In my last column, I discussed how the federal government should take steps on an international level to help grow the tech industry. I firmly believe that Silicon Valley represents the height of American entrepreneurship, ingenuity and creativity –– and the government must take every step possible to ensure that the tech world’s potential is fully realized. In this article, I want to look at what the government can do on a more domestic level to help expand Silicon Valley and the rest of America’s booming technology sector. Perhaps the most important step forward for Silicon Valley is a radical change in our secondary education system. For there to be a massive expansion in the tech industry, students across the nation must receive a highly robust education that fosters a love and intellectual curiosity for science, technology, engineering and math.
Silicon Valley is quickly becoming the beating heart of the American economy. The American tech industry is rapidly developing the capacity to touch the economic, social and political infrastructure of every major nation across the globe. The immense potential contained by Silicon Valley demands that government create an environment in which the tech industry can grow. This article is the first in a two-part series in which I will look at the steps the federal government should take to help foster growth in America’s rapidly expanding technology base. Before delving into the specific policy actions the government should implement, I want to emphasize one major point: Silicon Valley is good.
The American tax code is one of the most complex and byzantine bureaucratic structures in the federal government. The tax code currently stands at an eye-popping 9,000 pages and is often considered the most complex system of its kind in the world. To even remotely understand the inner workings of the nation’s tax system requires years of education and training –– making it all but impossible for the average American to comprehend how their taxes are calculated and spent. The sheer size of the nation’s tax code is a hindrance to both greater financial equality and economic prosperity. In terms of income taxes, the nation operates on a “progressive tax” system –– the more money you make, the higher the percentage of your income goes to Uncle Sam.
I am, without question, an unabashed Mitt Romney supporter. Governor Romney’s brand of pragmatic, common-sense conservatism, combined with his deep humility and grace make him one of the most dignified, respected politicians not just at home, but across the globe. Needless to say, I have been very excited at the prospect of a Secretary Romney in the State Department. If the President-elect wants to make a smart, calculated choice for America’s chief diplomat, he would be well advised to choose the former Massachusetts governor. First, and foremost, the position of Secretary of State calls for an individual that is able to travel the globe and readily present American interests in a firm, yet positive demeanor.
I, like most people, got 2016 very, very wrong. I thought last Tuesday would be a continuation of the status quo — a third term for President Obama. Instead, I, along with the rest of America, was sorely mistaken. We have now elected a reality television star as our president. And, not surprisingly, this reality television star has transformed the presidential transition process into a rerun of the Apprentice.
In less than a week it will finally be over. No more ads, no more speeches, no more debates. In just five days the most vitriolic election in modern American history will finally come to a close — and I can’t wait. Four years ago, MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough said something quite fascinating. Remarking on the first presidential debate between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney, Scarborough stated how lucky we were to be Americans.
Speaker Paul Ryan (R–Wisc.) has not had a good couple of weeks. Because of his rejection of Donald Trump, it seems as if most of the Republican Party is in an all-out rebellion against its highest-ranking figure in the federal government. Furthermore, Mr. Trump seems bent on destroying the Speaker’s reputation, as the Republican nominee has launched a massive attack on Mr. Ryan’s character, ability to govern and competence. Personally, I find these attacks to be disgusting — and I think it would be helpful to address each of the attacks on the Speaker. First, the pure hatred that Mr. Ryan has received in the wake of his rebuke of Trump is, quite frankly, unbelievable.
The Armed Forces of the United States is, without question, the most powerful military force in human history. The ability of the U.S. military to project power across the globe would leave the Roman Empire, the Persian Empire and the British Empire in awe. Without a doubt, there is no nation in existence that has the capacity to challenge American military supremacy. Yet despite the incredible strength of American military hegemonic power, our armed forces are in desperate need of change. First, it is key to understand that a strong, powerful American military is central to global peace and prosperity.
This election has been defined by the absurd. From Trump’s endless list of obscene comments, to Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” claim, we find ourselves in the precarious position of trying to decide between the lesser of two great evils. Yet 2016 is not just a presidential year — we must also make the critical choice of who should take the reins of the Senate. In more ways than one, the battle for control of the Senate will be crucial to the future of our republic. No matter who the next commander-in-chief will be, we must face the reality that the Senate will have a crucial say over the Supreme Court, U.S. intervention in the Middle East, relations with China and Russia and the budget.
In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson launched his famed War on Poverty, declaring: “This Administration, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty.” From the time that Johnson made this declaration, the federal government has spent an estimated $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs — and the level of success of these programs is highly debatable. Certainly, Johnson’s war had a major effect on senior citizens, as the poverty rate for the elderly declined nearly 18 percent between 1964 and 2015. However, total poverty rates declined less than three percent between 1964 and 2015. Today, 14.5 percent of Americans (nearly 47 million people) live below the poverty line, while the youth poverty rate has reached a stunning 20 percent.
What these numbers do not tell is the story behind America’s poor.