Defense lawyers deserve the money

An investigation by the Boston Herald shows that Massachusetts defense lawyers make, on average, twice as much as prosecutors. It seems that many people, from reporters and editors at the Herald (the headline is "Scales of injustice") to District Attorneys to victims' family members to the (mostly) brainless and cruel people who leave comments on the Herald's website, are outraged at this. I don't see anything unjust about it, however.

People who bash defense lawyers need a reminder about the Constitution of the United States. According to the Constitution, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. A founding principle of this country is that it is worse for an innocent person to be convicted than for a guilty person to go free. Defending the constitutional rights of the accused is the most basic part of the Americcan legal system and is one of the noblest jobs I can imagine.

Plus, despite the Herald's use of words such as "whopping" and "megabucks," defense attorneys don't make huge amounts of money. The article cites the sums of money that various lawyers made in 5 years while acting as court-appointed defense attorneys. The amounts are all between $200,000 and $600,000, which is pretty good, but hardly exorbitant for a 5-year period.

The article mentions that the budget of the Committee for Public Counsel Services has gone from $95.5 million in 2003 to $185 million last year. As an ardent opponent of big government spending and taxation, I admit that it's generally not good for any part of the government's budget to increase. However, the Mass. state government spends at least $869 a year for its unjust universal health care program. This, not defense lawyers' salaries, is what people should be complaining about. The government should be spending $0 on health care each year, because people should be responsible for paying for their own health care, just like any other product. I cannot understand why people throw fits over defense lawyers being compensated for the difficult, brave job they do, yet seemingly have no objection to welfare programs that give people free money for doing no work whatsoever.

Defense lawyers' pay should not be decreased. They earn every penny of it. Preserving defendants' constitutional rights is one of the few things I don't mind paying taxes for.

The creepiest website ever

Have you seen Obama's new website? It's called Change.gov and it's probably the creepiest website I have ever seen. From the Obama quote at the top of the layout to the countdown to his inauguration to the additional Obama quotes at the top of each section, it is just unsettling and reminds me a little bit of 1984. Even creepier than the design of his website are Obama's ideas. Change.gov goes into detail about a plethora of his political positions, on a variety of issues. I could never list all of the items I disagree with, but here's a sampling:

First off, he lists "Women" as one of his categories under "Agenda," but he doesn't list "Men." Singling women out for special attention is sexist in itself.

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children."
So he will steal people's money in order to create non-fun things that kids will be forced to do instead of having time to themselves as they desperately need.

"The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit provides too little relief to families that struggle to afford child care expenses. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses."
Not only will Obama discriminate against economically successful people, but he'll also discriminate against people who don't have babies!

"Obama has introduced a comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan to provide critical supports to young children and their parents by investing $10 billion per year..."
Stealing more money...

"Barack Obama has re-introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, ensure that support payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies, fund support services for fathers and their families, and support domestic violence prevention efforts." There are government penalties on married families? I never knew that being given benefits and money was a penalty. Looks like Obama wants to discriminate against bachelors and bachelorettes even more than the government already does. Plus, it is sexist to assume that only men avoid child support payments.

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will expand programs like the successful Nurse-Family Partnership to all low-income, first-time mothers. The Nurse-Family Partnership provides home visits by trained registered nurses to low-income expectant mothers and their families."
Stealing money from successful, sometimes unmarried and baby-free people to give to poor people who have babies! That's just what America needs when our population is about three times as large as it should be, causing global warming!

"He introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections."
I have a really revolutionary, hard to understand idea to prevent AIDS: how about not having sex!!! Chastity is dignified, empowering, and free.

"Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education."
More theft...

"Barack Obama introduced legislation to combat domestic violence by providing $25 million a year..."
And even more theft...

"Senator Obama co-sponsored and helped reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Signed into law in January 2006, the bill funds and helps communities, nonprofit organizations, and police combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The legislation establishes a sexual assault services program and provides education grants to prevent domestic violence."
How sexist! He equates "violence against women" with domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking! Sadly, women can and sometimes do abuse, rape, and stalk men. Sometimes acts of domestic violence are not abuse at all but are acts of self-defense against an abuser. It seems that to Obama, women are weak and need to be protected, while men are abusive brutes. Such an attitude is degrading to both genders.

And finally, the Obama youth corps! Michael Graham pointed out in his awesome blog that Change.gov used to say "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year" (under "America Serves").

But then he changed it to... "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free."

Obviously, it's never good when the president thinks people don't have a right to their own money or their own time, but at least he changed it to something less objectionable. Overall, it looks like Obama doesn't really believe in gender equality or individual rights, and his spending will make Bush look fiscally conservative in comparison.

Buying the election

Left-wing socialists across the country have been opining that Republicans did so badly in the election because conservatism is a dying, obsolete philosophy that Americans are beginning to abandon. Well, they are wrong. I know the real reason why conservatives did so badly on November 4th - because liberals bought the election.

Take Barack Obama, for example. He spent $573 million, while John McCain, who accepted public financing, spent only $293 million. It is simply not right that one candidate can have a half-hour long infomercial on all the major networks and the other candidate cannot.

Another great example of liberals buying the election is Question 1 - the initiative to repeal the Massachusetts income tax. It sickens my heart that Question 1 was defeated 70% to 30%. There would have been no drawbacks to eliminating the state income tax and a huge benefit, namely people getting to keep their money! However, because opponents of Question 1 raised $4.5 million and supporters raised only $431,000, the government theives were able to run deceptive TV ads to brainwash the people of Massachusetts into making the irrational, immoral choice.

It is sad that people are so easily influenced by propaganda instead of thinking for themselves. The amount of money a candidate or group has should not affect their chances of winning an election. I believe that campaign spending limits need to be implemented. I don't believe in public financing because the government shouldn't spend money on anything but the military, the justice system, and roads, but I also don't think campaigns should be able to spend as much as they want. Financial arms races are a waste of money, time, and energy and are collectively self-defeating. To ensure fair elections in which people have a chance to make their own decisions instead of being brainwashed, the government needs to limit the amount of money campaigns are allowed to spend.

Sources for stats:
Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org)
SouthCoastToday.com

Four long years

The 2008 election was the worst election in American history. Voters as a whole made the wrong choice on almost every race and ballot initiative in the entire country.

We'll have a socialist-leaning president who will continue to decrease people's liberty and property rights. Massachusetts voters had an opportunity to halt the expansion of government theft and oppression, but, brainwashed by the media and the multi-million dollar ad campaign from government moochers, they let the chance slip by. The magnificent, fun sport of greyhound racing is no more. Kerry and Kennedy are still the Massachusetts senators, depriving all Republicans in this state of representation. New Hampshire, which was supposed to be the only state in New England with a remnant of sense left, elected Jeanne Shaheen the taxing machine to the Senate.

Needless to say, I am extraordinarily disappointed in the people of the United States. All true Americans need to remember that although times are bad now, we must keep fighting and never give up. This will be a terrible four years, but hopefully the majority will realize the mistake they made and will vote differently next time. Every socialist nation so far has deteriorated because there is no incentive for people to work. America is clearly headed in this direction, with Obama as president and a Democratic Congress that will eagerly agree to do anything he asks. Don't lose hope. Eventually America will realize that socialism is not the way to go.

Vote yes on 1

Question 1 on the Massachusetts ballot would eliminate the state income tax. The tax would be reduced by half next year and then eliminated for good the year after that. The Massachusetts state budget would be reduced by 40%, to the same level it was in 1999.

I am strongly in favor of voting YES on Question 1. Government at all levels has gotten too big, spends too much money, has too many social programs, and passes too many unjust, oppressive laws. There is no reason why the state government's budget should go up every year. There is no reason why its budget should not be the same as it was in 1999.

How would the government make up for this loss of funds? Some people fear that property taxes would have to be increased, but Proposition 2 1/2 prevents this from happening. Yes, towns can try to override Proposition 2 1/2, but the citizens would have to vote to approve the override in a special election.

So ultimately, if Question 1 passed, the state government would have to reduce its budget, which would be an absolutely great thing. The only things the government should pay for are law enforcement, the military, roads, and (maybe) schools. The government should not be spending any money on health care, since people should pay for their own health care and should not receive health care if they do not pay for it. All types of welfare that involve money being taken from more successful people in order to provide benefits to poorer people, should be abolished. If the government had less money, perhaps it would be forced to repeal oppressive laws such as requiring everyone to have health insurance and forcing 8 year olds to sit in booster seats.

Although the state government refuses to make its budget publicly available in an easy-to-read format, I know of enough unnecessary, expensive social programs that I'm sure all essential services could easily be paid for if the income tax was abolished. And, most importantly of all, people could actually keep more of their own money. Imagine that: people having a right to the money that they've earned!

Voting yes on Question 1 would halt the government's attempts to become ever larger, more oppressive, and more socialist. Vote for liberty, vote for private ownership of property, and vote for justice! Vote yes on 1.

For more information on Question 1, visit SmallGovernmentAct.org.

Obama's tax plan is socialist

A lot of Republicans have been implying lately that Barack Obama's tax plan is socialist, and they're right on. Unless you are living under a rock, you probably know that Obama says he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans, and only people making over $250,000 a year will have their taxes increased. What Obama isn't telling anyone is that 40% of Americans don't pay any income taxes at all. Obama will give these people a "tax cut" simply by giving them free money. Where's this free money going to come from? The other 60%, of course.

I have seen some pretty terrible arguments trying to defend Obama's tax plan. First of all, a lot of people merely say that Obama wants to spread the wealth, but this does not mean he is socialist.

I agree that an America under Obama would not necessarily be a socialist country, since socialism is defined as "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole" (Dictionary.com). Making the tax system more progressive would not be enough to be considered socialism in itself. But it would make America more socialist than it is now. For libertarians like me who want America to be as un-socialist as possible, Obama's tax plan is taking the country in a direction we don't want it to go.

Another horrible argument is that if Obama's tax plan is socialist, America has been a socialist country since 1913, when the 16th Amendment was passed, giving Congress the authority to levy an income tax. In other words, since the graduated income tax system has existed for a long time, it must be good. Since when does how long something has existed have to do with how good or bad it is? Liberals are entirely right that America stopped being a purely capitalist country with the advent of the income tax. They are wrong when they claim that this is okay. I personally support the abolition of the 16th Amendment. At the very least, the tax system needs to become less progressive and instead more fair, in other words closer to a lump sum tax, which is, in my opinion, the fairest kind of tax.

Obama's tax plan, although not socialist in the absolute sense, is more socialist than the tax system we have now. I think our tax system is too socialist the way it is, and Obama, if elected, would make it even worse.

End the income tax rally!

Today I went to a rally for a great cause - ending the Massachusetts income tax. The event took place at Faneuil Hall and featured 11 speakers; pictures that I took of them are below. If you live in Massachusetts and are sick of the government growing bigger and bigger and spending more and more money, you should vote yes on Question 1. If Question 1 passes, the state income tax will be eliminated and each worker will get to keep, on average, $3,700 more each year instead of handing it over to the government. Visit smallgovernmentact.org to learn more!

Michael Graham, WTKK radio host

Carla Howell, Chair of the Committee for Small Government

Keith McCormic, State Senate candidate

Ted Tripp, Citizens for Limited Taxation

Kamal Jain, independent state budget expert

JC Cunningham, congressional candidate

Chuck Ormsby, North Andover School Committee

Garrett Quinn, Press Coordinator for Committee for Small Government

Cynthia Stead, Secretary of Mass. Republican Party

Brion Cangiamila, State Senate candidate

Matt Kinnaman, columnist

Bailout brouhaha

I'm no expert on the economy, but the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout plan makes me a little skeptical. Because I think the government should cut taxes as low as they possibly can, I tend to oppose almost anything that involves the government spending money. $700 billion sure seems like a LOT of money.

I also tend to be a strict constitutionalist: if the Constitution doesn't explicitly give the government the right to do something, the government probably doesn't have a right to do it. I wonder, when did it become the government's job to make sure the economy does well and to prevent recessions and depressions from happening? My best guess is around the time of the Great Depression, when president Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security and other social programs to help fight the Depression.

Although the Depression began to lift during FDR's presidency, I doubt that his social programs were the cause. The economy, just like the seasons, goes through cycles: sometimes it does well, sometimes there is a recession, and once in a great while there is a depression. Obviously, economic downturns aren't good, but in time they will reverse themselves. Is avoiding a recession worth creating unjust, expensive, possibly unconstitutional programs?

The last thing we need is a bigger, more powerful government. That's why I think the government should always err on the side of doing too little rather than too much.

Tax increases are not patriotic

Today Joe Biden said on "Good Morning America" that it is patriotic for rich people to pay more taxes than they do now. When anchor Kate Snow asked him if those making over $250,000 a year should have their taxes increased, he replied,

"You got it. It's time to be patriotic, Kate. Time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help America out of the rut, and the way to do that is they're still gonna pay less taxes than they did under Reagan."

Biden's comments are really, really wrong, and it scares me that he could become vice-president. First of all, by saying that wealthier people should "jump in" and "help out," Biden is implying that they aren't contributing their fair share. The opposite is true.

In my opinion, the fairest tax would be a lump sum tax: every person pays the same dollar amount. It would be simple, easy to administer, and would treat everyone equally. Another tax system that is sometimes used is proportional taxes, which means that everyone must pay the same percentage of their income. Most people would disagree with me, but I believe that this is less fair than a lump sum tax because poorer people would end up paying lower dollar amounts than wealthier people. Such a system rewards people for being poor and punishes them for being successful. Today, America uses an even more discriminatory and unjust tax system: progressive taxes. This means that rich people pay a greater percentage of their income than poor people. The unfairness is taken to a whole new level.

So it is poor people, not rich people, who aren't paying their fair share in America today. Successful people are being robbed of half their incomes, while many poor people don't have to pay taxes at all! Plus, the vast majority of government services, such as food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized education, and subsidized health care, are only available to the poor. Well-off people pay all the taxes and get none of the benefits. Poor people pay no taxes and get all of the benefits. I agree with the Democrats that our system is unfair, but for precisely the opposite reason.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the poor have it easy. I'm just saying that poor people do not have a right to rich people's money. I have a right to my money, I have no right to anyone else's money, and no one else has a right to my money. The way to help the poor would be to raise the minimum wage or to set price ceilings to make goods more affordable. The government simply has no right to take people's money and give it to other people.

The patriotic thing would not be to pay more taxes, but to protest this unjust system. The government has gotten out of control and desperately needs to cut its budget, not to raise taxes.

P.S. Biden later defended his comments, saying

"Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most. Now it'd be different if you could make the case to me that by giving this tax cut to the very wealthy, everybody else was going to be better off. We saw what happened the last eight years when we gave that tax cut. Tell me how everybody is better off. And the point I want to make to you is, and I mean this sincerely - wealthy people are just as patriotic, patriotic as poor people. We just have not asked anything of them."

You haven't asked anything of them? Really? Hmm, I thought asking them to fork over enormous amounts of money would count as something. I guess not.

Judge says no to Entwistle jury expert

Double-murder suspect Neil Entwistle recently asked for $5,000 to hire a jury consultant for his upcoming trial, and the judge in the case turned the request down. The judge's decision was certainly a reasonable one, but what wasn't reasonable, in my opinion, were the comments made about Entwistle's request by Jane Doe, Inc., a Massachusetts coalition of groups that advocate for victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse.

Toni Troop, a spokeswoman for Jane Doe, said "It's a slap in the face ... Where’s the balance for protection of victims? We’re backing costly cases while cutting domestic violence programs in Massachusetts."

Warning, this is probably not going to be a popular opinion, but it's true: Troop's comment does not make much sense at all. Jane Doe recently asked for a $10 million budget increase. That $10 million would come entirely from the taxpayers' pockets. I don't want to be disrespectful of the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, but come on. $10 million is a LOT of money. A heck of a lot more than $5,000. The role of the government should be to maintain the roads, provide for a police force and army, try accused criminals fairly, and punish those who are found guilty. It is not the government's job to steal money from people and use it to create social programs.

What I don't understand is how someone can ask for $10 million and then call it "a slap in the face" when another person asks for $5,000. What is the problem with making sure everyone gets a fair trial? The evidence against Entwistle is pretty strong, but everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If the judge ruled that a jury expert is not necessary to have a fair trial, fine. But Neil Entwistle has every right to have a publicly funded legal team.

Contrary to Ms. Troop's opinion, there is a "balance for protection of victims." It's called the legal system. Domestic violence is illegal, and if there is sufficient evidence that someone has committed a crime they are arrested, tried, and if proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, convicted.

Jane Doe should not complain that the government plans to cut its budget by $1 million. The state budget has ballooned out of control and needs to be cut drastically. Social programs like Jane Doe are not as essential to preserving people's freedom (which is the purpose of government) as making sure the legal process is fair and just. If you want the already gargantuan state budget to increase by $10 million to fund your organization, you have no right to complain when a defendant asks for a modest $5,000 to help him get a fair trial.

By the way, isn't it a little sexist that the organization is called Jane Doe? Can't men be victims too??

Sources:
"Advocates, kin fight $1M in proposed cuts" - Boston Herald
"Entwistle $$ request infuriates advocates" - Boston Herald

Fun tax facts

Sorry for not blogging in a while! Today I just wanted to plug what I think is a really important cause. In Massachusetts, there is a citizen initiative to end the state income tax, and it actually has a good chance of succeeding. Abolishing the income tax will be a question on the November 2008 ballot. According to a poll by the State House News Service, 46% of Massachusetts residents oppose ending the income tax, but 45% support it. If you think government is too big but think abolishing the income tax might be going too far, here are a few facts that might persuade you otherwise:

• The income tax makes up only 39% of the state budget, so the government would still be left with over half of its current budget
• Ending the income tax would bring the state budget back to its 1995 level
• Between 1990 and 2007, the population of Massachusetts grew by 8.3%, but state and local government spending more than doubled
• If the income tax is abolished, every resident would save, on average, $3600 each year

So if you live in Massachusetts, vote to end the income tax! Here are a couple of great links if you want to learn more about the initiative:

• http://www.smallgovernmentact.org/
• http://pledge.april15moneybomb.com/ - Tax Day Money Bomb - donate to help end the income tax!

The problem with the sales tax

In general, I think the sales tax is one of the fairest kinds of taxes. Everyone pays the same percentage of what they buy, unlike with the income tax, which punishes wealthier people by making them pay a higher percentage of their income. There is one big problem with the sales tax, however: stores don't include it in their prices.

The other day I was buying some notebooks in a store, and the total, with the sales tax, came to $11.96. I had two tens, a one, and 90 cents in change. Needless to say, I was pretty annoyed to have to break another ten for just six cents. It's not right that stores expect people to add up the prices of every item they're buying and then multiply it by 1.05 (the sales tax in my state is 5%) in their heads. It's not a huge problem for people who pay with credit or debit cards, since it doesn't really matter what the exact total comes to. But when people pay with cash, it can be very important to know ahead of time the exact amount you'll have to pay. What if I hadn't had that extra ten?

Yes, it would be a little more work for stores to include the tax in their prices, but it would not hurt stores as much as the lack of it hurts consumers. Store employees already have to calculate the sales tax; they just do it after the customer has come to the register to make a purchase, not before. It's perfectly reasonable to expect stores to label their products with the real prices.

The Browns were tricked!

You probably heard this already, but in case you didn't, Court TV reported that Ed and Elaine Brown never voluntarily agreed to go along with the feds; they were tricked! The sneaky federal agents pretended to be supporters of the Browns, and the Browns let them into their compound. Before they knew who their guests were, Ed and Elaine were in custody. I must say, the feds were very clever, but it's still a shame that the Browns were arrested.

Why Bush should veto SCHIP expansion

Taxes are so ridiculously high that the government needs to be doing as much as possible to cut its expenses. My family pays about 45% of our income in taxes, and we get very little back in return. We don't get government subsidies for health care, food, college tuition, or anything else. Congress is about to send President Bush a bill to expand government funding for SCHIP, a program that provides free health insurance to children who have too much money for Medicaid. Bush says he plans to veto the bill, and I agree with him. Congress wants to pour billions more dollars into SCHIP. In my opinion, this is one of the last things America needs. It is not the government's job to take people's money and distribute it to other people that the government has decided need it more.

How, then, would poor children pay for health care they need? The answer is simple. The government needs to set a limit on how much health care and health insurance can cost. For example, health insurance can cost a maximum of $50 per month. Or setting a broken bone cannot cost more than $30. Then people could choose whether they wanted health insurance or not. Want health insurance? Fine. Don't want health insurance? That's fine too, you can just pay individually for each procedure you get.

Ed and Elaine's press conference

Ed and Elaine Brown held a press conference in front of their house today and were joined by a high-profile supporter: Randy Weaver, whose wife and son were killed by federal troops at Ruby Ridge in 1992. I admit that these people are a lot braver than I am, and I admire their devotion to what they believe in. His gun by his side, Ed Brown told the media,

"We will defend it to the death. This is 1776 all over again. You cannot tax someone's labor because that is slavery."

Elaine said that if the feds try to capture them by force,

"We're dead. That's it....We will not volunteer to go into their prison for a non-crime. We have committed no crimes."

Randy Weaver said:

"I'd rather die on my feet right now with good American people than live on my knees under this de facto government. This is serious stuff. Bring it on."

Here are some good links on this standoff:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/13519156/detail.html
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/16/free-ed-and-elaine-brown/
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3290003&page=1
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070618/NEWS0201/70618074

In conclusion, here are some quick tax facts:

• Until the early 1800s the government relied only on internal sales taxes.
• Starting in 1817 the government functioned only on tariffs.
• Prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913, the Constitution did not give the federal government the right to tax income.
• The 9th and 10th Amendments state that the federal government does not have any rights unless they are specifically given to it in the Constitution.
• The immigration reform bill that Congress has been debating would not only allow illegal aliens to remain in the US, but would exempt them from paying any taxes they owe.

Go Ed and Elaine Brown!

For a while now the federal government has been besieging the New Hampshire compound of a couple named Ed and Elaine Brown. What was their crime? Merely not wanting the government to steal their money. The Browns believe that tax laws are unconstitutional, and therefore have refused to pay their taxes. Recently the government has shut off the Browns' phone service, Internet, and electricity, but the Browns say they can still last for quite a while without these things. I completely agree with Ed and Elaine on taxes. The government has no right to people's money, and the feds' actions in this case seem awfully mean-spirited. I mean, there are over 300 million people in this country. Would it kill the government to go without one couple's tax money?

Hatch's tax injustice

Richard Hatch's conviction in his tax evasion case was an injustice. Hatch won $1 million as the first winner of "Survivor" and was expected to give some of it to the government in exchange for nothing! Taxes are government-sponsored theft. What a way to take all the fun and excitement of game shows like "Survivor." With taxes, winning means nothing. People are punished for being successful, and poor people are rewarded for being poor. There needs to be a flat tax - everyone pays the same sum of money- or even better, no taxes at all! The tax system as it presently exists puts America one step closer to Communism, and it must be abolished.