Colorado and Marijuana

       I am not going to bore you with Colorado's legalization of marijuana.  I'm sure by now you've all made your jokes.  I am going to analyse what I believe will happen, in the next year or so, in the form of several scenarios.

1.  The federal government maintains it's position that marijuana is illegal.  (this is currently the case BTW) They tell the state of Colorado that they need to repeal the law making it legal.  Colorado will not do this.  The feds are then forced to attempt to enforce it by sending in DEA agents.  This could:
       A: Cause the Colorado national guard, which is at the governors disposal, to oppose them.
       B: Cause the state police to oppose them.
       C: Cause Colorado to attempt to secede.
This scenario is highly unlikely.

2.  The Fed attempts to force Colorado to repeal their law with military force.  This would play out exactly as above, but with a violent outcome much more likely.  This scenario is highly unlikely.

3.  The Fed turns a blind eye toward Colorado.  This is a likely scenario, because they definitely do not have an easy way of addressing this issue without looking weak.  Ignoring it is one solution.  And government as of late, is very good at ignoring the 500 lb gorilla in the room.

4.  The Fed gives in and repeals their own law making marijuana illegal.  This might make them look weak, but played correctly, it could be shown to be a cornerstone of democracy.  In this scenario the states would have the authority to make it legal, or make it illegal, individually.  This would mean that someone who legally purchased marijuana would not be forbidden from obtaining a concealed carry permit.  (Due to the federal ban, if you admit to having smoked it, you will be forbidden from obtaining such a permit)

This is a likely outcome, given that it is exactly how they handled abortion initially.

See they really can't force a state to bend to their rules without potentially sparking a revolution.  No one wants that.  (well, almost no one) So they are most likely going to allow states to make their own laws.

I would love to see Illinois do this as well, since it could be taxed rather heavily, the prices would still be lower than currently, and we might just pull ourselves out of debt.  Also, let's face it, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa are all prime growing areas for any cannabis cultivar, and the farmers could use a break.

The downside of course is that corn, and anything that eats corn, (like cows) would become very expensive, since farmers would be growing something else, until the markets stabilized.  

In Defense of Herman Cain: A progressive, flat, regressive tax.

       I was listening to the news on the way home from work, as is my wont, and they were discussing the oddly controversial 9-9-9 plan that Herman Cain has cooked up.  For those unfamiliar with it, his plan is to have all taxes boiled down to a nine percent income tax, a nine percent corporate tax, and a nine percent sales tax.  You know like in Sim City.  This post is not about whether I agree or disagree, or even what a valid opinion might be, or even if he stole the idea from Sim City.  Rather it is a vocabulary primer for the obviously under-educated media.
       You see they were calling Herman Cain's plan a "Regressive" tax.  Now I may not be the sitting chair of the political sciences department of a university; but I do know that a tax that is equal to nine percent of earnings, regardless of income, is not regressive.  It is flat.  One light argue that it is a regressive tax since the rich would miss that nine percent a lot less, but while that may be true, it is a misnomer.
       A regressive tax is one like they had in medieval times.  the poor pay a higher percentage of their income than the rich.  In this example of course the rich, being lords, pay nothing.  But this does illustrate what a regressive tax is.  Conversely a "progressive" tax is one where the rich pay a higher percentage than the poor.  This is the type that most Americans would consider "fair".  This is based on our long held belief in the "ability to pay principle".  The rich can afford to pay a higher percent because they have so much.  Ten percent tax on one million still leaves you nine hundred thousand.  Ten percent tax on one thousand dollars leaves you only nine hundred.  Don't be offended at these simplifications, remember this is for journalists to read, and if they could understand simple concepts, they would have useful occupations.
       Now it wouldn't bother me that this taxing plan was mis-categorized; except that Rick Perry's plan to have a "flat" twenty percent tax was called exactly that by the same media, in the same news story.  Possibly they like Perry better because he provides more sound bites.  I don't know.  I do know that the percentage involved does not matter unless it changes up or down by income level.  Nine percent for all is nine percent for all.  Twenty percent for all is twenty percent for all.
       So let's review:  if you plan to tax people at a flat rate of nine percent it is somehow a "regressive" tax, but if you raise that by eleven percent, up to twenty, it suddenly metamorphoses into a flat tax.  It must be the media's bias in favor of people who provide good audio clips.