Skip to content

Organizational Theory as Applied to the Management of Large Information Systems

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

As my wife can attest, I am not a very organized person.  My entire life I have struggled with this affliction and it has very likely prevented me from reaching my full potential.  While having large, cluttered piles of paperwork on my desk does not necessarily bother me as much as it does some people (my wife being one), it definitely brings me no joy.  I have often thought that I might actually look forward to going to work each morning if I didn not know I three tons of unfinished business sitting on my desk patiently awaiting my return.

I have made many efforts to alleviate this problem.  I have two drawers in my desk with hanging file folders neatly labeled for every concievable subject I may need to file under.  I use a personal planner from Franklin Covey where I can keep schedule information, phone numbers, and lots of other information that I wasn’t even aware I needed to keep track of until I bought the planner.  And yet, I still end up with piles of stuff cluttering my desk.  Due to having so many drawers and piles, finding any specific item usually takes awhile.  Sometimes, I can’t find the item at all even though I am sure I did not throw it away.  If I threw things away, I doubt I would have so many large piles.  I am convinced that once a certain mass density is reached on a desk, small black holes are formed.  These black holes are not large enough to be immediately noticed but do have enough gravitational pull to suck in one or two pieces of paper before disipating.

Being the good manager that I am, I decided to evaluate all of the above problem areas and then develop and implement a workable solution.  And so I am proud to present to you the optimum filing system for the chronically disorganized, the “Monocolumnar Administration, Information and Data System” or MAIDS.  Implementation is simple; take everything on or in your desk and put it in one big pile on the corner.  Finding any item is now simply a matter of excavation, the search phase has been eliminated.

Jim – “Hey Rich, where did you put the schedule for next week”

Rich – “Right there” (points to MAIDS)

Jime – “Hey Rich, do you have laste weeks TPS report?”

Rich – “Yep, right there” (points to MAIDS)

I still haven’t figured out how to solve the black hole issue.  I requisitioned a particle accelerator yeaterday.  I’ll let you know how that works out next week.

Filed in Humor, Rich | | Comments (3)

The Surrendering of Power

Saturday, February 20, 2010

I will be the first admit that I have a much more strict view of the constitution and what the Founding Fathers intended for this country than most people.  I can even understand why some people believe that Congress can use the “necessary and proper” clause anytime they like since that particular section is the only intentionally vague wording in the Constitution (my opinion).  I can see how those who do not have a full grasp of the English language could misunderstand the second amendment.   I tolerate all of those disagreements and welcome debate on them.  What I can no longer tolerate though is the tendency of the Executive branch to think it has more power than it actually does and the tendency of the people to go along with it.  This has been happening more and more with each administration and it can only stop when we the people force our elected representatives to take back that which they have surrendered to a long line of power hungry Presidents.  For those who need a civics refresher, below are the applicable sections of the Constitution:

From Article I -

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

From Article II -

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

So nowhere does the Constitution discuss the President writing bills and presenting them to Congress.   I really don’t care how others may interpret the above phrases either.  That is not how the Founding Fathers intended things and it is not how it should work.   There are many, many good reasons for the three branches to have separate and equal (at least as equal as possible) powers and we all know the reasons our government was established in that manner.   Remember, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I would also add that surrendered power is rarely returned without bloodshed.

Rich

Filed in Rich, Ultra Conservative to Just a Little Right | | Comments (4)

The True Art of Misdirection (otherwise known as the Republican campaign against Cap & Trade)

Friday, February 5, 2010

Cap and Trade is not a new concept, nor is it a left wing policy, it’s roots in legislation in the U.S. came from a true bipartisan policy that was based upon fairly sound economics.  The short history essentially goes something like this:

In the 70’s the SO2 concentrations in coal burning plant exhaust was sufficient to produce detrimental effects on both the populace and the environment in the form of Acid Rain.  There were several attempts to find ways to solve this but no legislation could move forward because the cost to industry was considered far to high.  Several economists, using different economic models went through many variations on methods and means to achieve the noble goal of the end of acid rain.  All of these models included some form of restriction on emissions, enforceable by the EPA, but it wasn’t until one of these economists considered a secondary economy of transportable credits that could be traded between emitters that they came upon a model that was economically feasible.  Thus Cap & Trade was born.  This economic model was put into fashion by a bipartisan group that agreed on the problem, and decided to find a feasible solution.  And in 1990 G.H.W. Bush signed the amendments to the Clean Air Act of 1970 into law, capping SO2 emissions and creating a barter system that rewarded efficient companies and innovators that could find ways to reduce their emissions, and leaving the majority of the burden of the price tag on those companies that could not change.  Of course some portion of this increase in the cost of doing business would be passed on to the consumer but since the goal was noble and everyone essentially agreed that the problem needed to be fixed everyone was willing to accept the additional costs and move forward.  And it was very successful (when the EPA effectively enforced it) and acid rain has been drastically reduced.  NOx emissions were next, and also very effective.

Now we get to the current debate.  The GOP has been fighting hard against these controls being applied to CO2 emissions, and that is the real issue.  They are actually arguing that controls on CO2 are too costly, why you ask, because they don’t believe that man made CO2 has the harmful effects that the IPCC or most of the rest of the world has agreed upon by consensus.   That’s right, they do not believe in Climate Change, and this is why they oppose Cap & Trade.  It is not that the Cap & Trade policy is bad, it has been proven as an effective tool in reducing emissions, providing incentives to innovate and change, and at the least effective cost to the consumers/tax payers and industry as a whole.  Some members of the GOP will still say that they don’t believe but since the media mocks them and tries to show them as radical conservatives or loons, most no longer are willing to step out from the herd like that.  So they argue against bills or measures that would actually make strides towards reducing carbon in the atmosphere, and avoid the subject as to what their real motivation is.  If they bought into climate change, they would be applauding the application of Cap & Trade as the most effective means that can be provided at the least cost.

Whether you believe in climate change or not is not the issue.  It is the manner in which these people that represent us that matters.  The GOP has effectively blocked this legislation, and though, not officially, this bill is dead.  CO2 will continue to be unregulated which is the GOPs real intent.  The threat to put it under EPA jurisdiction is just that, a threat.  The EPA cannot act unilaterally and declare something controllable without an expected back lash, and subsequent lawsuits.  It is just a matter of time until this happens.

Chris

Filed in Chris, From the Center of Things | | Comments (5)

The Gay Marriage Mess

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Ok, I have a problem with both sides of the arguement for and against gay marriage.  This is a very simple issue given a whole lot of bad press and it seems we are missing the core of problem.

 The arguements against gay marriage usually fall along one of three points:

The basis of marriage is about procreation:  This is false, many people get married and not only don’t have children, but they have no intention in having children.  Should these marriages be negated?  Should any woman be allowed to marry after menopause?  If a guy has a vasectomoy while married should he be automatically divorced because of this?  These are the absurd questions that can crop up when we use this as the primary basis for marriage, which, incidentally, is currently the only arguement being used to defend Proposition 8 out there on the left coast.

The basis of morality:  This puts the institution of marriage more soundly in the realm of a religious institution and not a legal one.  Religion and philosophy are the foundation of moral teachings and the State has no place in the defining of morals.  If a gay person wants to get married they should petition their church, not the State.  This is where civil unions come in as a tool of the State, but I will get to this piece of legal documentation later.

The basis of harming the existing institution of marriage:  This is my favorite arguement used and the worst of the bunch.  There is nothing that cheapens or weakens my marriage other than the decisions my wife and I make, any argument otherwise is absurd.  And there is very little anyone can do to convince me that anything harms the institution of marriage like divorce does.  This single act of breaking your vows and throwing out the promises that make up the union of marriage is what harms it, not two other people getting married, regardless of sexual orientation.  Until the religious right can make it so hard to get divorced that people stop and think before getting married I won’t be convinced that they are interested in protecting the institution of marriage.

The arguements for gay marriage are simple, but they are as fruitless as the opposition to them.  Gay people want to be accepted for who they are.  This is a desire that almost all people want and it is both understandable and a fair request.  The problem that they run into is that too many people believe that the acts that they commit as a part of their lifestyle are grievous or mortal sins and therefore they believe that they cannot accept the person as they are or they will be seen as condoning the behavior.  Of course people of the G.L.B.T. community do not like the fact that a portion of the population, regardless of how big this portion is, thinks they are evil, corrupt, lost, or just plain wrong for being who they are.  The compromise has been to offer Civil Unions in place of marriage certificates or licenses.  The G.L.B.T. community disagrees with this on the principle that it reduces them to a second class citizen and they are “equal but separate” adding to the concept that this is a civil rights issue.   Every one of the legal protections afforded by this piece of paper are already accessible in the current system but it requires a few extra hoops and comes at a slightly higher price, which is a penalty for a lifestyle, again pushing this in the direction of the arguement that this is a civil rights issue. 

The proper compromise is simple, the State should only issue Civil Union licenses or certificates, period.   No more Marriage Licenses!   A wedding is a religious ceremony and a marriage is a partnership, two separate things.  But because the average American does not separate these two things they can no longer accept the idea that the legal protections provided by this certification of their partnership has nothing to do with the arguements listed above regarding morality or anything else.  If any two people want to form a personal, legal bond then this should be allowed, it says nothing in regards to the actual nature of the relationship nor the acts that they perform in the privacy of their homes.   Of course once you enter into any partnership, if you choose to leave it you have to go through other legal hoops to disolve the legal partnership you have created, but that is a different discussion.  This solution is fair and will provide equal treatment for all, and it will still provide the State with a small revenue stream.  For the time being, members of the G.L.B.T. community will still be treated as second class citizens in one way shape or form, as do almost any minority population, that is human nature and is not likely to change just because you cram it down your oppositions throat.

Filed in Chris, From the Center of Things | | Comments (4)

Capitalism, greed, and why I quit my job.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Recently, I quit my job.

Well, actually It was back in August.  At the time I told myself it was because I was going to school full-time and couldn’t work full-time AND go to school.  This was true.  This was also not the whole story.

Being a veteran, I have had the amazing opportunity to use the GI bill.  Currently, they will pay a living alotment and pay the tuition.  It’s a great deal.  I can actually go to school full-time, and if I manage my money tightly (very tightly), not have to work.  This is what I’ve been doing.

Unemployment in California is 12%.  Some people think I was completely crazy for quitting my job in the face of that.  I recently realized what made me send my boss a letter that fateful day back in August.  I felt guilty.  I felt guilty for having a job which I didn’t like, didn’t need, while there were lots of people who desperately needed work.  One guy I worked with did the job just because “he was bored”, his wife made over $250,000 a year.  That disgusted me. I could only see that as a selfish greed.  An arrogant, “I’m going to do whatever I want” attitude.  Those of you that know me might be laughing, because that was certainly my attitude in the Navy (sorry!!!), but I’ve come to realize that we have a responsibility as Americans.  A responsibility to pay debt (D’oh!), to help others, and to not be greedy.

I realized that it was my responsibility as a citizen of the United States of America, to do everything I could, to sacrifice what I could to help others.  No one forced me to do it, no one asked me to do it.  Hell, at the time, I don’t even think I realized why I was doing it.  I did it because I didn’t need it.  This was my sacrifice, opening up a decent-paying job for someone who would respect it and use it, someone who needed it.  I’m sure there were plenty of those people around.  Heck, mabye the guy that they hired as a temp got to be full-time, he certainly needed it.  And I didn’t.  I’m not trying to blow my own horn, as I said -I didn’t realize this at the time, but we all need to make sacrifices, and maybe I can sleep easier knowing that though I am a poor student, barely getting by (actually moving to Dallas, Tx because its much cheaper to live) maybe, just maybe, there is someone coming home from work every day, doing the job that I did, putting food on the table for his children.

Maybe.

Filed in Matt | | Comments (5)

Have we lost our taste for war?

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Much has been said lately in the news about the Presidents decision to send more troops into Afghanistan.  I am not going to comment on that, honestly, who cares what I think anyway?  What I will comment on is whether or not we can win a war.  Any war.

If you look at the recent military engagements around the world, most are completely ineffective.  Indeed, there have been many comparisons to Vietnam, Korea etc.  The fact of the matter is that fighting ideology cannot be done lightly.  Back in WWII there was this concept of “Collateral Damage” that is to say, civilian casualties.  We accepted this.  We didn’t like it, but it was understood as necessary to defeat the enemy.  It used to be widely held that in order to win, you must counter with at least equal force that the enemy attacks with.

We have grown morally over the last 60 years.  We need not look at wartime casualties to see the moralistic chain of events.  First civil rights, followed closely by womens’ rights, being debated currently is homosexual’s rights.  We are morally moving away from the time where we simply accepted casualties in war.

There seems to be an opinion that we should be able to win without losing a single soldier.  I’m not sure how this is possible, but every argument about the war has this undertone, -civilian death is unacceptable, civilian targets cannot be destroyed, etc.

How is a soldier in the field supposed to tell the difference between a civilian or an enemy?  By the time they start shooting it’ll be too late in many cases.  My father reminded me of something from the Vietnam era, when a 12 yr old child holds a rifle pointing at you, what do you do?  Do you kill him?  Did you just kill a soldier or a civilian?  A man or a child?  Are you a murderer?  My father is a hero to me, and he believed in “total war.”  Not only do you destroy the enemy (including collateral damage, after all, that’s the enemies fault), but you destroy their ability to make war.  Sort of like blasting them back to the stone age.

I disagree with this.  Conventionally, we cannot win wars anymore.  I firmly believe this, we have lost our dedication, or our old views on life that allowed us to morally justify the mass destruction necessary to win wars.  We cannot win when the enemy is willing to hide bombs on people and go into towns and detonate them.  Must we match force with force?  I’m not sure.  I am not, however, a person of non-action.

Propaganda, my friends.  Thought is the natural enemy of ideology.  Critical thinking and education destroys ideology faster than a bullet.  Now, I am not supposing that we should drop books on them, nor should we be completely unwilling to fight.  But we need to add a powerful non-violent weapon to our arsenal.  We need to find ways to infiltrate their lifestyle, ways to get the people over there to shed their narrow ideology.  This is not easy (HUGE understatement), however, often I find the right things are never easy.  We need to educate, we need to support the non-violent Muslims.  Just like the Catholic church has changed its stance on many topics with the advent of science (usually after torturing or burning the people who originally spread those “nasty” ideas.  RIP Galileo) there are many progressive Muslims who believe that the violence is wrong.  There are not enough bombs or bullets in the world to defeat religious ideology, but education, and ideas can certainly help.

We need to start finding ways to defeat the ideology from within.  And I know education is a start.

Filed in Matt | | Comments (3)

Thoughts on Veterans Day

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

First, Thank You to all who have served and are currently serving.  Your sacrifices do not go unnoticed and are greatly appreciated by the vast majority of the American Public.

Since Veteran’s Day also leads us into the Holiday season, I thought it might be appropriate to re-post a poem I first read many years ago.  I have always loved this poem since it not only expresses the sentiments of most civilians but also explains how we verterans really feel about serving.  After nearly 20 years of service, I am eternally greatful to thos who have allowed me to serve this country and have made it all worthwhile.  And now for the poem. If you haven’t seen this before, you may want to have a tissue handy.  To the best of my knowledge, the original author is unknown but is reportedly a marine who was stationed in Okinawa at the time and only requests that the poem be sent to as many people as possible.

Happy Veteran’s Day!

TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS,
HE LIVED ALL ALONE,
IN A ONE BEDROOM HOUSE MADE OF
PLASTER AND STONE.

I HAD COME DOWN THE CHIMNEY
WITH PRESENTS TO GIVE,
AND TO SEE JUST WHO
IN THIS HOME DID LIVE.

I LOOKED ALL ABOUT,
A STRANGE SIGHT I DID SEE,
NO TINSEL, NO PRESENTS,
NOT EVEN A TREE.

NO STOCKING BY MANTLE,
JUST BOOTS FILLED WITH SAND,
ON THE WALL HUNG PICTURES
OF FAR DISTANT LANDS.

WITH MEDALS AND BADGES,
AWARDS OF ALL KINDS,
A SOBER THOUGHT
CAME THROUGH MY MIND.

FOR THIS HOUSE WAS DIFFERENT,
IT WAS DARK AND DREARY,
I FOUND THE HOME OF A SOLDIER,
ONCE I COULD SEE CLEARLY.

THE SOLDIER LAY SLEEPING,
SILENT, ALONE,
CURLED UP ON THE FLOOR
IN THIS ONE BEDROOM HOME.

THE FACE WAS SO GENTLE,
THE ROOM IN SUCH DISORDER,
NOT HOW I PICTURED
A UNITED STATES SOLDIER.

WAS THIS THE HERO
OF WHOM I’D JUST READ?
CURLED UP ON A PONCHO,
THE FLOOR FOR A BED?

I REALIZED THE FAMILIES
THAT I SAW THIS NIGHT,
OWED THEIR LIVES TO THESE SOLDIERS
WHO WERE WILLING TO FIGHT.

SOON ROUND THE WORLD,
THE CHILDREN WOULD PLAY,
AND GROWNUPS WOULD CELEBRATE
A BRIGHT CHRISTMAS DAY.

THEY ALL ENJOYED FREEDOM
EACH MONTH OF THE YEAR,
BECAUSE OF THE SOLDIERS,
LIKE THE ONE LYING HERE.

I COULDN’T HELP WONDER
HOW MANY LAY ALONE,
ON A COLD CHRISTMAS EVE
IN A LAND FAR FROM HOME.

THE VERY THOUGHT
BROUGHT A TEAR TO MY EYE,
I DROPPED TO MY KNEES
AND STARTED TO CRY.

THE SOLDIER AWAKENED
AND I HEARD A ROUGH VOICE,
“SANTA DON’T CRY,
THIS LIFE IS MY CHOICE;

I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM,
I DON’T ASK FOR MORE,
MY LIFE IS MY GOD,
MY COUNTRY, MY CORPS.”

THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER
AND DRIFTED TO SLEEP,
I COULDN’T CONTROL IT,
I CONTINUED TO WEEP.

I KEPT WATCH FOR HOURS,
SO SILENT AND STILL
AND WE BOTH SHIVERED
FROM THE COLD NIGHT’S CHILL.

I DIDN’T WANT TO LEAVE
ON THAT COLD, DARK, NIGHT,
THIS GUARDIAN OF HONOR
SO WILLING TO FIGHT.

THEN THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER,
WITH A VOICE SOFT AND PURE,
WHISPERED, “CARRY ON SANTA,
IT’S CHRISTMAS DAY, ALL IS SECURE.

ONE LOOK AT MY WATCH,
AND I KNEW HE WAS RIGHT.
“MERRY CHRISTMAS MY FRIEND,
AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT.

Filed in From the Center of Things, Rich | | Comments (0)

My Adventures in Hypermiling

Monday, November 9, 2009

Over the past several years, I have become very intrigued with a gas saving technique known as Hypermiling.  Many of you have no doubt heard of this radical driving method that promises great increases in the fuel economy of your vehicle and requires no gimicky add ons, only a change in driving habits.  So, after reading numerous articles and websites devoted to this miraculous sounding concept I decided to give it a try in my own little car.

I currently drive a 2001 Toyota Mr2 Spyder.  This car already gets pretty decent gas mileage, but every little bit counts right?  So, on my last tank of gas, I followed all the tips and tricks that I could reasonably follow from this website  http://www.hypermiling.com.  Several of the suggestions really didn’t seem too necessary to me so I chose not to use them.  I really didn’t think I needed a chilled vest since I rarely use the AC anyway, and my tire pressure is usually dead on.

For those of you who have never heard of hypermiling and were to lazy to read the website, here is a short summary of what this change of driving habits entails.  Basically you drive more sensibly and with a constant mind set of increasing your mileage.  I figured I would see great gains in mileage as I normally drive like wild raccoon on crack, so this part was easy.  The hard part is when you get into the more “advanced” techniques such as coasting up to red lights in hope that they will change before you have to make a full stop, taking exit ramps while slowing down as little as possible, driving at or just below the speed limit, and generally pissing off everyone around you.  This has proven to be most difficult here in Southern California, garnering me far more attention on the freeway than I ever wanted.

So, after a full tank of dodging red lights, avoiding road rage on the freeway, and basically driving like grandma after a trip to the dentist, the little light came on and I went and filled it back up.  I pretty much knew the results based on how many miles I got out of the tank, but I wanted to do the calculation anyway to get the most accurate numbers.  And the net gain for all my hard work and painful foot restraint?  Three lousy freakin miles per gallon!!

I don’t who these freaks are that talk about getting 150 miles per gallon, but they must live at the top of a hill and push the car home at the end of the day.  Granted, the guys getting 150 mpg are driving hybrids, but there are guys driving regular little 4 cylinders like mine claiming to get 60 mpg.   They should be thrown into a fiery pit of burning oil, liars!  They can have their damn hypermiling, I don’t think the lousy three mpg is worth the bullets I will have to dodge on the freeway if I keep driving like this.  In fact, I think I need to put a bigger engine in my car so I can use even more gas!

So keep the pedal to the metal and don’t let granny pass you!

Filed in Humor, Rich | | Comments (0)

Ft Hood Massacre – Religous Fanatic or Disgruntled Soldier?

Saturday, November 7, 2009

I think its pretty clear by now that the recent shooting at Ft Hood was not the work of a disgruntled soldier but in fact a terrorist act by a religous Muslim fanatic.  And therin lies the rub.  Do we call this what it really is?  Or, in the interests of not fanning the dying flames of anti-muslim sentiments in this country do we gloss over Nidal Hassan’s radical islamic beliefs and simply call this pre-post traumatic stress disorder?  Believe it or not, this is a difficult question even for me.  Over at my favorite liberal blog, writers are already decrying the inevitable anti-islam backlash – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/good-reason-for-muslims-t_b_349492.html  or using this as yet another excuse to enact more gun control – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/fort-hood-shooting-1-dist_b_348895.htmlwhile other more conservative bloggers (like me) are calling this for what it really is -http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/07/report-hasan-attended-same-radical-mosque-as-911-hijackers/

While I do not feel that the enemy is “infiltrating” our military, the possibility is there.  The fact that this man was able to rise to the rank of Major shows that we are perhaps not doing as much screening as we should and in the right places.  Those of us who have held a security clearance know that the screening process for thes clearances is fairly thorough, but not until you get up to the higher clearance levels.  There is no indication that Nidal Hassan ever had any type of clearance and as a psychiatrist I would not necessarily expect him to.  So what processes are in place to ensure that a muslim-american with these types of religous beliefs does not slip through the cracks again?  And should our men and women in uniform trust those muslim-americans they currently serve with?

This could have been much worse.  Had Nidal Hassan been something other than a psyciatrist, he could have caused far more damage than he did.  Of course, he would have gone through more screening to get access to that kind of firepower so maybe the system would have prevented him.  We will never know.  But can we even screem out people based on religous beliefs?  I believe under current law, we cannot.  I think we need to take a harder look at just how much “political correctness” is going to end up costing us in the future.

Rich

Filed in From the Center of Things, Rich, Uncategorized | | Comments (9)

Death and taxes -Mostly taxes.

Monday, November 2, 2009

With all of the screaming about the massive “unsustainable” spending in Washington (which I disagree with) and the paranoia from the right about their taxes going up, I thought I’d post a couple of thoughts on taxes.

I sure wish everyone paid theirs.  Unfortunately many people don’t.  I also have problems with people bitching about certain tax rates going up, the whole, “if you make more than $100,000 ($150,000, $200,000, $250,000 -whatever)” thing.  However there are many currently legal loopholes that more financially sound (I refuse to say “rich” -I’m not a key word man) people repeatedly use to lower the taxes that they pay.  Here’s my reforms:

1.  Only one domicile per person may be used at one time as a tax deduction in federal or state income tax calculations.  No more buying 2, 3, 4 homes to hide your money in.  If you make that much, you should pay your fair share.

2.  Only one retirement (or maybe two other long-term savings) account(s) per person may be used at one time to be used as a federal or state income tax deductions.

3.  No more tax exemptions for religious institutions.  Now, before the hate mail arrives, I only mean the exemptions above and beyond those given to normal charities.  The property taxes, charitable donations not directly used for charitable activities that benefit the people as a whole, not just the faithful.  The initial basis of forming tax exemptions (which are not one thing, but a combination of local, state and federal court rulings) was to encourage private citizens to “take care” of problems that the government would rather not, but it has to benefit everyone.  It cannot target a single group.  This concept has been grossly blown out of proportion and I am tired of people getting rich off of people’s faith (extreme but realistic example:  Scientology).  If we remove the tax exempt status, we are still not supporting a single religion, nor preventing anyone from their free exercise.

It’s unfortunate that we can’t change the past (spending), but this would sure help towards the future, maybe we could afford to dramatically lower the corporate tax’s and spur real economic growth in this country…

Thoughts?

-Matt

Filed in Thoughts from the Left side of the Aisle | | Comments (4)
SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline