LEGALIZE MARIJUANA?

tO my knowledge, no one in the Tea Party has advocated a position, pro or con, on the subject of legalization of marijuana.  The fiscal confusion and inconsistencies sucks all of the oxygen out of the room long before this subject comes up.  Perhaps this site may serve as a sounding board for questions and positions. 

There are several approaches to this issue, most of them addressing some moral bent or another.  To be different, we could deal with the totally practical elements. 

First, if marijuana were legalized, the weed could be grown on a healthier (weedwise) venue.  That is, it could be dealt with as an agricultural product and cultivated in a healthier (for them) situation, like on a farm.  There would be fewer strange looking young persons wandering in a forest and perhaps more actual farmers doing the farming.  Allowing our farmers to grow this product would produce a more consistent crop.  I suspect that there might be some benefit to the end user to be treated to a product grown by a real American farmer.

Speaking of farmers, cannabis could provide our country cousins with their first new cash crop since the soy bean.

We would lose a few narcs but we would gain a few thousand employees in the processing and packaging phases of this new product.  Recent crackdowns on cigarette smoking have resulted in a lower level of addiction and thus lower sales of this particular product.  We could balance this out by allowing our tobacco companies to grow, package and market a new product.  While we are looking for ways to increase the employment of U.S. citizens, we should note that it is unlikely that we would ever outsource the work required to get this product from seed to a smoke. 

We would also need to add employees for the quality control function.  The (probably) dimwitted end-users would necessarily need to forego the pleasure of describing their smoke as “Good S---, man“.  This particular vulgarity would lose its appeal if our quality control allowed that everyone’s S--- would be a good as everyone else’s, which I am sure is as the higher power intended our S--- to be.

Securing the farms growing the cannabis could be assigned to a few vicious, non-rabid canines with good lawyers.

The effect on our economy would be a series of wins.  More jobs, more taxes collected at various levels, fewer narcs and other enforcement personnel, empty jail cells, and you can add your own wins to this list.

And, we would have one less item for our new citizens to carry as they run across our border.

Recent reports make it clear that we are losing our battle to control this particular product and spending millions for the pleasure of losing.  A true bureaucracy will rue the fact that we may be missing out on a few thousand SEIU members and their glorious pensions, but this is a sacrifice that we may come to enjoy. 

Some have said that making pot legal will encourage our young people to become addicted to this and harder substances.  But, there is this; most people who acquire pot from a local source will find that this source has an extensive product line and would be happy to provide a one-stop operation.  If that is as true as it appears, then the person who buys his or her pot at a local drug store will be exposed to tooth paste, deodorant, condoms and other beneficial items.  Our tyro pothead will rarely have hard stuffed hawked at the local Walgreen’s.  As to the initial addiction, there is also a theory that young people like to pull your chain and will try anything that you prohibit merely because you do prohiblt.  But, this psycho-babble will lead us nowhere.

It is hard to tell whether we have more illegal border crossers because of our need for Mexican pot, or more Mexican pot because the border-crosser supply line is conveniently already there.  Chicken or the egg – take your choice.  It doesn’t matter.  If we eliminate our need for extra-legal, low-grade pot, we will have one less factor feeding the invasion.  This would be a win.

Will indulgence increase?  Yes and no.  Some will be tempted because it it is now ‘legal’, but others will lose their enthusiasm if they don’t get the feeling that they are living on the wild side.

As for the good v. evil debate, we should try to be logically consistent.

A.      This is a true story.  I recall sitting in a room with a number of politicians who were describing their undying opposition to legalization of this drug.  I saw what they could not.  I saw that each of them was smoking and each had a glass of scotch in his hand.

B.      Before we invest another nickel in drug law enforcement, let us look at what we have accomplished with anti alcohol and anti smoking laws, rules, regulations, etc in the past century.

This memo is not intended to advocate pro or con.  If it appears to be one-sided, this is simply because the ‘antis’ have had the moral high ground and thus control of the public forum.  We do not intend to challenge that high ground.  But we do believe that a logical discussion should have a place at the table.

Military Bases

Since WWII, we have stationed our military forces in so many foreign locations that it is very difficult to list them all.  Unfortunately, we have developed a habit of leaving them there.  Would you care to guess how many bases we have on foreign soil?  Don’t feel bad if your guess is off by a factor of 300 or so. 

The best number I could find is 720.  That’s right.  SEVEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY foreign bases and technically, we are not at war.  720 foreign bases to keep the peace.  Can we really expect foreign nations to believe that we are the peaceful ones when they can’t take a walk in the park without encountering our troops?  If anyone considers for a moment that this is a good idea and is needed to maintain the peace, I would ask the following question – “How is it working out so far?”

It is difficult to believe that the need for 700 foreign bases is worthy of debate, so let’s proceed directly to the remedy.  Begin to close a large number of them.  There are basically two ways to do this.

No. 1

Have the President state that certain bases will be closed within one year.  History tells us that, if the President does this, about eleven months from now he will receive a 400 page report detailing the many reasons that the bases can not be closed.  Remember Gitmo?  As an important part of his program, Obama promised to close Gitmo in one year.  Unfortunately, this President, this Congress and this Military could not figure out how to close ONE base.

No. 2

Have the President tell the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, “I want 100 bases closed in the next six months and ten per month after that until I tell you to stop.  By the way, if you can’t do it, I will fire both of you and replace you with someone who can follow orders.  Do you understand or do you resign right now?”  Now, what are the odds that some bases will get closed? 

If anyone argues that we actually need all of these bases, fire the S.O.B.  What can you possibly accomplish with 700 bases that you could not accomplish with 300 or 400?

If Congress wants to get involved and debate the issue until the next election, a leader may point out the following:

A.      Closing bases should save money. 

B.      Many of our troops will be moved out of harms way

C.      We could save money.

D.     Make our troops available for the “good wars”.  We often read about our troops being sent back to the Middle East for a second, third or fourth tour.  Meanwhile, other troops are sitting on an island in the South Pacific or in South Korea. 

E.      We could save money.

F.       If our troops are good enough to guard South Korea against the fearsome loons of North Korea, maybe they can do us some real good by guarding our southern border.  All we have to do is decide which place is more important to us, South Korea or Arizona?

G.     Did I mention, we could save money?

Perhaps, when we stop posing as the world’s police force, people will stop viewing us as their  police force.  Perhaps they will fight their little wars quietly and we can get back to watching important stuff on TV like news about how Charly Sheen is doing in rehab.

Seriously, it may be time for us to consider whether our presence has started more wars than it prevented.  George Bush Senior tried to teach us the right way to fight a war.  Properly planned and properly fought, his war lasted about 100 hours and we suffered fewer casualties than the Chicago Bears did the last time they played Green Bay. 

There was a time when we understood that being at war was a diversion and not a career.

We have reached the point where closing bases is as much a state of mind as it is a chore.  President Franklin Roosevelt, as enamored as he was with his position, never deluded himself to believing that he knew more than anybody about everything.  He knew that WWII was much too important to be left to an amateur like himself so he placed full confidence General George C. Marshall and, even sitting in his wheelchair, Roosevelt was a big enough man to admit that he slept much better knowing the Marshall was in Washington with him.

Many historians are surprised and disappointed when they are forced to admit that military men elected to the White House consistently perform above expectations while non-military types are consistent disappointments.  It has been (and is being) suggested that this anomaly may be credited to the fact that a true military person MUST MAKE DECISIONS and live with the consequences, while true politicians MUST MAKE PROMISES and move on before the bill comes due.  This leads to the ever-popular, ‘blame Mike Brown’ school of political management.  The world will little note nor long remember who was mayor of New Orleans or governor of Louisiana when Katrina hit their woefully unprepared Big Easy, but everyone remembers the scapegoat.  Point noted.

Back to our military base situation: Over 700 foreign bases.  This is a silly problem for a nation that is beyond being broke, sailing past insolvency and fast approaching bankruptcy.  It is time for someone to step up and make a decision.  Blaming the previous administrations for all of our problems may actually have some truth to it.  But, the people who sat in Congress and watched it happen should remember that, someday, they will be ‘the previous administration’ and will be expected to bear some responsibility. Base closing would seem to be something that many people would want to be blamed for.  Even Harry Truman knew when a plug needed to be pulled, and he pulled it.  Bless him, not necessarily for pulling that particular plug, but for being a stand-up guy.

Now, let’s close some bases.

Charity Nexus

WHY DOES GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTE TO CHARITIES?

OR, NEXUS RIDES AGAIN

It is a mistake, in many ways, for the U.S. government to contribute taxpayer money to some charity of their Congressmen’s choice.  Permit me to list a few ways in which this is problematic.

1.      The obvious one is that we are broke.  We have been borrowing money to donate.  While it is admirable to be so generous that we would borrow money to give it away, we should recognize that this is as irrational as it sounds. 

2.      How much and to whom is left to the discretion of several individuals who have no skin in the game.  It’s not their money which is being given away and it is not your favorite charity that is receiving it.  Does this make any sense to you?

3.      If you are not involved in the donation, you may actually have ‘your money’ be giving to someone who has totally different values. 

I could go on.  You could probably come up with a better list of donees than our bureaucrats do. 

If you think about the issue rationally, you will quickly see that all charity from our government to foreign nations, disaster victims and ongoing charities should be voluntary.  If someone believes that his or her gifts to charity should be made by a stranger, he or she doesn’t understand the meaning of the word charity.  It is no secret that our congressmen like to play Santa Claus with our money.  I hate to say this, but they can screw up a charitable donation.  To allow them to demonstrate this talent is a needless provocation.

Before we let them prove their versatility, let’s review a few (obvious) basics.  First, we have known for many years that Americans are the most charitable people in the world.  Did you see any Arab oilmen or Chinese capitalists in New Orleans when we needed help rebuilding?  We have always been at the center of most recovery efforts in any disaster in the universe.  So, we have nothing to prove.  We will continue to be charitable.  We just do not want some congressman screwing it up.  So, we do not need them to be involved and we do not want them to be involved and Congress’ involvement in our charity is damn sure not in any Constitution I ever read.

Of course, the best reason to include congress out is our favorite one word economics lesson---NEXUS.  If our charity is going to work, we must maintain the nexus.  The nexus in this case is the connection between the donor and the charity (representing the donee) and, it necessarily works both ways.  By this we mean that;

a.      We will have charitable giving in the spirit that we should demonstrate, which is a spirit of sharing the rewards of our labor with those who are not so fortunate, and

b.      The charities that we select will use or distribute our gifts in our stead and with the spirit of sharing and giving that we intended to convey.

c.       Also, the charities would be encouraged to report good deeds and good management in order to induce you to continue your support. 

d.      Obviously, the requirement to report good deeds and good management will encourage our charities to actually accomplish good deeds and good management. 

This nexus is only established when the charitable agencies are free to give as their lights dictate and such spirit is conveyed to the beneficiaries and to the donors.  The donees should understand that the donor is truly concerned with the donees plight and is sharing out of love for his fellow man and not out of some statutory obligation.  This feeling could be contagious and could lead to a more closely bound community.  Need we make a case for virtue? 

The donee just might feel a desire to do something, anything that will show appreciation.  I am reminded of the O. Henry story where two people with little but the spirit, each determined to give something to the other party.  Each gift represented a sacrifice that the other party could not have anticipated.  Gift of the Magi.  Read it and you will understand what giving is all about.  You should also understand that a committee of bureaucrats should never be allowed to interfere with this process.

If our Congressmen decide to kick in some of their own money, God bless them.  This still shouldn’t give them the right to sign their name to the check that we will be asked to pay.

We would prefer to limit this note to the positive side of true giving, but that would not be fair to anyone who has read this far.  The truth of the matter is that as long as congress controls large portions of our charitable giving, there will be a dirty underside.  The charities that congress chooses must now report only to congress.  In reality, this means that a charity receiving money from congress need not make an honest disclosure of the use of the money and this means that all a charity need do to receive money from our Congress is lie, cheat and steal.  It took me three minutes to find these two entries on the internet.

a.      “Candidate accused of profiting from charity:

b.      “Ex-Baltimore charity director charged with wire fraud.”

In each case, an official of the alleged charity had siphoned a six-figure amount of money from the U.S. treasury into their pockets.  I did not have the stomach to continue.  Feel free to check it out for yourself.  I am not saying that our politicians would steal from the collection plate on Sunday, but I will say, “Why give them the opportunity.”

Please, Congress, let us keep our private charities private.  If my charity steals from me, I will make the choice to go elsewhere or blindly continue.  Either way, it is my free choice.  Can charity work any other way?

By the way, many states have, included in their tax returns, a form making it possible for taxpayers to bundle their contributions with other like-minded citizens. 

A brief outline of a working procedure is:

1.      A charity applies to the IRS to be included on our Xmas list.  A citizen’s committee of notable donors reviews the list and reduces it to 20-30 worthy names.

2.      These names are listed on an IRS form, to be included in your tax return.

3.      When you file your return, you search the list of charities and enter the amount of money that you wish to donate next to their name.  This amount is added to the tax that you owe or deducted from the amount that you expect to have returned to you.

The entries are added by the IRS program and a report is issued listing the amount to be paid to each charity. 

This procedure is already in effect in several states.  See the Illinois State Income Tax return forms. 

If you don’t file a return, you may still get a copy of the list and make your donation directly. 

This procedure would have several side benefits, eg.

1.      The charities will no longer need to have an office in Washington where their lobbyist hangs out when he or she is sweet talking a Congressman into increasing the ‘donation’.

2.      The charities will no longer need to have the expense of banquets and golf outings where they ‘honor’ the Congressmen who are thanked for ‘their’ support.

I won’t say that what Congress is doing amounts to corruption.  It is more like pollution of the very concept of charitable giving.  And, the solution is so simple.  Why not do it?