact that we are doing this at the last minute means that there are questions.  We've been paying in almost all year already, so it would be nothing for the IRS to just say "Oh, last year's rates are still effective."  However, that would guarantee that all Republican Congressmen get at least subjected to a primary, if not voted out of office.  We would have the definition of a "do nothing congress", and the constituents of many of our great congressmen would be right to take action.

Now, the political advantage is not the best reason to get these tax cuts going retroactive, but it's going to be a good way to light a fire under the asses of the right people: the people who's votes on the tax reform matter.  There is a lot of practicality to doing tax cuts for this fiscal year.  One of the big ones came into my mind when I started doing the mental math of what I would be paying in taxes in the coming years.  Sadly enough, before this year, I really had no real concept of what I pay in taxes, and the amount was mind boggling.  For almost my entire adult life I fell into that bottom 50%, and for the first two years that I qualified to pay federal income tax, I was so new to it that I just paid the money and said the hell with it and just paid the bill.  But with all the talk about income tax cuts, a mathematical person can't help but start doing the calculations.  At present rate, I would be looking at a pretty substantial 4 figure reduction in taxes, similar to a very large amount of Flyover Country Middle America.  Some of the states with higher state and local taxes may not see so much, but I want to touch on that slightly at the end.  First I want to say that getting these tax cuts in on the 2017 dime would be a huge jump in the National Economy as a whole.  We've all been having taxes pulled off of our income for almost the entire year in anticipation of the current rate, so that will all be hanging out there in the IRS waiting to file.  I'll tell you this, if the tax cuts go through and the rest of Flyover Country gets a refund like I'm anticipating, I'm not even going to spend the money on myself.  While I could do a lot toward paying off my truck, or getting some money in the bank for a down payment on a house; I plan on doing something more practical.  It's something that anyone who rents, or those who still live at home with their parents should be doing as well.  I plan on taking that money, and putting portions of it into stock in Lowes, Home Depot, Samsung, and Apple.  I chose Lowes and Home Depot because all of the people who do own homes will be taking their refunds blowing them on DIY projects, along with contracted home improvements.  I chose electronics companies because the less fiscally responsible millennials who are living at home or renting will be running out to get the newest iPhone or Samsung Flagship.  I predict that these stocks will soar, and that money can work for me in a better way than if I were to just spend it.

I want to close with a small comment on the repeal of the write-off for state and local taxes.  I'm not opposed to the idea in any way, as I live in Wisconsin and my state is moderately taxed.  In fact, with tax reform in the federal eye, my state is working on bringing it's own taxes down to be competitive as a job haven.  I don't blame them at all.  Tech giant Foxconn was on the edge of going somewhere else, so who knows what the next big job producer might do unless we sweeten the pot a little bit.  But there is another point that I think a lot of people overlooked.  Occasionally I listen to Rush Limbaugh, in spite of the fact that I usually consider him to be too extremist-right for my tastes, and on Thursday as his show was closing one of his listeners brought up a very good point during a call-in that would have never crossed my mind in a dozen years.  The Republican opposition to this particular section of the tax bill is obviously coming from states with higher state taxes like New York and California.  The idea behind eliminating the write off is that states with no income tax like Texas and New Hampshire are subsidizing the Federal Tax income from the higher taxed states, and lawmakers consider it to be unfair.  Under the current system, you essentially pay your local taxes first, then what's leftover as Taxable Income is Federally taxed under your bracket.  Ben Shapiro estimates that in his personal tax bracket, with California Taxes, he'll be giving up over 60% of his yearly income in taxes.  Sean Hannity's predictions for New York State are not much better.  But Rush's caller brought up a good point.  The highest taxed states and municipalities tend to have been in majority Democrat controlled and represented for generations.  In today's world, any information is available with a couple of screen taps.  The people who are going to have their taxes go up are going to look at Republican controlled Texas, who's taxes went down, and has a surplus with no state income tax,  and possibly start to re-think their representation.  The left loves to talk about fairness, and there is nothing more fair than everyone paying the same in Federal income tax no matter the situation.  The listener posited that the repeal of the local tax write-off may accidentally or deliberately push more voters in these states in the direction of more right-leaning state congressmen, and executives who can campaign on and deliver on state tax reductions. 

If you have a comment or a different idea on how to utilize a big tax cut, or if you think the local tax write-off repeal is right or wrong, please leave a comment here or on my Twitter.  That's @edsblogtw1tter.  If  you hit the like button, consider hitting that retweet button as well.  That would be cool of you.  Remember: Don't take the words of journalists and bloggers as Gospel.  Find all the facts, and draw your own conclusions.