It is slightly different, with the energy savings, home loans, dependent child deduction... they are deductions. While insurance is a penalty. I for one am very curious what the supreme court rules, is it simply a matter of wording, that the law simply needs to give a $5k deduction to those with insurance and raise taxes enough to cover the difference. Or does the raise taxes and lower the taxes have to be done in different laws to be legal. Or will a negative ruling essentially through all these tax deductions in areas not specified as part of congresses deamed powers into the scrap heap. I for one am a supporter of the bill, but would be tickled if it did through all those deductions out (especially since I used none of them, and thus paid $20k in payroll taxes this year.)

>folks who live in that district don't want to or can't afford to pay enough in property taxes to afford good teachers.

I agree up until that part. The teachers are probably fine, if they had the right support. If the school has a winning sports team, and no robotics team, then it is clear the parents, admin, alum have set the priorities, and they are maximizing that success. If you went to more HS basketball matches, than robotic competitions your showing the kids who you idolize more. No one would blame a coach for a loosing team with no players, and no interested parents. But everyone blames the school/teachers when few kids are going to the harder math classes... We have are priorities in this USA, and it does not appear to be academics and engineers we are counting on to take us into the future.

Pretty sure no such thing has been proposed, or enacted in the US. What has been done, is to say a vaccinated kid can't participate in publicly funded schools, or other government sponsored day care... It is the correct thing, if your not doing whats in the best interest of society don't shove a needle in your arm, but you should be paying part of the cost.

> in the production of gasoline, almost as much energy is consumed to produce a gallon of gasoline as is made available from the refined gasoline itself.

I highly doubt that, Refining+distribution of gas = 17% of the total cost From what I see Electric transmission distribution costs to a home is at least $.13 /kwhr (based on electric production cost of $.03 to $10, and avg home cost $.20+ local line cost $.03.) While Fuel distribution cost to a gas station is $.25 per gallon [ca.gov] (1 gallon = 33 kwhr.) so gasoline costs $.0075 /kwhr to distribute.
If used for charging a electric car vs hybrid, add in the weight savings of gasoline over electric (more tire wear, more road wear/maintenance), storage costs, charger costs. The reduced transportation cost of fuel could easily pay off, even if efficiency at the car is 35% (especially if it is cold out, and you have a need for some of that combustion waste heat for warmth.)

>electricity generating facility has likely been used to produce the energy you are using in your automobile anyway
And what about ignoring the amount of fossil fuels used in mining, refining materials for building and maintaining power lines, building plants, transporting coal, etc, etc. If we start using electric for our cars, the electric infrastructure will likely have to be doubled or tripled, putting a big hit on fossil fuel used to get to that point.

Losses is only a small part of cost. From what I see Electric transmission distribution costs to a home is at least $.13 /kwhr (based on electric production cost of $.03 to $10, and avg home cost $.20+ local line cost $.03.) While Fuel distribution cost to a gas station is $.25 per gallon (1 gallon = 33 kwhr.) so gasoline costs $.0075 /kwhr to distribute.
If used for charging a electric car vs hybrid, add in the weight savings of gasoline over electric, storage costs, charger costs. The reduced transportation cost of fuel could easily pay off, even if efficiency at the car is 35% (especially if it is cold out, and you have a need for some of that combustion waste heat for warmth.)

>(fingerprints) are retained in order to identify suspects of future crimes.

I don't think that would have survived a constitutional challenge. They must be taken primarily to either verify identity, or towards evidence of a current crime with probable cause. The fact they were then allowed to be retained and searched later is allowed, but I don't think as the primary purpose, they would not be allowed to be gathered without other primary cause.

Also fingerprints were ruled as something, that was exposed to general society on a regular basis, and thus not have the same level of expectation of privacy similar to photos, voice data. I don't think the extension of this towards searching and indexing fingerprint data via modern super computers has been challenged to the court. New things that DNA adds to the equation like heredity (parents, brother, uncles...) that is not normally exposed to society; As well as the need to obtain it through a mouth swab (hair doesn't provide DNA, unless some scalp is attached, skin cells can, but are not reliable sources...) So DNA should be more akin to blood, which cannot be obtained without a warrant, and that warrant needs a current case with probable cause that blood would be relevant to proving that case.

The 2 issues, is that this is done prior to any conviction. The second is this is gathering of evidence for a crime that has 1) has not occurred 2) is requiring people to provide evidence against themselves solely on the assumption of a probable cause of nonviolent criminals may become a violent criminal.
While I think a case could be made that taking your DNA may not in it's self be a violation, but taking it with the expressed reason of using it to be searched for every crime they investigate where DNA is found, then to be used against you in a court. This seams like a violation. While a photo is commonly used to ID, it is more of a probable cause search each time. IE they are not showing every mug shot... they are narrowing the search to similar crimes, and people in a narrow location. While the DNA database appears to be planned as a, Computer, go search them all, since it is probable a human was involved, search them all.

I can't stand people who oversimplify shit like that. It's not my/your job, so let the situation get much worse, have the kid locked up, because them be the rules... It is also not my job to put out that fire in the waste basket either, but if a throw my water on it now, problem is solved. If I call the fire department and leave, the whole place burns to the ground before they get there. Punishing people for seeing a problem they can solve and solving it; simply because it wasn't their job is Bull. Also, I highly doubt that a typical police officer is as well qualified to deal with students as your typical teacher is anyway.

>no person is at fault for deaths as a result of earthquakes, hurricanes, avalanches, tornadoes, etc.
I agreed with you up to that point, Certainly no one should be charged with manslaughter, for not predicting a less than a once in a 100 years event like this. But I do think it is the responsibility of a government to set building codes, and emergency services to a reasonable expectation of natural disasters in the area. And it is the responsibility of those to have solid engineering principals behind them. Also I do think if a contractor cut corners, and produced something not up to those designs, I would see them being held to manslaughter charges. Also if they cut corners based on some scientist or engineers advice (that was wrong) again, a charge of manslaughter would then be fair for those professionals even for deaths caused by (more reasonable) natural disasters.

I didn't really separate that out, I was more referring to the DEA practice of using IR cameras at one point to find and bust grow houses. IE once they found a pattern, then that was enough cause to force you to defend yourself from being arrested, (not the blackmailed later part.) The supreme court eventually ruled against this, because IR cameras were not a normal consumer item. So if the DEA found some other pattern from more consumer items, like a sony camera with IR, they might be allowed to use it again.