Evaluating Senatorial Dissent....

The Republicans are doing what they most often do, they refuse
to vote in unison for the 'good of the party', admirable in the
 "best of times". 

However, as most would agree, these are not the best of times.
The political climate is toxic, filled with partisan rancor, elevated
to heights not seen before as the  media has abandoned all objectivity
to turn Washington politicians into a herd of  cats that refuse work
with any pretense of commodity so important to equitable governance.

Now to 'evaluating Senatorial dissent'.

I am addressing the recent report that four of the most conservative 
Republicans in the Senate have stated they will (I say may) not join 
the forty-five others that will support the Senate version of legislation 
to replace Obamacare.

Not only are senators Cruz, Lee, Johnson and Paul conservative, 
I find them to be the most principled when taking positions.

As for not supporting the Senate version of replacement bill, there is 
merit in their argument, which comes down to this, its not perfect!

But, I would argue the merits for passage are more than equal to their 
concerns.

First, look at what is being replaced, Obamacare, "a broken promise"
that Congress and the Obama Administration  have failed to address 
for the past seven years!

Nor, do I believe their dissenting views factored in the current climate
within states they represent, Texas, Tennessee, Utah and Wisconsin.

Rather than looking into what the Senate bill does not provide, each 
should look deeply to what Obamacare has done to their states and 
the people they represent.  

Were the promises of lower premiums and keeping your doctors been
realized?   Have insurers not stopped doing business in their states?  
Has  the cost to state government and businesses been lowered?

These are the questions Cruz, Lee, Paul, Johnson as well as ANY other
senator reluctant to vote in favor of a replacement bill need to answer.

This is not solely about finding a superior replacement for Obamacare, 
it is equally important that Congress stop the hemorrhaging of  the
Affordable Care Act!

Once this is done a bi-partisan Congress can fine tune the replacement so 

every citizen will receive the quality health care that has been promised! 

Feedback appreciated. Feel free to enter in comments section below, or email, ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

Can't they just say, "Play Ball"

I don't know if you have noticed that some major sports related entities, such as the NFL,  NBA, NCAA, ACC and ESPN have ventured into areas other than sports, leading to a drop in viewership as many fans departed.

I recently attended a presentation of what is occurring across the sports spectrum, the move towards political activism! Two speakers addressed this, one a Duke professor who details the result of this shift to non-sports issues.

It is entitled, "The Left is Hijacking the Sports Industry and Making It Their Weapon"

In this presentation you will learn how sports governing bodies sidestep the interests of viewers to serve the desires of sports-related businesses.

This link is a 30 minute video you might find interesting, as it describes what is going on  "outside the boundaries" of the court, field, and diamond!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcgbzjaBVxA

Feedback appreciated. Feel free to enter in comments section below, or email, ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

Leaks and Lies, there may be no difference!

We have heard for almost a year about "leaks" of confidential government information without sourcing by the major newspapers that reported them. Worse, there has been no corroboration by other media, leaving the public

in the position of accepting this on face value or not believing what is being reported.

This is the state of 'journalism'. In fact it is so bad a new term has entered
the lexicon, 'fake news'! This is what we now hear so often we tend to
believe anything we read or hear over the airwaves is suspect!

So, what are we to make of 'leaks', are they accurate, or are they "lies"?
 This is especially reasonable  since we are at a time the media does not
disguise its efforts to destroy the Trump presidency!

You would think the media would be anxious to prove the 'leaks' are true, 

backed with conclusive evidence.  But, the largest and most respected 

newspapers do not seem to want to go the extra mile to assure the public 

what they report is true, which should give the public pause.

They prefer to hide behind the tradition of protecting sources, never mind

the damage it is doing to the confidence the public has in the Fourth Estate!

The NY Times, Washington Post and other major publications prefer to be

offended when the charges of 'fake news' are hurled in their direction, even 

when they have it in their power to prove what they report is true.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected the charge Russia tried to influence

the election has been resurrected after failing to gain traction during the

primaries.

Even when "Wikileaks", a major source of leaked information, says Russia 

is not its source, the media persists to report they are!

Even the Congress appears to have been played for pawns, as it bought into

the Russian effort to affect the election. 

Why Congress did not invite the media to show  evidence of what it 'leaked' 

was true before it convened committees to investigate charges is a mystery

that  no one seems interested in pursuing.

In fact, it is worse when you consider Congress is proceeding with several 

committees chasing hot air while the FBI has produced evidence within

the Democrat primary battle the party colluded with Hillary Clinton to

defeat Bernie Sanders.  Yet, Congress had no interest in holding hearings.

If I were to give every form of media one bit of advice, it would be this.

NEVER report to your audience what you learn from other media outlets
without first proving the accuracy and authenticity. Not doing so you only
reduces your standing in addition to the media that reports "fake news"!

If there is one glimmer of sunlight, it is shining on the media. Now, every 

American who follows news reporting may no longer accept what they

learn is 'fact based', they will weight what they hear or read with
skepticism, which is the best we can ask for.

Feedback appreciated. Feel free to enter in comments section below, or email, ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

How we choose a president...

When you look at the American flag you will see fifty equally sized stars, one for

each of our fifty  states and for good reason, to show all states are equal,

none is greater than any other.

Digest this as you continue.....

​In every tight presidential election the losing side argues the mechanism
to declare the winner must change, usually driven by the fact the loser
received more of the popular vote than the winner who received a greater
share of the electoral vote.

This is an understandable argument by those that believe we are a democracy
and "majority rules", which the United States is not. We're a democratic-republic
as proven by the structure of the Legislative Branch.

But, this is not to say a change shouldn't be considered, one that assures the 

American people the candidates care for them equally.

Each state's citizens need to be treated equally, which is currently not the case. 

This can only be achieved if the Electoral vote values each state EQUALLY!

There would be no need for candidates to calculate a strategy that drives
them to actively campaign in states such as California, Florida, Texas and
the other seven states with the most electors that total the required 270 electoral
votes or in the so called 'battle ground' states which recently determined the
final outcome.

What of the "forgotten states", such as Montana, Rhode Island, Delaware,

North Dakota and the other eleven states which have no more than five 

electoral votes?  Are they less worthy?  If not, why do candidates rarely 

campaign in these states?

If there is a serious desire to change the way we elect a president it should

be designed to give each state an equal voice and modeled after the Senate
where the body is structured so each state has equal representation!
No senator has a voice larger than any other senator.  

If the presidency is decided by the number of states won rather than the 

proportional weight based on Congressional representation used in the
current system, the winner would be the candidate that won the majority
of the states, at least twenty-six 'votes', with each having one electoral vote.

The image of the fifty stars on our American flag, showing equality
among the states is nothing other than founders desired!

Feedback appreciated. Feel free to enter in comments section below, or email, ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

This just in: Hillary was right.....it was the Russians!

Feedback appreciated. Feel free to enter in comments section below, or
email, ajbruno14@gmail.com

 "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

​Despite the best efforts of the media it has been near impossible to figure 

out how the Russians cost Hillary Clinton the presidency......until now.

Several paper trails leading to Russian espionage conclusively proves 

Hillary was right, the election was stolen.

Up until now it was hard to connect the dots,  as they were well hidden.  

But there were two Russian efforts that made the difference, 'battle ground

states' and the 'Black vote'.

First, the battle ground states that Donald Trump visited over and over to

garner enough support to carry them on Election Day as Hillary decided

to not make similar rallies in the last two weeks!

It has been reported, despite urging from her campaign team, Hillary 

decided to forgo the battle ground states in the two weeks leading to

the election.  Up until now this has been an unanswered question.  

The trail to Russia begins with Hillary's pillows, wherever she slept!  

Russia ​had its agents plant the tinniest Bluetooth speakers so subliminal 

messages could be heard while she slept.  The message was simple, "no 

need to rally, the election is your's, continue to fund raise for gala 

celebration after you win".

Each night this message was sent, over and over.  It was irresistible, and

even Hillary could not explain why she avoided the battle ground states.

But, what about the Black vote. why did one million fewer Blacks vote?

Hillary assumed their vote a lock, and she it for granted like every Democrat
for forty years!

After Black turnout was noted, it was stated, Hillary could not attract Blacks
as Obama did. This may be true, but Blacks show up no matter who the
Democrat is.

Well, the answer can be found at every Chinese restaurant in every urban

city, in every battleground state.

The Russians deployed their agents who infiltrated the Chinese restaurants

to ensure all food orders had a heavy dose of monosodium glutamate (MSG)

on election eve, when consumed, makes one sleepy. 

All across urban areas many Blacks "slept in" and did not go to the polls.

Reviewing the analysis, the difference between Hillary and President Trump

was the Black vote in battleground states.  

If you do not believe this is true, can you think of a more plausible reason?

I can't wait to see CNN and the NY Times finally report this!  Finally real news!

The unmentioned losers of the Paris Climate Agreement

After President Trump announced the United States would withdraw from 

the Paris Climate Agreement (PCA) all Hell broke out! 

And Hell has no fury than outraged environmentalists!

Even though the president mentioned, in detail, the several reasons why the 

US is saying  Au Revoir  to Paris his critics did not challenge his argument.

Rather, they did as expected, launched into unproven claims and personal 

attacks, such "walking away from American leadership", "putting the planet

 at risk", and "refusing to be a global partner" for starters.

Whether one believes the planet is in peril or not, we need to understand who 

will bare the heaviest cost. Hint: It won't be the nations that already enjoy the

highest standard of living!

Even if Europe reduced its CO2 emissions by the 26%  as suggested in the

agreement, the burden Third World signees of the agreement will bare is the

heaviest.

Most Third World nations found in Africa, Asia, Central and South America 

do not have what advanced nations already have, reliable electric power, air

conditioning, modern  housing and appliances or convenient drinkable water.

The Paris Climate Agreement ensures these nations with the most to lose, will.

   

If the poorest nations had hoped to replicate the wealthier ones in the near 

future their hopes were dashed as the Paris Climate Agreement  cements 

them to where they currently are.

Don't expect to see 90% of homes air conditioned as you see in the United States.

Don't expect to see reliable energy to power equipment to farm or build.

Don't expect to see appliances bring modern living amenities wealthier nations
take for granted.

What you will see are the  unintended consequences of mandating all parties
reduce CO2 emissions, progress halted in the nations that need it the most.

"Fifty Checks from Fifty States", a better way to fund government

Suppose the current method of funding the federal government was trashed and

replaced with one that eliminated all direct federal income taxes with funding

by the fifty states, each sending  a 'check' to Washington, proportional to the size

of its economy. 

Call it "Fifty Checks...from Fifty States".

Its important to understand this alternative was first considered by our founders:

============================================================

From "Anti-Federalists" 1789, beginning on page 182:

The government needed a 'greater and more certain revenue'.  Some believed money 

should be collected by the states and used by the states where the revenue accrued, 

except for a specific amount granted to Congress.

If the Anti-Federalists dominated the government our country would have continued 

as a confederation of sovereign states and democratic principles of local self-government 

would have been emphasized.

=============================================================

Continuing:

Ever since our founding, the leaders of the country kept applying new laws to
fund government. At first they refused to have a general income tax, relying on
tariffs on select imported products.

Over time Congress, with sole authority to tax, imposed a variety of taxes that 

heavily favored some states than others based on commerce or agriculture.

The first true 'income tax' was authorized to pay for the Civil War in 1861,
replaced in 1862 and continued until it was rescinded in 1872. Attempts to
seek funding were halted when the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional.  

The remedy came  in 1913 when the 16th Amendment was adopted and added
to the Constitution, legalizing a tax on all incomes!

Since then the amount of taxes paid by citizens and businesses increased as
our economy grew to the size it is today, now valued at eighteen trillion dollars,
based  on the accepted financial measuring stick, the GDP,  the Gross Domestic
Product. (More about this later)

Today, taxation is still an issue continually discussed by those who seek to make 

it fairer or changed to generate more revenue.  

There are opposing schools of thought; some say just lowering rates will spur 

economic growth and automatically increase revenue while others contend 

lowering rates would require additional revenue to offset what they view as a

'lose', dismissing  the benefit of greater purchasing power. The term used to

describe this belief is 'revenue neutral', meaning for every dollar not received

due to tax cuts must found elsewhere, a theory I cannot find evidence to support. 

These are the weeds people who decide how to fund the government cannot

seem to escape from. And as long as they argue within these boundaries, they

will miss a better solution that was recognized at the time of our founding,

proportional funding by states.

When the US Constitution went into effect in 1789 there were thirteen states,

some large, some small, some richer than others so proportional funding was

essential to allow all colonies to thrive, no different than we find today as

our fifty states are equally disparate.  

At the outset this approach was applied, however tax policies drifted and the

burden was finally placed on enterprise and individuals, creating a system 

continually tinkered with to do more than simply increase revenue.

Despite more than two hundred and thirty years between than and now, 

proportional approach still has merit and again deserves consideration in 

tax policy discussions. 

Adopting the "apportioned among the states" approach may be the best 

way to fund the national government as well as it will do more than change 

the dynamics of the way revenue is collected, it would transform the entire 

American governing mechanism!

The first advantage is purity, do what it is intended to do, fund government!

"Apportioned among the states" has this single task, pay for what the national

government provides, and nothing more.

There will be no need for 70,000 pages of a tax code created solely to modify

human behavior, and influence decisions that have financial implications.

Even more important is the benefit of eliminating the need for Washington to 

be ground zero for tax policy. Washington should be about governance, which

is hard enough considering the scope of our country's responsibilities. 

Removing Congress from tax policies, uncouples politicians from a power that 

can easily influence them, often the haven for corruption in all forms that has

become prevalent in Washington.  Proportional state taxation ends this!

The new day begins when workers receive paychecks without a deduction for

"Uncle Sam".  No longer will the IRS tax code guide individuals and businesses 

to do what they would prefer not to do.  No longer will lobbyists have power to 

affect our taxes, even as you have no knowledge they do!

Rather than the IRS taxing individuals and businesses to fund the government

each state would pay the proportional amount determined on its wealth to

Washington to cover the cost of government.  Its that simple!

States will be the sole revenue source for federal funding. They will determine

how they collect their proportional contribution from its residents. 

How it works.........

Individuals and businesses will no longer be required to pay federal income 

taxes. All their earnings remain in the state. They will only be required to pay

what state legislatures require. 

Revenue received through "apportioned among the states" is the first step to

give the people the government they want, rather than politicians demand. 

States will finally reign in Congressional and bureaucratic overreach
of both legislation and regulations they never asked for or do not want.
States will have the "power of the purse" and Congress will have to seek
approval of state legislatures rather then each state's representatives that
often do the bidding of the Washington 'establishment'.

Federal mandates would be minimal as members of Congress must pay

attention to what their constituents want, rather than what donors and 

lobbyists demand! 

State governors and legislatures would drive national governance as the

'anti-federalists' argued was best to ensure the people were no longer 

submissive to Washington.

"Apportioned among the states" results in each state paying the appropriate 

percentage of its GDP to Washington so Congress would receive revenue
equal to what its spends.

The federal government will no longer be able to 'borrow', passing along the
debt to taxpayers. It would have to convince the states to give more then their
proportional obligation. 

Using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

The GDP will be the determinant. States with the highest GDP, such as  Texas

and California would send more than states with smaller GDPs.

The size of the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is $18 trillion, equal
to the total GDPs of the fifty states.  Each state shares a percentage, with the
wealthiest California at 14.7% while others vary, such as New Jersey is at 3.3%.

Annually, taxpayers send $3 trillion to Washington. Replacing the income tax
with "apportioned among the states" will still provide the same $3 trillion, only
it will be paid by states, not individuals and businesses, calculated by each state's
GDP. 

California with the highest GDP would pay its proportion of the country's
$18 trillion GDP, as its 14.7% equals $443 billion based on its wealth of
$2.6 trillion while New Jersey with a GDP at 3.3% would pay $98 billion
based on its wealth of  $590 billion.

For the first time  in our history the federal government will only have a minor
role in taxation,  as the responsibility falls directly on the states.

"Apportioned among the states" will be the revenue generator,  a 'game changer', 

turning the national government into an honest broker, serving the interests of
the states, businesses and citizens. 

The benefits realized are almost incalculable considering the varied responsibilities

our government has domestically and around the world.

The majority of the 70,000 page IRS tax code can be trashed.  There will be no 

need for organizations of any type to seek tax avoidance. Each state will make 

such judgments.

"Adventurous" presidents and Congresses will no longer deploy troops and arms

at a cost of billions that were not included in operating budgets or approved by

emergency request to the states. 

Federal agencies would shrink as the state will prefer to not send larger 'checks' 

based solely on state priorities, not Washington's.

In fact, under apportionment states seeking independent aid from the federal govt. 

would supplement required revenue with an additional amount to cover request.

Rather than taxing individuals each state would send a 'check', proportional to its

wealth to Washington to cover the cost of government.  Its that simple!

The states will be the sole revenue source for federal funding. They will determine

how they collect their proportional contribution from its residents which means 

individuals and businesses no longer will they be required to pay federal income

taxes, only contribute as their state legislatures require.  

Revenue from "apportioned among the states" is the first step to get the government

the people want, not what politicians decide is good for them.

Could such an unorthodox tax plan materialize?  It can if the benefit to the states outweigh

the lose of control Washington would accept. 

Regards,
Anthony Bruno

The horrors of tweeting

From the very beginning of President Trump's campaign he was criticized for
tweeting. Not only by his opponents but even from supporters that often cringed
at some of the tweets he sent. 

Well, in the run-up to the election President Trump's Twitter ID, @realDonaldTrump , 
had over 30 million followers, or 3 million less followers than newspapers
sold! Add to this another 20 million following @potus and you can see the
impact his direct communication has, add the 'concern' of the media who prefers to 
single threat reports to the public.

Donald Trump will have none of this.

The primary criticism, "its not presidential"!  Well, I am sure any thought FDR's
'fireside chats' weren't presidential either as both means of communication went
directly and unfiltered to the American people!  Neither should be verboten.

If Twitter should not be used by the president, than should it be used by any
public official?  Or, even every form of journalism, print, network and cable?
Doubt we'd find any takers at any of sources quick to criticize President Trump!

Thankfully, there is no indication President Trump will stop tweeting, but there
is a variance within the media of what tweet to report on. It will seek out the ones
they believe will undermine the president, such as his criticism of London security
after latest terrorist attack.

But, don't expect the media to mention President Trump tweeted that today is the
73rd anniversary of D-Day which most in media failed to mention.

Guess, even in the world of Twitter, the media refused to be fair and honest!

Feedback appreciated. Feel free to enter in comments section below, or email, ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/

Kudos for sticking with the Paris Climate Agreement!

It was nice to see so many corporate CEOs say they would continue to adhere the Paris 

Climate Agreement (PCA) even as President Trump  said the United States would not.

Some 'cared' so much they even decided leave presidential advisory council, believing

not offing advise is better than remaining on the council!

First of all, this grandstanding is meaningless. The PCA signed in 2015 does not mandate

anything, nor will it. So for more than 1200 cities, states and businesses committing to 

this agreement mean nothing, This is purely for public consumption, not CO2 emission 

reduction!  (So much for the Earth in peril)

President Trump's decision ends any future mandates beyond the authority of Congress

on the very companies whose CEOs 'gallantly' ride off on their high horses; companies 

so well-heeled they can easily pass long the cost to their customers.

There was no mention of struggling small business owners whose 100,000s companies 

did not object. They understand the true PCA compliance cost.

The unreported silver lining is this. As many of our founders had hoped, 'republicanism', 

meaning less authority residing in Washington, would be the best form of government.  

Call it personal responsibility when cities, states, organization and businesses, each deciding 

for themselves on how to spend taxpayer or shareholders money, rather  than the president

of the United States dictating...without Congressional approval.

To the 1200 climate warriors will continue to support the Paris accord, Go for it!!!!

Here they are: http://wearestillin.com/

However, these environmentally conscious folks should not expect the American taxpayers

to cover the cost.

And, to ensure American taxpayers are not saddled with the cost President Trump should 

inform the IRS any attempt by companies to get tax  relief should be denied!

Additionally, cities, states should not expect increases in federal funding if they decide to

"invest" in climate effecting initiatives.  

If they are as serious as they say, it should not matter, after all, the Earth is in the balance!

We'll soon know if  'saving the planet' is as important as lower profits and losing jobs!

Feedback appreciated. Feel free to enter in comments section below, or email, ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/