Where I stand - on consumer generated power

We recently had solar panels installed on our home and are loving it.  Expensive upfront, but I believe it will be worth it in the long run.  However, we are still connected to the utility company's grid for one primary reason:  Though the panels generate enough power to fit all our needs when they are producing fully, they will not always produce fully (cloudy and rainy days, nighttime, etc).  Of course during some of those times, they won't produce at all.

If we had enough batteries to store all of the excess, we could drop off the grid.  However, such a battery bank would be prohibitively expensive and would have to be replaced roughly every seven years.

I have two words for those who think that no tax or fee should be allowed to be levied on those using solar power or other means of generating their own electricity; the grid.

Consider what it would be like if milk were treated the same way.
You have a delivery service bring you milk every week.  The cost for that milk is four dollars per gallon, which pays not only for the milk itself, but also for bottling and transportation to your home.
But some people have their own cows and produce their own milk.  Some even produce more milk than they need.
Big government steps in and requires that the milk delivery service purchase anyone's excess milk for the same four dollars per gallon.  But, they have to come get the milk from you.  Such an arrangement would hardly be fair for the milk delivery service.

The power grid is expensive, it requires periodic repairs, new equipment, expansion to new areas, etc.  Consumers using electricity provided by the power company pays for that grid in the cost of the electricity that they use.

Solar customers continue to use the grid and when pulling from it, pay for it the same way that standard customers do.  However, when generating more power than they use, solar customers use the grid to send power back.  But currently, the utility company is required to credit those customers at the same rate they charge when providing that same amount of electricity. Effectively, this means the utility company is paying the solar customer to use their grid rather than charging them for the use of their grid.

I am a proponent of competition.  I believe competition benefits the consumer and should never be discouraged by government.  But it has to be fair.  The government should not be allowed to pick winners and losers; but that is what is happening with the current arrangement.  Failing to take into account the cost of the grid needs to be addressed in order for solar customers to compete fairly with the electric company.

Where I stand – on trans fats

Trans fats are unhealthy.  Everybody that has done any research knows this.  They raise LDL cholesterol and lower HDL cholesterol.  Both of those are bad things. 
I stay away from trans fats, which means not buying products that contain them and checking nutrition information for restaurants that I visit, not ordering things that contain trans fats and not eating there at all if everything contains trans fats. 
In my opinion, nobody should be consuming things that contain trans fats.  But should the FDA ban their use outright?  No; this is a classic case of the government overstepping their bounds. 
Educate people and they will stay away from trans fats as I do and the market will voluntarily stop using trans fats as a result.  This is the correct way to solve problems, education, not regulation or legislation.  Government should do less thinking for us and we should do more thinking for ourselves.

Where I stand – on immigration reform

Currently, it is easier to come to this country illegally than legally.  Both of those need to change.  It should be easier for immigrants to come to this country than it is currently, less red tape, less paperwork.  Those that wish to move here to live the rest of their lives or that just want to come here to work and earn money and return to their homelands should be able to do so.  On the flip side, those coming here illegal should face a more difficult task to get into the country and not have their illegal activities encouraged by giving them any sort of welfare or amnesty.

I am not in favor of granting amnesty to those already here illegally.  But I would support granting them the opportunity to follow the proper legal process to start on a path to citizenship, green cards or work visa’s, whatever would be applicable to their situation.  Trying to deport them all would not be very realistic, so some other way of dealing with the current number of illegal immigrants is required.

Where I stand - On the ACA

Few pieces of legislation have been as controversial and polarizing as the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Its critics are quick to state that it is a job killer, will increase the cost of health care, raise premiums and deductibles, as well as flood medical staff and facilities with volumes of people they are not equipped to handle.  For the sake of argument, let’s say that none of those things are true.  Let’s say that the ACA is, at worst, neutral in all of those regards and we would be no worse off in any of those areas than we were before it.

That still leaves one piece, the individual mandate.  This provision requires all Americans to purchase health insurance.

I have been working full time since I was 18 years old. During that time, I have always had money deducted from my paycheck to be sent to the government.  Since I have virtually no say over how much is taken or how that money gets spent, I have never been happy with that fact.  But I have learned to accept it.  It is the price I must pay to live in this country.  For longer than I have been alive, the government has been taking money from hard working Americans before they themselves get their hands on it.  That precedent is now set and widely accepted as part of life in this country.  The government also decides how that money will be spent.  So we can say that precedent has been set for the government deciding how a portion of our gross income gets spent.

With the individual mandate, the government is, for the first time in history, telling Americans how they must spend a portion of their net income.  I cannot opt out, nor can any other American (other than members of congress that passed the bill).

This new precedent has broad and alarming implications.  It means that the government is stating that they know, better than me, what is best for me.  They will decide not only that I must have health care coverage, but also what level of coverage I should have.  And since they are now telling me how to spend net income, what will they decide next to be in my best interest?  How else will they require that I spend my hard earned money?

Life insurance is a good idea; perhaps that will be next.  Every American should have at least one hundred thousand dollars of life insurance.

What about education?  I am a strong supporter of education and believe that getting a good education is the single best thing that anyone can do to ensure a bright future for themselves.  With very few exceptions, those with a college degree make significantly more over the course of their lives than their non-degreed counterparts.  All Americans should get at least an associate’s degree.

What is that you say?  Education is expensive and many people will not be able to afford it?  Not to worry, the government can simply Robin Hood the affluent to pay for the education of others.

When the income tax was first introduced, Taft and his supports claimed that it would never exceed 3% of gross income and would only apply to the top 3% of wage earners.  Based on that lie, the 16^th amendment was passed, with the vast majority of those voting in favor of it believing it would never impact them or any of their descendants.  That worked out well.

Government overreach is dangerous and the ACA is the largest overreach in my lifetime (so far at least) and a direct attack on personal liberty.  I oppose it at all costs and were I in office, I would never stop fighting it until repealed.

Where I Stand - on Zimmerman

Is he guilty of murder?  I don't know.  But what I do know is that he, along with every other American, is innocent until proven guilty and has the right to a trial by jury, not by media (social or otherwise).
If any laws need changing, legal process (not Stevie Wonder) must be used to change those laws.  The rule of law should never be circumvented by opinion, not even if it is popular opinion.

Where I stand - on the freedom of speech

First, I support free speech.  Infringing on it is a bad idea and is a step down a very slippery slope toward tyranny.
However, one's individual liberties end when they would harm another person.  Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater might very well result in someone getting hurt, so if someone does such a thing they should be held accountable for the harm their actions caused and not protected due to "free speech".

Similarly, the press need to be held accountable for what they publish, especially if it causes harm to another person.
The two men suing the New York Post over posting their pictures with the headline stating the Feds were looking for them regarding the bombing have every right to that lawsuit and I hope they win.  I can't speculate as to the amount of money to which they might be entitled, but I certainly hope the price the New York Post has to pay for their actions is high enough to make them think twice about jumping the gun like that in the future.

While I consider it my right to post my own views on this blog, if the words I post cause harm to another person, I should be held accountable for that.  Note however, that offense is not the same thing is harm.  It is one thing to say something derogatory about a certain sports team, thus offending fans of that team, it is another to make false claims that slander the character of another.

So, free speech, yes.  But not without accountability.

Where I stand - on tax fairness and equality

I try to be fair in my dealings with others and at least in theory fairness should not be subject to interpretation.  However, throughout my life I have learned that is not always the case; and though we may ask for fairness and/or equality, what we actually want is accommodation.

Let's look at taxes, the federal budget and the deficit.
The latest budget submitted by Obama to congress shows a requested expenditure of 3.8 trillion dollars (that is $3,800,000,000,000).  Per the latest information I was able to find, there are 225.7 million Americans 18 years of age or older (225,700,000).
That means that if every American age 18 or older paid $16,836.51 that budget could be balanced.  (currently it is estimated that there will be over a trillion dollar deficit)
So to be "fair", all Americans would pay the same amount of taxes and if we made the bogey $16,836.51, the budget could be balanced.

But here is where it gets tricky.  Some Americans will not make that much money next year.  Others may make more, but have living expenses that will consume most of what they make or at least enough that they could not afford to pay that much in taxes.
So is "fairness" or "equality" what we want here?  I don't think either the far left or the far right (nor anyone in the middle) is asking for that (at least not that I have heard).
Instead, I hear some people saying that anyone that makes more money then them should have their tax rates increased and I hear others saying that those who are paying less taxes than they are should have their taxes increased.  Both say doing so would make things more "fair".  Both cannot be right.

It could be perceived that to be "fair" everyone would pay the same percentage of their income in the form of a tax, regardless of how much they earned or how they earned it.  But that would mean that people who didn't earn any money wouldn't pay any taxes and that would not be "fair".  So it stands to reason that it would not be possible to create a tax system that would be completely "fair".

Where then do we draw the line?  Anyone making more money than me should pay whatever taxes it would require to balance the budget and anyone making as much or less than me should have their taxes frozen or reduced?  Clearly, that would not be fair.