Issues, News & Views


Sworn In
April 10, 2017

A Tremendous Day for
sound jurisprudence and
our Constitution!

Watch the swearing-in and
savor the prospect of a
Supreme Court Justice
who will defend our

Below is our rating of
Supreme Court justices
based upon judgement of
their fidelity to the

As the chart illustrates,
there are too many rogue
justices on the Supreme
Court. These appointed,
life-term judges take it
upon themselves to
arbitrarily unilaterally and
autocratically over-rule the
will of the people. They are
the equivalent of tyrants.

It is crucial to our
Democracy to fill all open
seats on all Courts, as
they arise, with true-to-
the-law judges. With
originalist, textualist
judges who apply the law
as passed by the
representatives of the

It is NOT the role of judges
to over-rule laws they just
happen to dislike. As
Gorsuch said at the

"A judge who likes every
outcome he reaches is
very likely a bad judge..."

April 07, 2017

A Supreme Court seat
opened with the passing of
Antonin Scalia just months
before the 2016 election.

President Obama
nominated Merrick Garland
as a replacement, but
Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
blocked the nomination,
claiming that the voters
should decide.

Elections have
consequences. Democrats
were certain they would
hold the White House and
regain the Senate in 2016,
thereby giving them full
control of the nomination

But the GOP held the
Senate, and won the
White House, against
all predictions.
Republicans campaigned
on the Supreme Court
issue, and won.

And that's why Democrats
lost the Supreme Court
nomination: because they
didn't win the election. The
people spoke. As it should

January 31, 2017

President Trump has
nominated Neil Gorsuch to
the United States Supreme
Court. View the
proceedings at the White

As the President so
appropriately remarked at
the nomination ceremony:

"I have always felt that
after the defense of our
nation, the most important
decision a president of the
United States can make is
the appointment of a
Supreme Court justice.
Depending on their age, a
justice can be active for 50
years and his or her
decisions can last a
century or more and can
often be permanent."

We anticipate that Neil
Gorsuch will be an
outstanding Supreme
Court Justice, just like
Antonin Scalia, the great
man he will replace.

Neil Gorsuch: a judge who
understands both what a
judge's role is; and what a
judge's role is not.


2017/09/27 - Since the Trump Administration is planning to announce a new tax reform initiative this morning, we hereby front-run them and offer you our better tax plan. Let's get straight to it.

Don't reduce corporate tax rates, eliminate corporate incomes taxes entirely. Mitt Romney was wrong, a corporation is not a person. It is a pool of invested/investable capital that creates jobs and incomes, and products and consumer surplus. In short, businesses create prosperity.

What person would propose public policy that confiscates resources from these prosperity creation pools, and hand it over to the government to squander? Well, leftist politicians feeding at the trough, of course.

Businesses create the very prosperity that leftist politicians disingenuously claim that governments create; in truth, governments create the very problems that leftist politicians claim government is needed to solve.

Think of a business like a retirement account - the money is invested and returns are reinvested tax free as long as the funds remain in the account; then when distributions are made they are taxed in the hands of the plan beneficiary.

Businesses should operate income-tax free, and any distributions from the business - a prosperity-producing investment pool - should be taxed in the hands of the recipients at their full personal rates, regardless of the nature of those distributions, whether in the form of wages, interest, dividends or realized capital gains.

Business decision-making will become simpler and capital allocation will become more efficient if the effect of after-tax impacts are removed from consideration. Quite simply, the economy will run better.

By eliminating corporate double-taxation, the onerous burden of business compliance and government enforcement is removed, again, making businesses, government, and the economy generally, all more efficient.

It also eliminates the issues regarding the territorial structure of the system, and the resultant tack-on issues of repatriating overseas income. With no tax, there is no penalty to bring foreign income back to America where it can be reinvested or distributed to Americans in the form of wages, interest, dividends or gains.

Taxing all income in the same manner regardless of its nature eliminates the need for the whole "Buffett Rule" conversation. (Can we say that Warren Buffett is being disingenuous when he talks about the Buffet Rule, and we would look forward to him not speaking so foolishly again, at least on this subject?)

We would propose phasing out business income tax over a number of years, perhaps by reducing the rate by 3% per year over twelve years. Businesses would invest heavily immediately in order to pre-position themselves for a tax-free world, thus immediately generating permanent higher economic growth, as well as high amounts of tax revenue in the short term that could be used to pay down the debt.

On the personal side, all income, as discussed, should be taxed in a single uniform manner regardless of its nature. No more long term or short term gains, everything the same. And taxes generally should be lower, fewer, simpler, and flatter.

All deductions should be eliminated except for a very few, almost all of which would be contributions to savings plans.

The mortgage interest deduction should be replaced with a home ownership savings plans. The current scheme incentivizes people to take on debt, and this is the #1 reason for the last financial crash and Dodd-Frank - one of the worst pieces of legislation ever - did nothing to address it.

Taxpayers should be allowed to make tax-deductible contributions to a purpose-specific account, the value of which can be applied only to the purchase or improvement of real property. This will assist people in building equity in their homes, rather than help them build debt on their balance sheet.

While generally we do not accept the idea that one country's experience - good or bad -with a specific public policy is likely to be replicated in our country, we do note for what it's worth that Canada 1) does have home ownership savings plans; 2) does not allow mortgage interest deductibility; and 3) did not suffer a severe debt-fueled financial crisis that gripped most of the world in 2008.

In addition to home ownership savings plans, Similar purpose-specific tax-deductible savings plans would be allowed for a few of the largest expenditures facing taxpayers, primarily healthcare, education and retirement.

The only other allowable deduction should be for charitable donations. Charities do great things for this country, and do it far better than the government. And their spending is not directed by lobbyists and the DC swamp.

Tax deductibility creates a matching-grant system where donors decide where they want to invest their own money, rather than lobbyists deciding where to waste other people's money.

The National Endowment for the Arts and other such spendopotamus programs would be eliminated. Any organization seeking government funding should make their case directly to donors, who vet them and contribute accordingly. A donor with a 33% marginal tax rate making a $200 donation should donate $300 and then receive a $100 reduction in taxes.

Another item to be eliminated is the deduction for state and local taxes. As a New Yorker I can say that elimination of the state and local tax deduction subsidy is the best thing that could happen to New York - it is time to apply pressure on Albany to get its house in order, rather than expect the federal treasury to subsidize its corruption.

The basic underlying principal of our tax structure should be to incentive work. It should be lenient toward the working women and men of America, the blue collar and white collar people of America who want to work, who like to work, who expect to work, and who need to work. These people are the backbone of America. When they fail, America fails.

Tax credits are to be generally rejected in favor of deductions. Credits represent free money, money for nothing and chicks for free. They disincentivize work. The tax code should not be used as a handout scheme. Rather, it should motivate people to get a job. There will be plenty of jobs with our pro-growth pro-business policies. No more excuses. Get a job.

We have similar misgivings about basic personal and dependent tax deductions, depending upon the structure of tax rates.

Chalprem is a proponent of the earnership society - you get what you earn and you keep what you earn. We believe in paychecks, not handouts. So we support the inheritance tax because the recipients didn't earn their payout. What sense does it make to tax earned income, penalizing productive enterprise, but not tax gift income, which is free money that the recipient did nothing to earn?

Further enforcing our position is the principal that America is a meritocracy not a dynasty. We don't believe class, title, rank, position or even excessive wealth should be handed down from generation to generation. There should of course be exemptions and limitations, the last thing we would want is to assign the next generation to immediate poverty.

But it is for each generation to build on the success of the previous generation, not rest on their laurels. It is time for Mike Bloomberg and the Koch brothers to take their companies public, raise a pile of money, and prepare for their estates to pay taxes, at the same rate structure as all other income.

Of course we want to protect small businesses and the American family farm, but the onus needs to be on these entrepreneurs to maintain a succession plan, it's what businesses do. Perhaps the Small Business Administration can maintain an office that assists in these matters.

Before we conclude, allow us clarify a common misstatement, such as the title of this article. Contrary to what we and others might state or imply, there is no such thing as a "pro-growth" tax plan. A tax is a penalty. It is an extraneous burden imposed on someone for doing something, and might be so burdensome as to dissuade that person from engaging in that enterprise.

The real objective is to create a tax system that is as minimally anti-growth as possible, that creates as few distortions, as few disincentives as possible.

Our current burdensome tax code dissuades constructive enterprise, whether working at a job or investing in a business. This reduces prosperity, increases poverty, and emboldens leftists to demand bigger government, which in turn requires higher taxes, which increases poverty, which just increases the clamor for bigger government and higher taxes... yes, we are referring to the Democrat Party.

The Democrats are the party of perpetual poverty.

Small government, low taxes, and personal responsibility. That's the path to prosperity.


September 30, 2017 - Failed former-Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) has decided to come out and spout nonsense on North Korea.

In an opinion piece in CNN Nunn sought to convince us that the solution to the North Korea problem was... you guessed it, "diplomacy".

Diplomacy is what we have done for the past 25 years, and all it has done is allowed the menace to metastasize. The regime is a cancer, and you cure cancer by cutting it out, not taking it out or waiting it out.

"Diplomacy", "dialogue", "negotiation" and "talk" are interchangeable, undifferentiated words that are the cause of the North Korea problem.

Talk is what gave us "peace in our time", and gave Hitler time to build his military, develop his strategy, and start a world war on his own terms.

And talk is what is what now can give us only a false illusion of peace, while giving Kim time to build his military, develop his strategy, and start a major war on this own terms.

It is time to eliminate the Kim regime. A permanent solution. Before he brings war to us. We are Poland in the spring of 1939.

September 29, 2017 - I am trying to be open-minded about the NFL players' cause, the BLM police-on-black violence meme.

The problem is that their wrong-headed anti-America protest is symptomatic of why their cause is wrong.

Here's why: first, if you are making good life choices, encounters with law enforcement ought to be rare and inconsequential. But when they do occur, you need to be passive and respectful. Not aggressive and belligerent.

The problem is that today, too many young people are not learning to show respect, but instead are being told the exact opposite, that they need to build "cred". You don't build character, you build cred.

And how is "cred" measured? Well, by the extent to which you disrespect others. You build your cred by putting others down. And disrespecting a cop is about the best way to build cred.

These players are the products of broken homes, lousy schools, from nasty neighborhoods where the people are completely incapable of responding to authority in a deferential manner.

Instead they lash out at authority. And when it goes badly for them, not unexpectedly to rational obeservers, then they play the victim card, the slavery card, the race card, and they call Cellino & Barnes.

Building cred is the diametric opposite of learning re2pect. They have not learned re2pect as a basic character trait, thus they cannot re2pect America and they cannot re2pect police, because they do not know how. And, while we're at it, since when is respect spelled with a "2"?

Maybe I'm wrong. But what other conclusions am I supposed to draw from such massive displays of disrespect?

September 27, 2017 - How did the NFL allow itself to get into this mess?

Suppose you want to watch live entertainment. If you would prefer to go to a Broadway show, you're more likely a liberal; if you would prefer to go to a football game you're more likely a conservative.

And unlike Broadway shows, football games have a "them vs. us" element. Fans - the customers - pick a side and cheer for their side to win. They invest emotionally, and keep coming back to see the show over and over again.

I cheer for the Broncos, or at least I did. But what I really cheer for is America. America is my team.

Why did the NFL decide that disrespecting the country is okay?

Why did the NFL put their customers in a position of passively condoning this insult to our nation?

Did they not think we would care? Did they think we care more about the NFL than America?

The NFL has lost its way. And it's lost me too.

September 25, 2017 - USA > NFL

Has the NFL completely lost its mind? Commissioner Roger Goodell complains that the President is disrespecting the NFL (boo-hoo), meanwhile, the NFL disrespects the USA.

Since when is disrespecting your country a good thing? Especially when that country is the world's greatest country ever, the United States of America?

People have complaints, and that's fine. And so is publicizing those complaints. And so is demonstrating for your cause. But disrespecting the nation in order to get those complaints heard is not at all okay.

If you really want action, insulting the vast majority of the American people, who hold the flag and anthem dear, is not the way to win their hearts.

Some people just enjoy creating havoc, needy people who crave attention, who will do anything to get attention, regardless of how distasteful their antics.

Pity the NFL is allowing itself to be used by these kneeling circus clowns.


© Copyright 2017 Challenge The Premise. All rights reserved.