In a capitalistic country such as ours, we should know how to turn our strengths into a profit. Although as a country we have lost our #1 ranking in many areas, one area in which we are the unchallenged leader is in our military and the technology behind it. Why can’t we charge all parties who benefit from our military?
For example, our military is still in Afghanistan. If the Afghans want us there, they should pay us. Or if other countries want us there, they should all contribute.
The rule should be:
1. If we engage our military strictly for our own benefit, we pay the bill in full.
2. If other countries support our military action that is in our joint interest, all interested parties should contribute monetarily, but the other parties should pay a premium because it is our soldiers and our technology.
3. If a country wants our military support for a cause that we agree with but do not have a vested interest in, the other country should pay the entire cost – plus profit.
Beyond that, this should all be out in the open. We have countries who secretly ask us to help militarily but publicly they bad-mouth us and act as if we are the enemy so they can maintain power through fear-mongering. It’s time for countries to admit that we’re the good guys.
We have other countries like China who sit back and watch, choosing to spend their capital in technology and infrastructure. At the same time, we are strapped for cash and we are policing the world at our own expense. If we can’t find a way to reduce our military spending, we should obtain funding from the parties that benefit. And the price should be very high.

With the nuclear catastrophe in Japan still fresh and ongoing, the anti-nuke voices are getting louder and increasing in number. I don’t mean to minimize the problems that Japan is facing. But I do want to put the dangers of energy in perspective.

Although I don’t have all the answers, I do have a number of questions that serve as food for thought.

How many people have gotten sick, been injured, or died as a result of:
a. Collection and mining of fossil fuels
b. Energy production with fossil fuels
c. Pollution generated by fossil fuels
d. Climate change and the extreme weather that results from it
e. Oil-related wars

How different would the world be if the Arab countries in the middle east didn’t enjoy so much power as a result of their oil supply? How much better off would our own economy be if we hadn’t gotten into wars in that region? How many lives would have been spared?

How much better off would the Arab people themselves be if their leaders weren’t so complacent because of oil riches and power, and instead worked to educate their people and modernize their countries?

How much better off would we be today if we hadn’t had a knee-jerk reaction to Three Mile Island? How much less oil-addicted would we be? Would we have gone to war in the middle east? Would we have had to suck up to leaders in the middle east who, but for oil, are truly not our friends? Had we not had such ties in the middle east, would 9-11 have happened? Would al Qaeda be a household word and would there be a need for a war on terrorism?

And how badly off will the world be when the oil runs out if we don’t find alternatives?

Nuclear energy comes with risk. But so does other forms of energy. Maybe nuclear is just a stop-gap measure until renewable, environmentally friendly energy sources can completely take over. But to shy away from nuclear energy in Three Mile Island style is just not a well thought out plan.

Those who support the continuation of the Bush tax break for the wealthy have something that they don’t want us to know or think about. They would have us believe that the tax on the wealthy is unfair. They would even have us feel bad for the wealthy. What these people are conveniently glossing over is the fact that the tax rates are marginal. What does that mean? Read on.

We often think about a tax bracket as a range of taxable income and its associated tax rate. The example we’ll use in this article is for married individuals filing joint returns. But the concept applies regardless of filing status. Only the brackets change.

Married individuals filing joint returns whose income is between $67,900 and $137,050 are in the “25% tax bracket”. It is easy to think that this means that a couple making $100,000 per year would have to pay $25,000 in taxes. But that isn’t how it works. That couple pays 25% only on the taxable income in excess of the $67,900. The first $67,900 of income is taxed at the lower marginal tax rates. Without going into the details, that couple pays $13,375 in taxes.

The marginal tax system makes taxes fair for all. Every taxpayer (married filing joint returns) pays 10% tax on the first $16,700 of income. And every taxpayer pays 15% of each dollar of income in excess $16,700 up to a total income of $67,900. And every taxpayer pays 25% of each dollar of income in excess of $67,900 up to a total income of $137,050. And so it goes through the 28%, 33%, and 35% tax brackets.

If this were not the case, there would be a huge jump in tax when income increases from bottom of one tax bracket to the bottom of the next higher tax bracket. You would be better off earning $67,000 than $68,000 because your taxes would increase by far more than the $1000 difference. And that type of tax system could never fly.

So what about the wealthy? Well, the same applies to them. The top tax bracket, the 35% bracket, covers those whose taxable income exceeds $372,950. These wealthy people still pay 10% on their first $16,700 of income, 15% of their income above $16,700 up to $67,900, and so on. They are only taxed at the 35% tax rate on income in excess of $372,950. Are we, the less than wealthy, supposed to feel sorry for them? We wish we were in a position where we earned that much and could complain about the tax rate.

And to those who complain that restoration of the taxes will hurt small businesses, those business owners who are making such nice profits can cut their tax rates by hiring additional employees, by paying existing employees better wages, by providing better benefits, or by donating to charity. Or they can pocket their profits and shut up.