So, how to deal with in regards to immigration?

As we all know, immigration is one of the most controversial and divisive topics that out nation is facing right now, as well as being one of the hardest to solve- and inaction on this topic isn't helping. Some states, such as Alabama and Arizona, have tried to regulate this problem- by trying make immigration law themselves, yet these laws push the limits of civil rights. So in response, here is my basic framework in regards to immigration reform. 


My Plan for Immigration Reform


For People Who Committed Major (Felony) Crimes- (Rape, Assault, Homicide, Robbery, etc.)

• They must be deported, no questions asked. These people damage the reputation of immigrants everywhere, and letting them stay here won't help the problem. These are the type of people, along with gang members, that DHS should be concentrating on. Of course, they will be a given a hearing with their entitled rights, but if they are found guilty, the only punishment would be deportation.   

For People Who Are In Good Social Standing

• Must be living 7-10 Years in the United States or more.
• Preference given if they have a family and/or kids who are under the Age of 18.  
• They must be paying their taxes, or be on their way to paying off their debt to Uncle Sam.
• Must undergo a background check.
• Pass an English literacy and English fluency test, and pass a basic citizenship test (basic US history).

A large, lump sum "penalty" could be paid by people who did NOT have the proper visas for all 8 years, equivalent to 8 years visa fees + interest. People partially through the 8 years could pay the penalty for the number of years they were here illegally to be restored to "good standing" and then apply for visas for the remaining number of years.

This makes the government money, and allows a difficult, but possible, path to citizenship for illegals who have been living here and on otherwise good behavior under the old and flawed system, and it is NOT a handout. This is different from the dud of 1986, which basically gave anyone amnesty. This also makes new, desperately needed source of revenue for the government.  

• In the case of military service, 5 years of service with an honorary discharge from any branch of Armed Forces would be satisfactory to establish citizenship. The fees for visas and possibly taxes would be waived.
• Children or people who came as very young children and managed to get at least an Associates or a Master Degree, or have contributed Military Service to this country would also be allowed to apply for citizenship. The fees for visas and possibly taxes would be waived on a case by case basis, however.   

This would be the basic requirements for the majority of immigrants here in the United States. 

For People Who Committed Minor Crimes. 

• MUST have not committed any crime for 5 Years 
• Paid their taxes.
• Must know English.
• Must pass an English literacy and English fluency test, and pass a basic citizenship test (basic US history).
• A large, lump sum "penalty" could be paid by people who did NOT have the proper visas for all 8 years, equivalent to 8 years visa fees + interest. People partially through the 8 years could pay the penalty for the number of years they were here illegally to be restored to "good standing" and then apply for visas for the remaining number of years.

Another aspect of this plan would also include on going after employers who use immigrant labor, mainly because they know that immigrants would work for whatever wages, as long as it is work. Usually, immigrants are exploited, because they know that immigrants usually fear reporting such abuses to the proper authorities because of their status.  I would not mandate the the use of E-Verify, since it is still a work in progress, but employers would be subject to audits from time to time. This, in all, is my plan for immigration reform. Now, lets talk about those laws, shall we?

The proponents of the majority of these new laws in Alabama, Arizona, and other states say that because illegal immigrants, are well, illegally here, they are not entitled to any of the rights that U.S. Citizens are entitled to. The great majority also argue for the repeal of the 14th Amendment. Well, looks like some people either aren't brushed up on their political history, don't care about Constitutional Law, or weren't paying attention when taking Political Science. Why do we call it a democracy if we give, as Locke put it, the natural rights of all people of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to select people  and deny it to others? These are all rights, that according to Locke, all people are born with. If we deny it here to a select group, why even call it a democracy? A democracy is not a democracy when we deny it to a group of people. Some people argue that... 

"Illegal immigrants do not contribute to the U.S. as much as citizens do (except physical labor), and therefore cannot experience the same things we do." 

To this, I say BS. So just because in your mind, because they don't "contribute to the U.S. as citizens do," they don't have the right to experience the freedom and protection of the law we all enjoy? That they don't enjoy the natural rights that all people are born with? If we deny them the protection of the law, can we truly say that we are one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all? Explain why they are willing to work picking crops while being paid some low-a** wages and in some really terrible conditions. Those who claim that immigrants don't contribute much to the U.S. and that their rights should be infringed might as well cite Chief Justice's Roger Taney's opinion in Dred Scott, because it seems to emphasize their position.  Now, one of their favorite responses to this seems to be that since 

"Illegals are not citizens, therefore they have not consented to the American government that provides these rights to those who, as citizens, have consented to the American form of government. Therefore the American government does not exist to guarantee illegal immigrants these rights, only people who ARE citizens, or who are here legally in accordance with the very rules of the government that would provide them with those rights in the first place."

Well, since, that would be a violation of human rights. Since they aren't U.S. Citizens, they aren't entitled to their rights, eh?  So, let's say an immigrant has been accused of a crime- would he be given a fair and speedy trial, or would he be immediately assumed guilty, since as a non-citizen, he has no right to a fari trial and be sent to prison with due process of the law? That would be a violation of what America stands for- liberty and justice for all. Or if somebody committed a crime against an immigrant- would that person be prosecuted under the law, would he be let free without any sort of trial, simply because the victim is an illegal immigrant, and as such, has nor right to bring up a claim because he is not a citizen, and thus, not entitled to his rights? Now, the 14th Amendment. Many people are arguing for the repeal of that amendment, because it promotes immigration by allowing for so-called 'anchor babies," and since anyone born here is entitled to U.S. Citizenship, they are also entitled to the benefits that come to it.  Well, first of all, the benefits are only for the child, not for the parent, and second of all, Why? You would be depriving a chance for the child to become a potential asset to this country, to allow that child to aspire for his dreams in the greatest country in the world. Look, I'm the son of illegal immigrants. I work hard in school (my grades show it), I read The New York Times, I'm deeply interested in law, politics, and history- and I was born here, thus I am a U.S. Citizen. What about the other kids who are just like me, or are similar to me, but yet wouldn't be citizens if the 14th Amendment is repealed? What would happen to them? Should they let their dreams die away? What about me? Would I get my citizenship taken away because I just happened to be the son of illegal immigrants? I already mentioned in an earlier blog post about the rights of immigrants under the 14th Amendment. Let's see, has the U.S. Supreme Cout affirmed other rights for immigrants? I'm hearing they have. Let' see..

• United States v. Wong Kim Ark
• Truax v. Raich
• Yick Wo v. Hopkins
• Oyama v. California
• Takahashi v. Fish & Game Commission
• Graham v. Richardson

Wow. All those cases that affirmed the rights of immigrants, and are still in force today. Man, leaves you something to think, eh? Yet, we must continue to fight these laws, and challenge these laws forcefully in court as the deprivation of liberties, using these cases as ammo. We can only hope. 

How to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, from my point of view. (Part 4)

As you many know, we are locked in a fierce budget between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats went to raise taxes on top earners and mildly cut spending, while Republicans want to cut, no butcher spending and maintain and even reduce taxes on the top earners, claiming that if we raise taxes on the top earners, the economy will slow down because those are the people that produce jobs in this county. Thus, if any new regulation or taxes that is introduced, a minute will not pass before they label it as "job-killing."

To both parties, you are both wrong.

To balance the budget, you must raise taxes and cut spending at the same time. It's just common sense. Sure, it'll  involve make some tough choices, but when you have a growing deficit and debt, those choices are really necessary. Those who do make those tough choices and follow through with it display leadership, something we haven't seen from both Democrats and Republicans alike in a long time.

Taxes

Here comes the part in which almost everyone drags their feet, comes up with plans that really don't sound good (I'm looking at you, Paul Ryan) and where the most bitter and nasty political fights arise and occur. Ah taxes. We can always count on you for good old political rhetoric, political nonsense. But enough with the nostalgia. Let's get down to business. You may or may not note how aggressive I might be in this section, for better or for worse, it all depends on your opinion. Let us start with those estate taxes. I have three choices on the menu, and here they are (these come directly from the New York Times's Budget Puzzle)-

1. The Lincoln-Kyl Proposal- As we all know, there was no estate tax in 2010. This proposal by Senators Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, and Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat, is the most moderate of the estate-tax options here. It would exempt the first $5 million from any taxable estate and index this level to inflation over time. Any estate value above $5 million would be taxed at a 35 percent rate. 
2. The Obama Proposal- President Obama's proposal is more agressive than Kyl-Lincoln, but would still cut the estate tax when compared to the Clinton years. The Obama plan would exempt the first $3.5 million from any taxable estate. Any estate above $3.5 million would be taxed at a 45 percent rate. These are the same provisions that applied in 2009, as part of the 2001 Bush tax cut. 
3. Return to Clinton-Era Levels- Under President Bill Clinton, the estate tax exempted $1 million from any taxable estate. This level would not grow with inflation over time, subjecting more estates to the tax. The rate would start at 18 percent and climb to 55 percent, as it did in the 1990s. The 55 percent rate would begin at $3 million. 

The first one (Lincoln-Kyl) is not aggressive enough, so that's other of the shuffle. President's Obama's proposal is aggressive, but not aggressive enough. So, the rates would return to Clinton-Era levels. Next up- investment taxes. We have two choices, and here they are-

1. The Obama Proposal- Capital gains and dividends are now untaxed for couples with incomes below $68,000. For everyone else, the tax rate is 15 percent. This option, proposed by President Obama, would raise the rate to 20 percent for households making roughly $250,000 a year and above.
2. Return to Clinton-Era Levels- This option would return rates to their level under President Bill Clinton: 10 percent on capital gains for low-income households and 20 percent for everyone else, while dividends would again be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. 

Again, I would choose a return to the Clinton Era Levels (Wow. I seem to be going all 90's.) I like I said in earlier posts, we need to make need to make some tough choices if we want to close the deficit and put this country on the long road to eliminating the debt. Next up on my plate- The Bush Era Tax Cuts. Here is where things get even more tougher. We have the two options, which are among the subjects of the most heated debates that takes place in Capital Hill. These are- 

1. Allow expiration for income above $250,000 a year- This option would allow the expiration, on the next time this comes up for renewal, of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent or so of households on the income distribution – those making $250,000 or more. On average, the change would equal about 2 percent of a given household’s pretax income.
2. Allow expiration for income below $250,000 a year- This option would allow the expiration, on the next time this comes up for renewal, of the Bush tax cuts for the bottom 98 percent or so of households on the income distribution – those making $250,000 or less. On average, the change would equal about 2 percent of a given household’s pretax income. 

This was not that easy of a choice as I expected. I forced to think about it for a long time, to weigh it out. If I allowed the expiration for incomes above $250,000, I would have $54 Billion to add on for 2015, and $115 Billion for 2030. If I allowed expiration for incomes below $250,000, I would get $172 Billion for 2015, and $252 Billion for 2030. I'll take number one. Next up, I would subject some incomes above $106,000 to tax, because when the payroll tax – which finances Social Security and Medicare – was created, it covered 90 percent of all income. Today, with a ceiling at $106,800, it covers closer to 80 percent. This option would gradually raise the ceiling, until 90 percent of income was again subject to the tax. Next, I have again two choices for tax reform, and here they are- 

1. The Bowles-Simpson plan- This would reduce tax breaks for companies and individuals, while lowering tax rates. On the whole, this plan would raise revenue. It would cut all tax breaks other than the child and earned-income tax credits and those for mortgages, health and retirement benefits. The corporate tax would then be cut to 28 percent, from 35 percent, while individual tax rates would be cut for all brackets too.
2. Eliminate loopholes, but keep taxes slightly higher-  This option is the same as the previous one – except that tax rates would be cut less, raising more revenue to reduce the deficit.

Again, I'll go with the more aggressive and pick number two. Raises more cash to fight the deficit, and I don't want to see another headline that states that GE paid no taxes to the United States. I would also reduce mortgage deduction and others for high income, because the benefits of mortgage-intrest deduction flow mostly to those who make big mortgages, aka those of high income households. However, I have some limits. I will not impose a National Sales Tax, or a Carbon Tax, or a Bank Tax either. I know when enough is enough. 

So far, together with the two previous posts in this series, $564 Billion of the 2015 projected shortfall of $418 Billion has been accounted for, and $2,027 Billion of the 2030 projected shortfall of $1,345 Billon has also been accounted for. Thus, it leaves me with a suplus of $146 Billion for 2015, and a $682 Billion suplus for 2030, all which will go to reduce the deficit. Here is a breakdown-

• Domestic Programs and Foreign Aid- $59 Billion out of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $62 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.
• Military- $61 Billion out of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $107 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.
• Health Care- $78 Billion of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $823 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.
• Social Security- $19 Billion of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $301 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.             
• Taxes- $347 Billion of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $734 Billion of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off. 

For those who want see how I did it, and with the complete numbers, check it out here.

Next Up- Reflections. 

Cutting & Taxing-This is the fourth in a series of articles that will examine how to balance the Federal Budget and in the long run, reduce the long term deficit. 

Homosexuals must be equals too.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was passed in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton as Republicans in the house held a gun to his head while preparing reforms in welfare and the eventual shutdown of the federal government. It defined marriage as recognized by the federal government between one man and one women (Wow. I thought the goal of Republicans was to lower the scope of the federal government, not expand it.), and that no state was required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in other state. This only strengthened the resolve of Bowers v. Hardwick, which effectively killed any chance of the Supreme Court giving rights to the LGBT Community in the 1990's (Note- the Court reversed itself in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas). In the majority opinion given Justice White, he attempted to justify the denial of rights to homosexuals by saying that  

It is obvious to us that neither of these formulations would extend a fundamental right to homosexuals...proscriptions against that...have ancient roots....

In Blackmun's dissenting opinion, which was joined by Marshall, Brennan, and Stevens, he scolded the other justices for relying on tradition to deny homosexual their rights. He stated that 

...before Georgia can prosecute its citizens for making choices about the most intimate aspects of their lives, it must do more than assert that the choice they have made is an "abominable crime not fit to be named among Christians"...And so we protect the decision whether to marry precisely because marriage "is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects...The Court claims that its decision today merely refuses to recognize a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy; what the Court really has refused to recognize is the fundamental interest all individuals have in controlling the nature of their intimate associations with others...The assertion that "traditional Judeo-Christian values proscribe" the conduct involved, Brief for Petitioner 20, cannot provide an adequate justification for § 16-6-2. That certain, but by no means all, religious groups condemn the behavior at issue gives the State no license to impose their judgments on the entire citizenry. The legitimacy of secular legislation depends instead on whether the State can advance some justification for its law beyond its conformity to religious doctrine... petitioner's invocation of Leviticus, Romans, St. Thomas Aquinas, and sodomy's heretical status during the Middle Ages undermines his suggestion that § 16-6-2 represents a legitimate use of secular coercive power. A State can no more punish private behavior because of religious intolerance than it can punish such behavior because of racial animus. "The Constitution cannot control such prejudices, but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect." No matter how uncomfortable a certain group may make the majority of this Court, we have held that "[m]ere public intolerance or animosity cannot constitutionally justify the deprivation of a person's physical liberty." 

I could go on and on from Blackmun's dissent, but this section from his dissent demonstrates that anyone who argues that Homosexuality isn't allowed because of religion, or because it has never been allowed, this smashes those arguments. Also, if anybody brings up the claim of religion, or that homosexuals are representatives from the devil, I quote Pope John Paul II, who stated that homosexuals possess the same inherent dignity and rights as everybody else. Some may ask why I use a dissent, since that is not a majority opinion, so it carries less weight. A dissent is used to bring up debate by offering a differing view on the subject, and to hope that it inspires other courts later in the future to "correct the mistakes and nearsightedness of prior courts." 


Now, I use my own words. Why do we deny the right to people love the person they choose? Why do we deny people to live life the way they want to, to love whom they want, be it a man or a women? If they love each other, be both men or women, gay or lesbian, transgender or bisexual, let them love each other. That, besides taking one's life, is one of the worst decisions or crime we can do- denying the people the right to love the person and live with the person they want to. Homosexuals are people. They are or neighbors, friends, family, classmates, workmates, everything. We must treat them every person person, as Pope John Paul II stated with dignity and respect, as every other person expects and should be treated, regardless of their sexual preferences.  


Today, DOMA is being challenged by courts around the nation, and in most cases, the courts have struck down the law, saying it infringes on the rights of homosexuals. The Department of Justice has given up trying to defend the law (which it should have done a couple years ago) yet the Republicans in the House of Representatives want to continue to defend the law at taxpayer's expense. If the Republicans feel the need to defend this law, by all means let them do it. However, to do so at taxpayer expense, one at a high cost since they probably will hire an expensive, high-powered private firm that will charge a high rate is wrong, at a time when Republicans are butchering the budget while refusing to raise taxes on the high earners give us something to think about- Are they more concerned with defending inequality and injustice, or are they really concerned on the budget? If they are concerned about the budget, then Republicans should hire a law firm whose fees will not be astronomically expensive or just stop defending the law, and thus, end a great injustice and inequality.     

How to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, from my point of view. (Part 3)

As you many know, we are locked in a fierce budget battle between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats went to raise taxes on top earners and mildly cut spending, while Republicans want to cut, no butcher spending and maintain and even reduce taxes on the top earners, claiming that if we raise taxes on the top earners, the economy will slow down because those are the people that produce jobs in this county. Thus, if any new regulation or taxes that is introduced, a minute will not pass before they label it as "job-killing."

To both parties, you are both wrong.

To balance the budget, you must raise taxes and cut spending at the same time. It's just common sense. Sure, it'll  involve make some tough choices, but when you have a growing deficit and debt, those choices are really necessary. Those who do make those tough choices and follow through with it display leadership, something we haven't seen from both Democrats and Republicans alike in a long time.

Heath Care and Social Security 

Here is where things get tougher and more darker. These are, besides taxes, some of the hardest parts to enact cuts or increases in the budget. Here, I choose to make several changes that help reduce the deficit, such as capping Medicare growth starting in 2013, increasing the eligibility age of Medicare to 70 years of age, and reducing tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance. Let us begin with the cap on Medicare growth. This proposal would cap the growth of Medicare, which is one of the most rapidly expanding programs in the Federal budget, and consumes much of it as well. The more time passes, the more urgent is it to reform it. The problem will only exacerbate when the first wave of the Baby Boomers retire. It would be capped at the rate of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) plus 1%. Next up is raising the eligibility age of Medicaid to 70 years. This is simple- Americans are living longer, working harder and working longer. The current life expectancy for Americans today is roughly 78 years, much higher then it was in 1965 (70 years), when it was enacted as part of the Social Security Act of 1965. This would save $50 Billion more than raising the age to 68 would. The other thing that would be enacted is to reduce tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance by slowly adjusting the cap to match the rate of economic growth-not the growth of health care costs- which we all know that health care costs rise much faster than that of economic growth- yet another reason to reform Medicare. Over time, more employer spending on health insurance would be taxed. Lastly, Medicare is one most vulnerable programs when it comes to fraud and waste. Only 5% of Medicare claims is audited- a shockingly low number considering the number of claims that is made every year. Therefore, more and more claims, to the point of which at least 85%-90% of claims would be audited. Now up to Social Security. Here I would also raise the eligibility age to 70 years, again because people are living and working longer. This would help fix Social Security's shortfall, reduce benefits by encouraging people to work longer, thus paying payroll taxes longer that support Social Security. (For the record, I would also increase the payroll tax to it's earlier levels before it was cut in 2010.) Lastly, Social Security benefits would be reduced for those of higher incomes. Those who earn less would continue to see their benefits grow over time with average wage increases. Those who earn more would see their benefits grow slower with inflation, while those who earn less would see their benefits grow at a rate between inflation and wage growth. 


So far, together with the two previous posts in this series, $217 Billion of the 2015 projected shortfall of $418 Billion has been accounted for, and $1,293 Billion of the 2030 projected shortfall of $1,345 Billon has also been accounted for. Here is a breakdown-

• Domestic Programs and Foreign Aid- $59 Billion out of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $62 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.
• Military- $61 Billion out of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $107 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.
• Health Care- $78 Billion of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $823 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.
• Social Security- $19 Billion of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $301 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.             

Next up- Taxes.

Cutting & Taxing-This is the third in a series of articles that will examine how to balance the Federal Budget and in the long run, reduce the long term deficit. 

How to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, from my point of view. (Part 2)

As you many know, we are locked in a fierce budget battle between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats went to raise taxes on top earners and mildly cut spending, while Republicans want to cut, no butcher spending and maintain and even reduce taxes on the top earners, claiming that if we raise taxes on the top earners, the economy will slow down because those are the people that produce jobs in this county. Thus, if any type of new regulation or taxes is introduced, a minute will not pass before they label it as "job-killing."

To both parties, you are both wrong.

To balance the budget, you must raise taxes and cut spending at the same time. It's just common sense. Sure, it'll  involve make some tough choices, but when you have a growing deficit and debt, those choices are really necessary. Those who do make those tough choices and follow through with it display leadership, something we haven't seen from both Democrats and Republicans alike in a long time.

Military

Here, I choose to cut, cancel or delay some weapons programs, reduce the nuclear arsenal and space spending, and reduce some noncombat military compensation as well the length of tours. Let's start with reducing the nuclear arsenal and space spending. First off, the need for a bulging nuclear arsenal has diminished within the past 20-25 years, due to the end of the Cold War and the fact that there are more treaties and agreements on the size, use, and time of nuclear weapons has also diminished the need. The number of nuclear warheads would be reduced form 1,968 to 1,050. Funding would also be reduced for nuclear development and research,  as well as for missile development, a space based missile defense system, and the number of Minuteman missiles. Next up is the cancellation or delay for some weapons programs. Where do I start? The F-35 fighter jet, and the MV-22 Osprey would be cut, being replaced with less expensive of similar quality. Some other purchases would be delayed, and spending for research and development would also be reduced. Lastly, noncombat military compensation will be cut and the length of tours would also be curbed. Veterans who have not been wounded in battle would see their premiums rise, and more veterans would receive health insurance form their employer. Pay raises and increases in benefits would also receive tighter scrutiny. The length and frequency of combat tours would also be reduced- no person would be sent to a combat zone for more than a year, and they would be recalled for duty only after spending two years at home or is voluntarily wants to stay. I understand the potential for benefits reduction is painful, but sometimes, you need to make some tough choices if we want to close the deficit and put this country on the long road to eliminating the debt. 


So far, together with the savings mentioned in the previous post of this series, $120 Billion of the 2015 projected shortfall of $418 Billion and $169 Billion of the 2030 projected shortfall of $1,345 Billion in savings have been found. Here is a breakdown- 

• Domestic Programs and Foreign Aid- $59 Billion out of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $62 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.
• Military- $61 Billion out of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $107 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.

Still more to come up in the next post of this series- Health Care & Social Security.

Cutting & Taxing-This is the second in a series of articles that will examine how to balance the Federal Budget and in the long run, reduce the long term deficit. 

How to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, from my point of view. (Part 1)

As you many know, we are locked in a fierce budget between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats went to raise taxes on top earners and mildly cut spending, while Republicans want to cut, no wait, butcher spending and maintain and even reduce taxes on the top earners, claiming that if we raise taxes on the top earners, the economy will slow down because those are the people that produce jobs in this county. Thus, if any type of new regulation or taxes is introduced, a minute will not pass before they label it as "job-killing."

To both parties, you are both wrong.

To balance the budget, you must raise taxes and cut spending at the same time. It's just common sense. Sure, it'll involve make some tough choices, but when you have a growing deficit and debt, those choices are really necessary. Those who do make those tough choices and follow through with it display leadership, something we haven't seen from both Democrats and Republicans alike in a long time.

From my point of view, as I mentioned before, we need to cut programs and raise taxes. How do I this? With the help of an interactive from the New York Times called Budget Puzzle.  I will start off with Domestic Programs and Foreign Aid. I chose here to cut and to eliminate earmarks, farm subsides, cut 250,000 government contractors, and I would cut pay of Federal Employees by 5% Why? The earmarks is a reason in itself, and the farm subsides are mainly used by big agricultural interests and disrupt the flow of the market. The cutting of 250,000 government contractors is due to the fact that may outnumber Federal Employees by millions- sure, they provide useful services, but their numbers are just too high. Again, a tough choice, but we need to make tough choices. Freezing and cutting wages is just what you have to do when you are in bad economy and have a large hole in the budget. I'm not saying government employees are overpaid- but in times like these, you need to freeze pay to balance things out. Already, $59 Billion of the $418 Billion shortfall for 2015 was been accounted for, and $62 Billion of the $1345 Billion shortfall has been accounted fo as well.

More to come soon.

Cutting & Taxing-This is the first in a series of articles that will examine how to balance the Federal Budget and in the long run, reduce the long term deficit.