One Percent Solution

Everything should be free — not just college.

Bernie Sanders is far too conservative on this issue.

I'll explain momentarily. First, though, I want to offer a reasonable compromise to a new issue in the presidential campaign.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders disagree over whether to increase taxes on soft drinks. Clinton wants to use the tax to fund universal free preschool. Sanders says the tax would unfairly burden the poor.

Obviously, the candidates should work together on this and adopt the middle position: Tax only soda purchased by the wealthy.

They can afford 10 bucks for a can of cola.

Problem solved.

The issue, simple as it may be, brings to mind a number of questions.

For example, if it's so easy to fund free universal preschool, why would it be hard to fund free universal college? Aren't they sort of the same thing?

OK, you may need a few more resources and better teachers. It's time-consuming and exhausting chasing toddlers around, but you save money on books and housing since most of them live with their parents.

And while pretty much every tiny person ought to have preschool, only a minority of college-age kids will want the free college. Some kids won't want or need college and other kids will go off to private schools.

So college ought to cost less. A tax on beer ought to do the trick.

Now consider elementary, middle school and high school. We manage to pay for all of those. Why is paying for four more years so different?

This is of vital national importance. If 19-year-olds can't get into college, we'll start seeing them in our offices and factories.

Nobody wants that.

The next question I have is, why just tax sugary drinks? Is the idea to make children pay their own way?

If it is, we need to tax ice cream and gummy bears too.

A hefty tax on skateboards and smart phones should help our high schools.

Of course, we could avoid all this debate about taxation and financing if we had a truly free society. By that I mean everything should be free.

I know this sounds like a radical idea, but it's the only way to save the wealthy. And without them we couldn't have the entertaining elections we so enjoy.

The wealthy are in grave danger because of an onrushing tide that may well be out of control: technology.

Pretty soon, machines, computers, and the Internet (powered by machines and computers) will be able to do all our jobs and everyone will be out of work.

Farms will harvest themselves, cars will drive themselves, construction sites will be devoid of humans, and robot comics will insult Donald Trump.

It's Armageddon for the One Percent because no one will have any money to buy anything from them.

It's tragic, but with absolute abundance comes absolute poverty.

With all that machine-made stuff lying around, it makes sense to distribute it for free. I'm pretty sure the robots will insist on it, so they can keep making things.

The formerly wealthy should get some sort of credit to make up for their losses, and to make sure they don't pull any plugs.

By the way, we'll still have wars because we'll be really bored.

Snappy dialog: This is from a Los Angeles Superior Court assault and battery lawsuit filed last week against an attorney:

"Defendant, who was representing the husband of the plaintiff in the parties' divorce proceeding, did engage in an altercation with plaintiff, who was the wife in the divorce proceedings, while her attorney was present. Defendant call plaintiff 'a greedy bitch,' at which time the plaintiff responded that she was 'not a greedy bitch.'"

They should call in Pee Wee Herman to preside over arbitration.

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit