Just watch this, I don't need to say anything. Thanks, Mom, for sending this to me.

Words of wisdom for society

My grandpa sent me an email with these words of wisdom. I hope anyone who reads this enjoys these facts of life.

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
3. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
4. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
5. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.
6. You cannot keep out of financial trouble by spending more than your income.
7. You cannot further brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
8. You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
9. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could do for themselves.

Things I have done, accomplished, and learned during my first year of college.

1. Kept a GPA within the honors level
2. Gotten better at basketball
3. Grew to love Natalie even more (I wasn't her biggest fan growing up.)
4. Didn't get fat (no freshman fifteen for me)
5. Started biting my nails again...I've got to stop (This place is stressful!)
6. Learned a lot about law enforcement while working for the BYUPD (Don't worry, it's not in my future.)
7. Learned SO much academically
8. Learned even more emotionally
9. Learned the most spiritually
10. Turned in my mission papers
11. Cracked some personality traits of which I wasn't proud
12. Learned what it's like to fail (At least none of my failures were huge.)
13. Made great friends who encourage me and help me grow
14. Made (temporary) friends who did just the opposite (hence the "temporary"ness)
15. Learned to deal with no-good roommates
16. Gotten pretty good at Super Smash Brothers
17. Made some friends for life (Tyler Aughenbaugh (my roommate), Felicia Jones, Devan Stucki, and a few more.)
18. Gone to NCAA bball games where I got to watch Jimmer Fredette become the player of the year in NCAA bball
19. Pulled some all-nighters
20. Slept 14 solid hours (without being neither sick nor sleep deprived)
21. Met people that I promise I will NEVER be like
22. Gotten a knife pulled on me
23. Rolled my ankle (I only add this because it's still swollen right now...)
24. Cried (just once...maybe twice)
25. Lost all hope
26. Picked myself back up and rose to the top again
27. Became great friends with a kid named Junior (This is significant because he's not your average person; for more info, ask me about Junior Fevanga and I'll tell you about him...what a guy!)
28. Found out how lucky I am to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (I know this gospel is true with all my heart! (Why would I be leaving to serve FULL TIME for two years (possibly in a foreign country, I'll find out next week) if I didn't KNOW it was 100% true?))
29. Started a blog (you ought to check it out, it's stephenkofoed.blogspot.com)

That's it for now, I'm not proof-reading this because I'm fairly busy at the moment. Forgive me for any type-o's if you read this before it's corrected. Also, I might add more to this one or just make another list.

-Stephen

Jo Ann Emerson: She's One of Us!

Southeastern Missouri is where I spent much of my young life. This area makes up Missouri's eighth congressional district. It is a politically conservative, generally rural area located south of the highly populated greater St. Louis area. The eighth district is represented in the United States Congress by Representative Jo Ann Emerson. Emerson was first elected in November of 1996. Because she displays good homestyle characteristics and represents her constituents' views, she has held the position ever since. (1)

Emerson, as a representative of a generally conservative area, represents those conservative views in Congress. Her bio on the U.S. House's official website says, "she is a leading advocate for farm families and the promotion of America's agriculture, hunger relief, pro-life issues, and access to safe, affordable prescription drugs." A little over a year ago in Congress, Emerson fought against a plan called the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) (see video below). The NAIS was a proposed USDA program unpopular with Southeast Missouri farmers. The program would have attempted to require mandatory disease traceability of animals. In short, it was a proposed program that, she argued, would, among other factors mentioned in the video clip below, threaten the privacy of the livestock owners. Fighting and voting against programs such as the NAIS shows that Rep. Emerson pushes for policy in Congress that benefits the people of her district. Congressional representation such as this has built trust with her constituents as their Representative.

When Election Day comes around, it's obvious that voters want to know that the Congress-person for whom they vote is “one of them.” This concept is known as adhering to the area’s “homestyle.” The eighth district of Missouri is an area where livestock owners, farmers, and recreational hunters make up a good portion of the population. As a politician who is always preparing for future elections, Emerson makes sure that the people in her district not only know who she is, but feel that she is truly "one of them." Emerson makes time for an annual tour of rural Missouri farms. A small-town Missouri newspaper reports, "Emerson, who is a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee of Agriculture...said the farm tour is just one way she keeps in touch with state-of-the art methods being used to make Southeast Missouri competitive in markets around the world." (2) The picture below was taken from one of her farm tours. It represents Jo Ann's homestyle: out in the pasture with a water bottle in hand, discussing farm issues with a land owner as she looks out over the fields.

No Congress-person is perfect. As noted by a prior competitor of hers, Tommy Sowers, whom she beat in the last election, "since Jo Ann Emerson took office, our district has lost an estimated 16,000 jobs as over 150 plants have closed or laid off workers." (3) While this is a dark spot on Emerson's record, the good homestyle characteristics she displays, and the way she has represented her district in Congress since 1996 helped her beat Sowers in the last election. As for the future, I believe that Emerson will be re-elected until she chooses to step down. Her constituents hold her accountable, and as long as she represents their views she will stay in office.

Jo Ann Emerson has represented the eighth Missouri district for almost sixteen years. The people of her district trust her. She has earned this trust by acting according to her district's desires in Congress and by showing rural Missouri that she's one of them!

(1) (2) (3)

Want to hear a joke? UNBIASED

Michele Bachmann, a Representative from Minnesota and a popular political figure among tea party activists (1) has lately received heavy media attention. Though she has not officially announced her candidacy for the GOP Presidential Nominee, she and her staff have made her intentions clear. Media sources publicize news in different ways, making their political biases evident.

"I'm in for 2012 in that I want to be a part of the conversation in making sure that President Obama only serves one term...but I haven't made a decision yet to announce," Bachmann stated. (2) Also, Bachmann and her staff went on an obvious political trip to Iowa, the state of the first caucus, and an important first step in a presidential campaign. Following her trip she stated, "I am very encouraged by what I heard and the level of support that I saw today." (3) These events were covered by multiple news sources, large and small. However, the similarities between their coverage stopped there.

Let's see how our first media source decided to cover the story. In addition to putting an intimidating snap-shot of her on the page (left), the Huffington Post ran an internet article entitled "Michele Bachmann Still Planning On Doing Some President Stuff, Probably" (2); first of all, what kind of a title is that? They seem to make a mockery of what could be argued to be the indecisiveness of Bachmann. The menacing picture and title are not the only bullets they shot. In the very first sentence, the article mentions that Michele Bachmann's "homeland may have been destroyed by capitalism." It seems apparent that this news source has done all it can to subtly, if not blatantly, make Bachmann, the super-conservative Tea Party activist unattractive to the public. Upon reading with a bias-wary eye, one can see the serious left-winged view of this report.

Next, let's see how the famously right-wing FOX news reported on the same story. It states,

"A recent Gallup poll of Republicans found Bachmann had the second-highest positive intensity rating of any of the potential 2012 candidates in the GOP field...in amazing fashion, she now seems to be running her own shadow Republican caucus in which she is speaker, floor leader, whip, and conference chairwoman." (4)

Not only does the poll they site show her as a serious contender, words such as "amazing fashion," put her in a positive light. FOX news shows obvious right wing bias through the rhetoric with which they reported this story.

ABC news also covered this story. They did so differently from these other two sources: they simply stated the facts. (5) This source didn't mock her indecisiveness in the title or suggest that her home state was destroyed by capitalism, nor did it mention her "amazing fashion" or excellent poll data. It simply reported the news: "Rep. Michele Bachmann, the leader of the House Tea Party caucus and a favorite of conservatives, is wading deeper into presidential waters." (5) This time, in my opinion, ABC news seems to have presented this story in the least biased fashion.

The news media are often responsible for the public's introduction to politicians who may later enter the presidential race. Prior to showing interest in a presidential run, few Americans outside of Minnesota knew much of Michele Bachmann. They may have received their first impressions of her through the afore-mentioned reports. The implications of this fact for Bachmann are huge. First impressions can be hard to change; if someone happened to read the Huffington Post article, their first thoughts of Bachmann would probably be negative. In contrast, upon reading the FOX report, they may have an initial good impression.

Media sources often cover the same news differently based on their biases. A source's true colors are shown in the way it presents information, even when that source professes to be "fair and balanced."

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Due to the word limit, I was only able to show examples of media bias from three fairly well-known sources. If you're interested in seeing some even more obviously biased and interesting coverage of Michele Bachmann, here are a few more links. (6) (7) (8)

Romney and Obama: The Pluses and Minuses

In 2008, Barack Obama became the forty-fourth president of the United States of America after beating republican nominee John McCain. “Obama beat McCain by 52 percent to 46 percent, and he could realistically claim a mandate with nearly two-thirds of the Electoral College. As of Wednesday afternoon, he had 349 electoral votes compared to 173 for McCain” (1). Needless to say, Obama’s victory over McCain was a solid one. When the 2012 election comes, will there be any Republican nominee who can compete with Obama, therefore making him a one-term-president? Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, is the man that could beat Obama in the 2012 presidential election. Though he didn’t become the Republican nominee four years ago, he received publicity as a serious contender. While Romney does have his flaws, I believe that he has a chance of defeating Obama next November.

People know that the last few years haven’t gone too well for Obama. First of all, he introduced a health care reform (known by most as “Obamacare”) that many people seem to have condemned as too socialist for this country that has grown to the global power it is largely through democracy and a free-market (capitalist) system. Also, since Obama took office, the national debt has risen by around 3 trillion dollars as reported by CBS on October 18, 2010. (2) In an interview (below), Mitt Romney mentioned a few of the things that he feels Obama has done that are unfavorable; he calls it “the Obama misery index.” Though Obama doesn’t seem to have done anything that would make him an easy take-down, I believe that these issues will play a role in the upcoming election.

Though President Obama has his weaknesses, Romney does have his own as well. For instance, Romney developed a helath care plan in Massachusetts that Republicans feel is similar to Obama's plan. (3) Also, in 2002, Romney stated, "...when asked, 'will I preserve and protect a woman's right to choose,' I make unequivocal answer: yes." ((4) see video in link) Having pro-choice views is not generally something a politician seeking to become the Republican presidential nominee would do. While this is a negative, it becomes even more questionable when he changed his views altogether just a few years later. In 2006, in response to the question, "what's your position on abortion," he said "I am pro-life." ((5) see video in link) This blatant 'flip-flop' in stance on debatably one of the most sensitive topics in the political world is disconcerting to voters; on what other issue might he have changed his stance while they weren't looking? I believe that these flaws possessed by Romney as a contender will prove a bit of a hindrance to him in the 2012 election.

What is it that makes Romney seem to have a leg up on President Obama for the upcoming election? A Gallup poll that posed the question: "If Barack Obama runs for re-election in 2012, in general, are you more likely to vote for Obama or for the Republican Party's candidate for president?" The findings of this poll show that even though 44% of those polled plan to vote for President Obama again, a very close 42% appear to be prepared to vote for the Republican candidate. (6) Also, in a New Hampshire poll, Romney turned out to have an 8-percentage-point lead over Obama. ((7) see video in link) This simply proves that Romney is a legitimate contender. In addition to these minor victories, Romney has very solid areas of expertise that could rally the financially minded conservatives who are sick of the seemingly socialist views of Obama: economics and business. A New York times article (8) said,

"Mr. Romney is presenting himself as a ready-to-lead executive, gambling that a fluency in economic matters distinguishes him from other candidates...Mr. Romney makes the case that the halting economic recovery provides a compelling rationale that he is the strongest candidate to create jobs and take on President Obama."

Sometimes it seems that what really gives one politician an edge over another in politics is: which of the two has done the least amount of damage in the past? I believe that that will be a determining factor in the upcoming election. Above, I showed a couple examples of the things Obama has done that have left a bad taste in the mouths of voters, if you will. After that, I did the same for Romney. It seems pretty apparent that though both men have their "dirt" (as all politicians do), Romney has a lot less of it. America wanted change, and Obama sure gave it to them; he's worked on changing the health care system to a socialized medicine program which many Americans have shown that they don't like, and he changed the federal debt issue significantly for the worse. During the upcoming years of financial recovery after a past few years, what America needs is an economically minded president with a clean record. I believe that Mitt Romney is that man: the man who will defeat President Obama in the 2012 election.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

The NBWA: a PAC that protects!

There is a plethora of groups, organizations, committees, and associations that try to influence the political scene. The main pursuit of a Political Action Committees (PAC), as defined by the Merriam-Webster encyclopedia is “to raise and contribute money to the campaigns of candidates likely to advance the group’s interests” (1). One of the many PACs that exist is the National Beer Wholesalers Association (NBWA). This is an organization focused on the twenty-first Amendment. The twenty-first Amendment repealed the eighteenth amendment which stated, “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.” (2)

Right from the start, it would seem like a group called the National Beer Wholesalers Association would revolve around changing such legislation as the legal drinking age (lowering it for their personal gain), changing the acceptable level of intoxication while driving. However, the NBWA actually states in its mission statement, “The purpose of the National Beer Wholesalers Association is to…advocate before government and the public; [and] to encourage the responsible consumption of alcohol” (3). The eighteenth amendment gives the duty of alcohol regulation primarily to the state government, as opposed to the federal. NBWA representatives attend legislative conferences in Washington, DC, including one coming up on the 27-30^th of this March, in support of the preservation of this already established legislation. (4)

The NBWA does more than simply attend congressional meetings. In order to be a PAC, an association must raise and donate funds to politicians and their campaigns. In preparation for elections in 2010, the NBWA donated $1,490,500 to House Democrats, $1,171,000 to House Republicans, $182,500 to Democrats in the Senate, and $152,000 to Republicans in the Senate. (5) This money didn't just come from nowhere; "Individual donors gave 1721 large ($200+) contributions to this PAC in 2009-2010." (6) Many of these donors gave the legal, annual limit of $5,000. (7)

While the NBWA hasn't greatly contributed to the changing of any major, specific legislation, the NBWA, through the 2,850+ independent, and licensed beer distributors whom it represents (3) has proven a powerful supporter behind the twenty-first amendment. Through attending the afore mentioned legislative conferences, NBWA members represent all the beer distributors and companies across America.

The National Beer Wholesalers Association may sound (especially to active LDS Church members) like an association pulling for looser restrictions on alcoholic beverages, however, we have discovered that this is not their aim. The NBWA acts as any other PAC does; it raises and donates money to support candidates who support its cause of defending the twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Two polls, big differences; who to believe.

In the "information era," we like facts. We like to know (quantitatively, if possible) the opinions of people around us are. This data is frequently found by newspapers or organizations conducting surveys or polls, which the community generally accept as correct. From newspapers and internet blogs one can easily discover that the public's opinion on political ideas or occurrences is one of the most polled topics. The problem when searching for the truth, which I previously stated is known to be of great importance in this age, is that different polls often contradict one another-sometimes fairly significantly.

For instance, early in 2010 there was a senate race in Massachusetts to replace Senator Ted Kennedy. Republican Scott Brown was running against Martha Coakley, a democrat. On January 9, 2010, Public Policy Polling released survey information concerning this race. (1) In this statement, they said, " The race to replace Ted Kennedy in the US Senate is looking like a toss up, with Republican Scott Brown up 48-47 on Martha Coakley." As you can see, this poll clearly states that the race is a fairly even match between the two. In the poll it states that Scott Brown may have a slight hand up on Martha Coakley, but frankly, the difference is fairly negligible.

The next day, on the tenth of January, 2010, The Boston Globe magazine released a poll of its own. (2)In this poll, made public one day later, stated "Democrat Martha Coakley, buoyed by her durable statewide popularity, enjoys a solid, 15-percentage-point lead over Republican rival Scott Brown as the race for the US Senate enters the homestretch, according to a Boston Globe poll of likely voters."

Why is there such a difference between these polls? How could one clearly state that the race between these two politicians "is looking like a toss up," and another, which came out one day later show that one politician "enjoys a solid, 15-percentage-point lead" over the other? Is it possible that over one day the standings changed this much? That's probably not the case, simply because these polls were most likely administered at about the same time (since they were published one day apart); even if the view of the general public did change during the evening of January ninth, the chances are slim that the findings of a legitimate and evenly sampled poll (involving either telephones using random-digit-dialing, or the internet) could be published by the next morning.

Well, after we conclude that the possibility of having a serious overnight change in public opinion is highly unlikely, we can move on to the question of sampling error. One doesn't have to be a statistician to know that a coin flipped fifty times won't yield twenty-five heads and twenty-five tails without question. Because you can't flip the coin an infinite amount of times, there's going to be a sampling error. The same concept is true in polling: because you can't survey every single person, you're not going to get the exact truth. Having said all this, could a fifteen percent discrepancy be a sampling error? No. A sampling error is generally accepted as plus or minus three percent-not fifteen percent.

While the Public Policy Polling poll did disclose information including how many people they polled ("744 likely voters"), and the questions they asked, they did not include the demographics of the poll. In the poll by The Boston Globe, no information was included concerning the poll except for the actual "15-percentage-point" statement. There is a possibility that one or both of these polls were administered to areas that lean heavily one way or the other as far as politics go.

After seeing each of these polls, how would the politicians involved react to the information? It obviously matters which poll they see. For instance, if Scott Brown saw the poll that showed him as being far behind, he may re-evaluate his own campaign and send a few polls of his own out that make him look a little better. He also may (depending on the background of the poll) be able to discover what groups of people he needs to convince. Polls support the democratic process by helping politicians know what the public thinks and help them know what they need to do to please the public. This is a basic principle of democracy.

Frankly, there are many polls that take place all the time, and unless you have a lot of time to research the background of each poll, you're probably going to just have to figure out which source you find reliable and trust it.

(1) Click here to see the first poll.

(2) Click here to see the second poll. (out of commission, sorry)

A tribute to Landon Kunzelman

You know, nobody reads this blog anyway, so I'm going to make a little post here about someone who means a lot to me and has helped me out a ton. My cousin, Landon Kunzelman, is the greatest guy ever. He's leaving for his mission in eight days. He'll be speaking Spanish and serving in San Bernardino, California.

Landon has meant a lot to me for years. We went to EFY together, we've been on amazing trips together throughout the years, and we recently almost died together on a hike in the Rockies (I'm going to tell that whole story in another post). In addition to all this, Landon has been a great mentor to me in many ways, including spiritually.

This is fairly short and personal, but I really felt like writing my thoughts down concerning Landon and this is the perfect place. I wish him the best of luck on his mission and I'll pray for him!

Jimmer in the NBA: how will he do?

BYU Basketball: Jimmer and Jackson

This basketball season the BYU cougars have been basically unstoppable. Jimmer Fredette is headed for the NBA (probably going to be a lottery pick) as he's averaged around 26 points per game on the season so far. He became the all-time leading scorer in Mountain West Conference history, and he's practically the un-debated #1 guy in NCAA basketball. Jackson Emery, one of Jimmer's teammates is also phenomenal. This season he became the all-time leading stealer for BYU. He may not go to the NBA right away, but I bet after a few years of Euro-ball he'll come back and have a shot. Yes, I was at the game in the video below. Yes, I did take part in the first ever rushing of the Marriott Center basketball court.

The Obama-meter is looking a bit low.

People make promises and commitments when they seek political office. These promises, when directed toward a whole country, can become pretty lofty, and should often probably be redefined as goals. However, no candidate would be elected on a platform such as, “I have a goal to make sure citizens are well-informed of bills being passed.” Unwisely, President Barack Obama decided to make lofty promises when campaigning for his position of President of the United States. In one campaign speech he stated, “I’ll make our government open and transparent so that anyone can ensure that our business is the people’s business…when there is a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it.” (1) Fellow citizens of the United States of America, President Obama has not followed through on his promise to give us five days to view each bill before he signs them.

The first bill which President Obama signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. This he signed only two days after its passage. On the 17^th of February after he took office, “Obama signed his 1,000-page $787 billion stimulus aimed at jolting the declining U.S. economy. He did so only one business day after it passed through Congress—without allowing for five days of public comment.” (1) On the 22 of May, 2009, Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act. This he did a mere two days after Congressed finalized the bill. (2) His promise is clearly not being met. This lack of following through on his promises will cause him serious problems around re-election time.

One could argue that, as President, he will have the responsibility to occasionally sign emergency legislation without five days’ notice. I personally consider sticky situations such as those acceptable. Having said that, the bills he is signing right away are not emergency legislation. For instance, on February 4, 2009, “PolitiFact.com” posted an article that lays another instance of the President’s broken promise on the table. The article states, “Obama signed an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program which provides health coverage for low-income children…just hours after it was finalized in Congress…the bill’s provisions don’t kick in until April 1, 2009, almost three months from signing.” (2) This is not emergency legislation. The very fact that it didn’t go into effect until months later proves that it wasn’t any sort of emergency. Another possible argument in the President's defense could be that the text of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program was posted on a web site days before it was signed by President Obama. While this was a nice gesture by the Obama administration, it was only posted on February first, leaving only three days for the public to view it before its signing. (2) Not keeping his promises to the fullest like this essentially gives ammunition to those against Obama in future campaigns. This is not what we were promised. Obama said five days, why do we feel lucky for three?

Everyone seems to make promises that they aren’t exactly able to keep from time to time. I don’t know how we can change this sad truth, but it is time for change. It’s time for some integrity in the American political system. America knows this, and his broken promises will come back to haunt President Obama in the election of 2012.

(1) http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=91286

(2) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/234/allow-five-days-of-public-comment-before-signing-b/

Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winner in economics: capitalism and "greed"

Take a look at this clip of Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winner in economics. The clip is only about two and a half minutes long. Tell me what you think

.

After cross country season of my senior year, I ran a half marathon (13.1 miles) in Branson, MO with some friends from church: Scott Young, Dave Whittekiend, and Judd Boehme. It wasn't a huge race, not a ton of entries, but I managed to scrape up a first-place win with a time of about an hour, twenty-six minutes. The race was an out-and-back to a place called "Murder Rock."

Senior year cross country season

Senior year track season

Senior year track with my 4x400 team of Maurice, Alex, Davon, and me...so very, very close to state.

These pictures are of my cousin Landon, Uncle Joe, and me during the best week of my life in Glacier National Park. We escaped death by mere inches multiple times, climbed all over glaciers, and saw amazing wildlife. We were on top of the world...literally and figuratively.

This picture is of me at the Colorado National Monument with my friend Matt (he's taking the picture). If you look closely, you can see me on top of it wearing an orange shirt.

In this picture, my roommate Nate, his brother, Corey, my friend Devan, and I are waiting outside the Marriott Center hours and hours before it opens so we can get amazing seats at the BYU vs. SDSU game! It was the most amazing game I've ever witnessed!

This is a picture of me with my friends Allison and Shelby...Felicia, the third person in their trio is taking the picture.This picture is of my best friend (and fhe mom) from summer term, Alicia, and me after making smoothies at her place. I look a little goofy, but I needed a good picture to remember summer term.

America's Tax Bracket System: Unfair and Cumbersome

Here in America we have something we like to call “the American dream.” It’s really the idea that everyone has a fair chance: a chance for fame, glory, and, quite importantly, wealth. This makes money a driving force in this world in which we live. Society seems to revolve around the obtaining of money. In fact, when you look closely you can see that almost everything in this world seems to be backed up financially. How does this apply to the title of this article: “America's Tax Bracket System: Unfair and Cumbersome?” Many people have heard the cliché, “nothing in life is free.” That’s true, especially when it comes to running a country; this is where taxes enter the picture. Every year people prepare for April 15 by filling out tax returns. This is all fine and dandy, but there is a problem. The current tax system in America is flawed in that it is unfair to the wealthier people of the country, and that it is cumbersome for taxpayers. The method of taxing in the United States requires not that citizens pay a proportionally higher tax as they increase their annual income, but a disproportionately greater amount. (For a simple illustration of the tax brackets, see below.) How, may I ask, is this acceptable? I believe that it isn't, it must be reformed.

On April 19, 2009, the Washington Post ran an article entitled “A Progressively Unfair Tax System.” This article discussed the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) findings that “the richest 20 percent of taxpayers pay about 70 percent of all federal taxes…[and] 50 percent of households provide no individual income tax revenue at all.” (1) The government obtains this severely lopsided contribution of money by using a system that applies an increasing percentage of a tax as one’s annual income increases. I believe that a more fair and, frankly, simple way to generate income tax revenue is to convert to a flat tax. It would require all taxpayers to pay the same percent of their income, no matter how much they make. For instance, those making $100,000 annually would pay an amount proportional to the amount paid by those making $500,000 or $5,000,000 annually. Isn’t “fairness” a part of the traditional American dream? Then why punish those with more income by requiring such a disproportionately greater tax? Does this method not simply stifle the desire to work hard to receive more?

In addition to the fact that the tax bracket system is simply unfair, the system is very cumbersome and complex. On March 11, 2010, the New York Times ran an article entitled “The Growing Complexity of the U.S. Federal Tax Code.” In this article, a brief outline of the tax code’s growth was included. It stated “we find that the number of pages in the U.S. federal tax code have grown at a near exponential rate of 3.28% per year, which as of 2010, means that the U.S. tax code has ballooned to be 71,684 pages in length!" (2) Everyone knows that there are loopholes, deductions, and forms with which every tax payer has to deal. Many people, due to the difficult process of filling out their tax forms, simply hire an accountant to take care of the dirty-work for them. The flat tax system would be much simpler. For a brief run-down on the flat tax system, you can refer to the video below.

To many people, the move toward a flat tax could seem a little drastic and out-of-the-blue. It could easily be argued that the simplicity brought by a flat tax could have negative effects. It would decrease the work available to some accountants who obtain a significant percent of their income from providing tax filing services. In addition to that, it is arguable that with so many less forms, people may start trying (even more aggressively than they may already be) to evade paying their taxes all-together. Though these may be valid points, I believe that their negatives are outweighed by the simplicity and fairness brought on by a flat tax.

Throughout the mid to late nineteen hundreds, many countries throughout the world moved toward a flat tax system. A few of these countries include Hong Kong, Lithuania, Russia Romania, Slovakia, Macedonia, and Serbia. (3) America is known for innovation and progression. Maybe it’s time we lost the huge tax code, and started implementing an easier, fairer tax system that doesn’t punish those who work hard for their money.

(1) Click here to view the previously mentioned Washington Post article.

(2) Click here to view the previously mentioned New York Times article.

(3) http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v29n4/cpr29n4-1.html