Hey. Stop Muddying Up The Water.

Wanna hear some good news for a change? Some major banks are taking a harder look at operations that are harmful to our environment. Operations like mountaintop removal mining for coal. Never heard of that? Well it's a practice where they blow up the top of a mountain and then dump it into the valleys around it, clogging up the streams and destroying all the land, so they can more easily get at the coal seams. Once they strip off the coal, they blast some more so they can get at the next seam and on and on. So what's the big deal? Well for one thing, the pollution that seeps into the streams that're left goes directly into the rivers that provide drinking water for those who live downstream. Anyway, back to the banks. They're beginning to feel pressure from environmental groups and the government in the form of lawsuits and publicity and costly environmental regulations. So they're beginning to back away from these questionable practices and the companies who use them. That's good. And while those companies claim they're still able to easily get their financing, it's not as easy. It's another problem for them. Another reason why they should stop the practices that are harmful, or find a less harmful way to do it. Think they'll get the message? I dunno. Money is a strong draw. That's why banks are so important. After all, banks do owe taxpayers something, right?

My Vote For Clean Air.

OK, here's the news from BP. It seems that while we were all focused on the gigantic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a little known slip up occurred in Texas City, Texas. I guess an oil refinery piece of equipment broke down, spewing toxic gases. Well, they realized this would be unpopular, so they decided not to tell the good folks of Texas City. So instead of shutting down and making the necessary repairs, they decided to channel the toxic gases to a smoke stack in an attempt to burn off those toxic gases. Guess what. It didn't work too well and for forty days it spewed out about 540,000 pounds of toxic poisons including benzene. Here's the kicker, neither BP or the state of Texas informed the people or local officials. Now, I might expect BP to try to pull one over like that, but the State? On it's own citizens? Are other states so unconcerned about it's citizenry? How would your state handle this kind of thing? For about six weeks? Do you mean to tell me they would allow this kind of a problem to go on for six weeks? What's wrong with Texas? Do you suppose the revenue from this BP refinery was so important that the state government was justified in not doing anything? I wonder how much does that come down to, per person? Just how much is a citizen of Texas City worth, anyway? For that matter, how much are any of us worth to our governments? Just what is the price of one vote?

To Stimulate Or Not To Stimulate. Any Questions?

Here's where we stand. Conservatives are demanding that the country wean itself off of government stimulus plans. They only raise the debt and cause a decrease in the businesses it's designed to help as soon as they run out. And of course they have to run out. The economy and our country cannot sustain permanent stimulus. Liberals see the need for additional stimulus. They point to the fact that it saved our economy and financial systems at a point where they were about to tank out. A further infusion of help is called for. In other words, some say yes and some say no, and I agree. Here's the thing; our economy is getting ready to drop again. Now I don't hold with handing out money to Wall Street and banks again. They showed a complete disdain for the public they're actually supposed to be serving. On the other hand, help for the auto industry, which was sorely reviled, seems to have worked out OK. The car manufacturers actually did some rehiring. So what's the answer? Well, as the worlds smartest economist, or the dumbest dummy in the world, I think we need to have another round of stimulus. This time we should exclusively target two areas. Unemployment and consumer goods. Durable goods. The home buyers and auto incentives helped with demand in those two areas and gave a boost to the economy and employed more people. So, what if we broadened it to include more durable goods. Appliances and home improvement item and other like products would help to increase demand which would create the need for workers. And by the way, this, NOT tax breaks for the wealthy, will create jobs. How can we afford such stimulus? Savings has increased in this country more than any time in recent memory. That's the only reason we can afford to do it. And I sincerely believe that without it, we'll never get out from under the mountain of debt we face. Putting money in the pockets of rich people only helps rich people. They're not likely to share the wealth.

States Rights For The Unfair And Imbalanced

So I opened up the Washington Post website this morning and found two interesting and related stories. First, it appears that the federal relief programs for Gulf Coast states for Katrina recovery administered by Louisiana and Mississippi overwhelmingly favor wealthy victims over the poor or middle class. Second, the Attorney's General of the Gulf Coast states are complaining about Ken Feinberg for the way he's handling the $20 billion in BP funds for victims. Mr Feinberg has had the nerve to suggest that folks strongly consider taking the money in lieu of suing BP. He says they'd have to wait a long time, with no clear knowledge of what to expect and then share it with lawyers. Ya know what? He's right. So what do these two stories tell us? That the governments of these Southern states are even more screwed up then the federal government. In the first story, it would appear that the states prefer that only rich people remain. In the second, they seem to want lawyers to reap any rewards. not the folks who have lost out. Ya know what? If I were a rich lawyer (is there any other kind) I'd want to live in a Gulf Coast state.

The CIA To The Rescue.

OK, we all know how much is at stake in Afghanistan and in neighboring Pakistan. If we can't turn Afghanistan around, it'll return to being a staging area for terrorism here in America. In Pakistan, well they have the bomb, and if the terrorists get any kind of control, there's going to be real problems. One of the Afghan problems has been corruption in the government. Now we have some of that right here, but nothing like the scale of Afghanistan. Pres. Karzai has promised to root it out. Of course with the likes of his own family involved it's really hard. The U.S. is helping. One way it's helping is to find out that our CIA is paying at least one of the bad guys. So how's Karzai supposed to root out the bad guys when we're paying them to keep it up. And we've been doing it for years. Now, far be it for me to tell them how to handle their own business, but don't you think we ought to all be on the same page? I mean if we want to get rid of some bad guys, is it a good idea to keep paying them? I mean if you hang a bird feeder up, don't you think the birds will keep coming back as long as you feed them? Well these birds in Afghanistan are still coming back for more. Wouldn't you? After all, it's free money. These guys think they've won the lottery. A thousand a week for life. Probably more than a thousand. I bet the strategy is to give them so much money they won't have time to be corrupt. Too busy counting the CIA money.

Cotton Or Cake?

Do you like cotton? Cotton makes good clothes and a lot of other things.
One of the things it makes is wealthy farmers. Not all cotton growers mind you, but some connected ones. Let's start at the top. America will pay Brazil over $147 million to settle a lawsuit so we can continue to subsidize some very wealthy cotton growers. Now enter stage left, Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. She wants to bestow even more money on those cotton growers in the form of disaster relief. Problem is, there's no real disaster. To be sure the output for 2009 was below 2008 because of too much rain, but 2008 was a banner year. 2009 is slightly above 2007's output. No matter, Blanche still wants them to have this largess. After all, it is an election year. And Blanche is in a tough campaign. Anyway, the money just isn't available in the budget except for a little known and little used pocket. At least it's little used for this purpose. See, it's supposed to be used to help feed needy children. But, hey, needy children don't vote. Wealthy cotton growers not only vote, they donate to Blanche's campaign. So when you place needy children on one side of the scale and wealthy growers/voters/donors on the other side.... well, you do the math. And that math ads up to $787,000 on top of the $874,000 subsidy for one grower. Ah heck, let those kids eat cake.

How to Pick A Candidate 101.

Well, it keeps getting better. No. Wait. Actually it keeps getting worse. I'm talking about all the flap over the proposed community center and mosque two blocks from ground zero. Last night on the Daily Show, they took Fox News to task over comments Fox people have continually been saying about the Imam involved with the Community Center. Fox folks have accused him of ties to an Arab multimillionaire who funds terrorism. This unnamed Arab also gave N.Y.C. ten million after 911. Ruddy, then mayor returned the money. Well, as it turns out, this suspect Arab is a partner of Rupert Murdock part owner of Fox News and who, himself is also part owner of Fox News. Needless to say Jon Stewart poked just a little fun at Fox. He accused them of having ties to terrorism. Then I read that an ex Congressman who is running for Governor of N.Y. is foaming at the mouth about the insensitivity of building this mosque. This, while showing film of the disaster taking place. Pot calling Kettle? Oh ya, yesterday on MSNBC's Hardball, Mathews asked a representative of a group opposing the center, how far away would be acceptable? The guy couldn't come up with an answer. All of this points to something of mass hysteria promoted by some politicians and Fox News, anxious to reap election day profits. I think, therefore, a lot can be learned about the real dedication of all candidates this year by asking them how they feel about this Muslim Center. If they say they think it should be built, vote yes because they stand up for what they believe. If they shout "No Way", vote no way, because they only care about getting elected, not about serving. If they waffle, don't you think they'll always waffle on the hard issues in life? Unless of course they put strawberries, whipped cream and maple syrup on themselves. Then send me a picture of them.

Of Politicians And Skunks.

DID YOU KNOW that there has been sixteen new traditional coal fired generation plants built since 2008 and another sixteen are under construction in the United States? They'll have an output of about 18,000 megawatts of power. They'll produce 125 million tons of greenhouse gases a year. Now, these aren't plants that will use the oft touted 'clean coal' technology. Ya know why they won't or don't use that technology? Because it doesn't exist. So what does that mean to newer, cleaner power generating facilities? It means that for many years they won't happen. The claim is still made that it would drive up the cost of electricity, but these new coal plants are driving up the cost of energy by as much as 30%. And that doesn't consider the true cost in terms of waste management over the long term or the cost of damage to the environment in extracting the coal from the ground in the first place. So why do we continue to put up with this nonsense? Politicians use scare tactics to get reelected or elected. Just enough politicians make these untrue claims to kill any legislation aimed at exposing the true costs of our carbon based, fossil fuel energy dependence. That's right. Almost anytime you hear of a problem that should be easy to resolve, that isn't getting resolved, you can bet there's a politician or two behind it. That's not a skunk in the woodpile, it's a politician. Very possibly your favorite one.

Three Cheers For Intolerance.

I hear that the area where they want to build an Islamic community center is the home of such sacred edifices as a "gentleman's club" and a place where lap dances can be arranged in private rooms. Boy, I can see why they don't want to ruin such a devout neighborhood. The next thing you know, people will begin to complain about "ladies of the evening". We need to stand up to such intrusions into our rights to receive lap dances in the privacy of our gentlemen's clubs or even on our street corners if necessary. Just what's wrong with having a community center, you might ask? Well, hrmpf. People might start talking about peace and brotherhood or some other unAmerican activities. We can't have that sort of thing happening on our shores. Why, the next thing you know, some bearded guy will start talking about how we all need to live together in harmony right here in our own towns and hamlets. We just can't have such things taking place in America. Ms. Palin is right, Osama Bin Laden needs more recruits. Newt Gingrich has stated it most eloquently when he said "I don't want any Muslims lecturing me while Christian churches are not allowed in Saudi Arabia". He'd rather be ignorant of the facts about Islam because some others are also intolerant. My hat's off to these leaders. They'll surely get out the votes.

Never Mind The Beef, Where's The Jobs?

The Washington Post had an interesting article in it this morning. Titled "With consumers slow to spend, businesses are slow to hire", it tells more of a story then it's author realizes, I think. The thrust of the story is why business and industrial leaders are unwilling to take advantage of any government stimulus to begin ramping up on workforces or anything else except bankrolls. Why should we hire when there's no buyers for the stuff we would make? That's a theory I've been claiming for years. The feeling is that another stimulus would only provide temporary relief. They blame elimination of tax cuts for the wealthy and increases to capital gains taxes. But at the same time, they admit that even without those tax disadvantages, they wouldn't hire until people start buying again. Here's the rub. If people aren't buying because they're out of work, how will not hiring them get them into the mood to start buying again? So, if stimulus won't work and lower taxes and less regulation won't work either, what will get people back to work? Some claim it took ten years to get us into this mess. It'll take that long to get us out of the mess. How does that help folks who are out of work. Oh, just wait your turn. In six or eight or ten years, you'll be able to find a job. It might be flipping burgers, but HEY, at least it'll be part time. What I think we need is to stimulate our economy in a different way. By developing new industry and finding ways to import those jobs that were exported to other countries. Let's stop rewarding companies for sending those jobs elsewhere. Not with trade wars, but by eliminating tax breaks for companies who send jobs overseas and then move their headquarters off shore as well. Are those companies truly American companies any more? Some of these companies do billions in business here but don't pay one cent in taxes here, but complain our tax rates are too high. I don't think those tax rates are too high. I don't think zero is high enough. Do you? Let's at least double them to zero zero. If you do business here, you pay taxes here, period.

Taxes Ain't For No Sissy.

Here's an interesting little tidbit that will happen starting in September. You'll hear a whole lot about it between then and election day. It seems that the Republicans and two Democrats in congress have decided that the Bush Tax Cuts should be extended permanently. To do this, they're willing to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and unemployment benefits. Now they won't say that. They'll just say that some cuts to the budget will be necessary and that they're willing to have the Finance committee figure out where to make the cuts. But most of the money that committee has any control over, are those mentioned. Especially when it comes to the three trillion necessary to extend those tax cuts. The Democrats, and one lone Republican want to eliminate the tax cuts for anyone earning over $250,000, although the Republicans will keep telling you it will hurt small businesses. Here's the thing about that argument. This tax won't be on the total income of businesses, it'll be on the net profits. So, after all the bills are paid by those businesses, heat, lights, product purchases, payroll, insurance, other taxes and etc, the money that goes into the pocket of the owners, after their paychecks, is what will be taxed. How does that hurt the small businesses? It will only hurt the owners if they're making more than $250,000. By the way, it will only take them back to what they were paying before President Bush was elected. So, although you'll hear a lot about tax increases, it's really about eliminating some tax cuts given by Mr. Bush. And that was done because the government had a surplus built up by President Clinton. That surplus disappeared and now we are in the hole. Keep in mind the only people that will pay more then they did last year are those making over $250,000. So, how much are you making?

Ho, Ho, Ho. Merry Oil Spill.

Well, there's no more oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. About a week or so after it was plugged, maybe two weeks, the government announced that 75% of all the oil spilled had disappeared. It was cleaned up or dissolved or maybe taken up to heaven where all good hydrocarbons go. Do you believe that story? Is that possible? Does that mean there will never be a price to pay for this spill?" Is BP off the hook? I remember when I was about six years old, I believed in Santa. But when I was about seven or so, I found out there was no Santa. About the same time I realized there was an advantage in still "believing" in Santa. Or so I thought. The thinking went this way; If you believe, you get your presents, if you stop believing, they may stop coming. As it turned out, even after Mom and Dad knew I didn't believe anymore I still got presents. Is there a connection here between what we're being told to believe and my Santa story? Yes. Whether or not we believe what the government tells us, there's still going to be presents, in the form of tar balls and etc, coming from this disaster, and BP and it's partners will still be to blame, and people will still suffer as a result. Now I never got a tar ball for Christmas. I don't think I ever asked for one. I'm sure that if I really wanted one, Dad would have figured out a way to give me one. I'm glad he didn't. I doubt the good folks along the Gulf Coast want one either. The difference is, they're going to get some regardless. Now, why should I care? I don't live there. But I do know some folks who do. And anyway, what affects them, affects me. If not now, then one of these days. My brother-in-law doesn't like wind turbines along some mountaintops. He feels it ruins his view. It's some sort of pollution, I guess. But if it helps us wean ourselves off fossil fuels,it can't be all bad.

I'll Trade You Four Senators For One Judge.

Some strange things have been happening in our electoral process. From the trial of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who couldn't get convicted for demanding $50,000 before he would sign a permit to help a children's hospital, to the Supreme Court's decision to allow corporations pretty much a free hand in in purchasing candidates, to the trial of a coal mine executive's purchase of a judge who then found in his favor in a $50 million case. Now remember, the law, at least until the Supreme Court decides to change the law, says that one person gets one vote. Actually it says one man, one vote. What it fails to say is one Corporation, one elected official bought and paid for. That seems to be what the Supreme Court is trying to correct. I guess someday we'll finally cut to the chase and we won't have to put up with all the campaign ads on TV. A select few corporate representatives will get together and select the winning candidates. Now, that'll be OK provided you work for or purchase the products or services of those corporations. I'm not sure what will happen if you are unfortunate enough to work for a competitor, or are allergic to their products. Oh, we'll still have freedom of religion, providing you select the right church to attend, and you won't have to go to all the trouble of voting, nor will you have to spend so much time trying to decide which brand to buy. The advantage is that you'll have so much more free time to work. Provided it's for the right company. By then, we won't have a president anymore. Just a President Judge. Oh. And the Senate won't approve any judicial appointments. In fact the most important work of the congress will be to decide which fertilizer to use on the lawns in Washington DC. Gosh. I hope they'll be able to handle it.

Well, How Much Is A Fair Judge Worth?

How do you go about getting a fair judge? What makes a good judge? In West Virginia an executive of a coal company gave three million to a judges campaign. When the judge got elected he promptly reversed a 45 million decision against that coal company. The Supreme court later found that to be wrong and apparently chastised the judge as well. It does point out one bad way to get a bad judge. Hold elections for judges. Why is that so bad? Because it turns judges into politicians. Need I say more? In a number of states, outside interest groups are pouring money into state judicial elections turning them into knock down drag out political contests. Is that how we should choose who becomes a judge? I mean, I don't even think it's a good way to decide who should govern us. If you don't live in the area to be served, you shouldn't be allowed to decide who will be elected. Or to say it another way, if you're not allowed to vote for that person, you shouldn't be allowed to contribute to that person's campaign. Of course that would eliminate corporations, but why should corporations be allowed to have a say? Their owners and employees already have that right, if they can vote for that person. Getting back to choosing judges, another bad way to get fair judges is to have them appointed by Governors or state legislators or even Presidents and Senates. Why not? Because they're politicians. Need I say more? So how do you get fair judges? I'm not sure, but there should be a way to find people who are qualified and able to be fair. Maybe some combination of local Law Bars (as opposed to corner bars) and legal scholars, and elected members at large, should be formed into a committee to elect the judges. Just don't pay them, and don't tell anybody who they are.

What's Religion Got To Do With It.

So some Muslims want to build a facility on lower Manhattan a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. Well I can tell you this much. I'm no Muslim. Look at Newt Gingrich. He doesn't even want to be lectured by any Muslims until or unless there are Christian and Jewish houses of worship in Saudi Arabia. See, Saudi Arabia doesn't allow any religion on it's soil except the Muslim religion and the Oil Money religion. It gets it's Oil Money religion from the United States because the leadership of the United States has never been willing to wean itself from oil. Newt should know that. He's been one of the leaders who has kept such things from happening in the U.S. So what's wrong with having a Muslim Center a couple of blocks from Ground Zero? Why, it's unAmerican to allow a religious group build a building where they want. The Founding Fathers said so. No. Wait. Actually they didn't say any such thing. What they did say is that there must be religious freedom. That's sorta different from what Newt and Sarah and a whole bunch of other knee jerk folks have been saying. I may not want to be a Muslim, but I know some Muslim folks. Ya know what? They're not much different from me. Or you. Yes, there are some very bad Muslims. But then there's some Christians and Jews that are just as bad. Take Tim McVay for example. I don't know what church he went to, but I'll bet they'd be allowed to build a building in Oklahoma City a couple of blocks from the building he blew up. It ain't the religion folks.

CONstitution or PROstitution?

The other day, on MSNBC, one of the commentators said that the candidates who won in the primaries won because they got the most votes. A truly profound statement? Ex Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin said of California's prop. 8, that the third branch of government went against the will of the people. But isn't that the role of the judiciary? Aren't they charged by the constitution with protecting the minority from the majority as well as vise-versa? Yes to both. On Jon Stewart's Daily Show, one of the guest comedians suggested the word CONstitution was a poor choice. Well, with all the Pros and Cons, I agree. He suggested a kinder, gentler term. The PROstitution, would have been better. Jon pointed out that the term Prostitution had already been taken. The Tea Partiers as well as most other groups, claim the Constitution is perfect and should not be tampered with. Then in the next breath, they talk about changing this or that part of the Constitution. They don't like the way the President or the congress is doing this or that. They all seem to forget there is a fourth branch of government. That branch does it's work two days a year. Once it speaks, that decides who will run things for one term of office. The next time you hear somebody say the government isn't listening to the people, point out that it does. Every two years. The people have the last word. In 08 the fourth branch decided it wanted the Democrats to run things completely. Maybe it hasn't done that all that well. Maybe the fourth branch will change the 08 decision. Maybe not. Whatever it decides, quit complaining. Especially if you haven't voted.

Why Afghanistan, Why Now.

Ya know why the Afghan war is such a problem? A conundrum? Well for starters, for seven years we pretty much forgot about it. By that I mean we fought it, but without the manpower we needed and the support for the Afghan army and government they needed. So the initial victories we saw were lost and the Taliban fought back to control in many areas. Anyone surprised that the people don't really trust us to win? So, finally a year or so ago we suddenly remembered we had a war to win in Afghanistan. It's a war that's very important for us to win. Or at least not lose. Of the last few wars we've fought in, this is perhaps the most important to us in terms of our national security. So what's wrong now? I mean Afghanistan has a 135,000 man army. That's not bad, is it? Well, it's true it has a sizable army, but they are very poorly trained. There is something like ninety percent of the military who can't read or write, even in their own language, and marksmanship is around twenty percent. Very few know how to drive and far fewer could repair a vehicle when necessary. It's pretty hard to be taken very seriously at that rate. Then there's the government. It's about as corrupt as they get. There's little support for it among the people. Recently this army (or the government) decided to fight a battle on it's own. Without any help. NATO has to step in now and save their bacon. And they don't eat bacon. Support for this war is slipping, away here in America. Problem is, we can't walk away from this one. It's a training ground for terrorists to strike at America. If we leave before there's a government and military that can fend for itself, the country would become the training camp for every terrorist in the world. Terrorism would become the GNP of the country. Isn't that what you call catch 22? Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

We Want Citizen Legislators!

I was watching MSNBC this morning and they were talking about a study being done by a magazine about how to realistically reduce the debt. Some good points were made. You know how I know they made some really good points? How they were on to something important? Because almost nobody will be happy with their recommendations. On the one hand, they say that it will be impossible to balance the budget and eliminate our debt without raising some taxes. Maybe even more then some. On the other hand, they claim that some cutting of entitlements, including Medicare and Social Security will need to be made. Yep, even the defense budget. The only thing that most people will agree with is a cut to foreign aid. Which is about one percent of the budget. So, what're the chances that something like this can be done? Well, with our current crop of politicians, there's almost no chance. And don't start thinking that folks like the Tea-partiers could do it. There would be even less chance with them in charge. Why am I so hard on the Tea-party set? Because they're unable to see past lower taxes. That and smaller government, or no government, which is absurd. No, it would take a group of citizen legislators to make it happen. You think our current legislators are citizens? Well they are, but I'm talking about people with no chance of being reelected. Term limits. Our folks in Washington are professional legislators. We need some volunteers to go to Washington with one goal. To put things right. One four or six year term and out. They wouldn't need to spend time raising money or campaigning. Just do the job. Even then it wouldn't be easy.

Trow Da Bums Away.

Lets go back to the Turnip Truck Theory. To make it simple I'll call it the TTT. Now we've all been hearing about how the country is going to throw out all the incumbents. Well, except for the ones who have been making that claim. They presumably will get reelected. But all the others in Washington will get thrown out. Now if yesterday was any indication, that won't wash. But, fair enough. Let's suppose that were to actually happen. What would happen as a result? That would mean every member of the House of Representatives would be replaced with folks who have no idea what to do or how to do it. Lobbyists enter stage right. One third of the Senate would be replaced. That's 33 1/3 members. Don't ask about the 1/3 member. So what does all this have to do with the TTT? Well for starters, nothing would change. Oh, there might be a few changes to start, but over the long haul nothing would change. You'd still have most folks sitting in the middle, you'd have some folks sitting on the left side of the truck and you'd definitely have some dangling their feet off the right side, and the truck would still hit a bump in the road from time to time, and lefties and righties would still fall off that Turnip Truck. Those are the kooks who keep proposing weird things like throwing away Anchor Babies and other silly ideas. Now don't you feel justified in changing your vote? I'd be in favor of throwing away all those kooks sitting on the outsides of the truck. Wouldn't you? Hey, eventually they'd fall off anyway.

Where Do Those Tax Breaks Go?

Ya know what the talking point for giving tax breaks to the wealthiest two percent of our people is? The claim is that these are the folks that create jobs and they need these tax breaks to do it. So, is that true? Would these folks really use this trillion dollars plus to create new jobs? If that were true, I guess I'd grudgingly give it to them. Problem is, it isn't true. Look. If they make ten million a year, and they got an extra ten percent off on taxes, that amounted to, let's say two hundred thousand dollars for the sake of argument, what would they do with it? They could create half a dozen jobs, maybe. Question is, what would those six workers do? If this rich guy's company isn't making sales. If nobody is buying his products, would he really hire six more people? Would you? So, maybe he'd invest in Wall Street instead. How would that create more jobs? See, the big money in investing, isn't in loaning money to companies to expand, it's in betting those companies will fail. It's the part of Wall Street that caused the Great Recession, although they won't admit it. No my friends, there's no good reason to give a tax break to the rich, unless you're rich. So why are so many politicians demanding those tax breaks? Well, my guess is that either they're rich, or some rich people are buying them off.

Why Do Rich Get Richer, Poor Get Poorer?

Hey, what's going on? When's the last time you heard somebody say that taxes are too high? I mean besides just now? Probably within the last couple of days. So, why is everyone so worried about taxes? Well, of course, people have always felt taxes were too high. Probably even before there were taxes. Which was a very long time ago. So, is the answer to cut taxes? Even if it means fewer teachers? Fewer paved roads? Fewer police and firemen? Where do we say "Stop"? When is it OK to raise taxes? What parts of education can we do without? If we allow our transportation network to fall into disrepair and our educational institutions to fall behind the rest of the world, is it OK? To be sure, the wealthy will always be able to find someplace where their kids can get a good education, but how about yours? Can we afford to give tax breaks to the wealthiest one or two percent of our population as a trade-off for schools and roads and cops and all that? It's easy for me to say tax the rich. I'm not rich. But how about you? Do you mind if some rich guy gets a tax break while you pay more and get less? I'll bet I know how rich people feel about it.

What's A Republican?

Do you Remember Sen John McCain? The one who ran for president against Barack Obama? He's fallen on something like hard times. By that I mean he went from being an independent Republican maverick to conservative Republican who tows the mark, to now, a man in an uphill fight to hold his Arizona Senate seat, and clearly leaning towards Libertarianism. But if you think that's bad, you need to look at some other Republicans. Like Angel, the lady running for the Senate in Nevada and Mr Paul, running in Kentucky, both on the Republican ticket, both Libertarians. Both representing anything but sanity. Now don't get me wrong, the Democrats have their share of problems and problem people, but nothing like the Republicans. What happened to the Republican party? I used to be a Republican. But the GOP of today is nothing like the GOP of the past. They love to point to Ronald Reagan as though he's their idol, but they seem to be against most of what he stood for. They've changed. They seem to want to rewrite history to read like the current GOP manifesto. Think I'm wrong? Look at Texas. The State Board of Education has rewritten the history book of American history. They don't even mention slavery. They call it something like Three Product Trade, or something like that. Suggesting that slavery was just a good business practice, I guess. And that's just one of many. So what if Texas wants to teach it's students dumb things? Because they buy for the whole state instead of just one school district. The publishers choose their version for everyone. So your school may well be stuck with it. So, is it possible that the Republicans can win with these strategies? Do people really care so little about what happens to themselves? When will sane people take back the Republican Party?

For A Large Campaign Donation, I Can Guarntee---

Your Congress(s) at work. Here's how things work in our Congress. They want to pay for any bill they pass. An admirable trait. So when they needed to pay for bills for increases to school lunches and state's jobs, they turned to the Food Stamp program to pay for them. Now they could have funded these worthy pieces of legislation from things like farm subsidies, or even better, oil industry subsidies, but the thing is, these things bring votes. Now presumably food stamp recipients vote too, but not in the numbers provided by the suggested areas, and not to the influential legislators necessary to win the day. Here's the thing, if you can't bring either votes or large amounts of money to the legislators, the right legislators, you won't get the attention you want. Similarly, states are concerned because the pension funds they control for retired state workers and teachers is insufficient to cover the number of retired people and the high pensions owed. What's the answer? Who will pay to fill those needs? Here's a suggestion; Let the current workers pay or reduce the amount of the benefits. Heaven forbid. Well if not them, then who? If you guessed the taxpayer, you win the Kewpie Doll. Of course, it'll be well hidden in legislation. Sort of like a shell game.

The Rich Economics

A favorite editorialists, Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post this morning, made some interesting points. He was writing about those 40 Billionaires who are giving half of their fortunes to charity. But the point he makes that really struck me is about the so called Trickle Down Theory. The thing is, it doesn't work anymore. He claims that at one time, in the past, it did work. The reason it worked is that those at the top, gave generously so that those in the middle and at the bottom had a chance to get to the top. That's no longer true. Folks at the top don't give as much as those in the middle or bottom. I'm speaking of percentages of income, or wealth. It's like the old Biblical parable of the poor widow who gave the two coins while the rich man made a big show of giving from his wealth. Making a big show is only helpful if it encourages other wealthy to give likewise. The thing is, if the wealthy don't give a great deal, then their wealth doesn't help the country or the society. They do have a responsibility to help others to become successful. If they don't give it away, then the government is justified in taxing it away. Now, I realize that nobody likes taxes. So maybe the rich should start supporting education and hospitals and a host of other things so that the government won't have to. The reason it's important for them to do so, is that the middle class in this country is disappearing. It's disappearing because the country is losing middle class jobs. They're being shipped overseas by companies owned by the rich who complain about the high price of labor. Of course, the complain about the low performance of foreign labor and the lost customers in this country. How come the folks who used to work for me don't buy my companies products any more? Probably sour grapes. Or maybe they don't make enough to pay for the products anymore, because flipping burgers doesn't allow for it in the budget.

Yes. I Was Born Straight Here.

What do Prop 8 Gay marriage and Article 14 babies have in common? Well first, what are those things anyway? Prop 8 was a vote by Californians to make Gay Marriages illegal and Article 14 of the Constitution, states that anyone born in the United States automatically has citizenship in the U.S. First, Prop 8 was struck down by a federal judge as unconstitutional. It'll go to the Supreme Court. Second, Some Social Conservatives, especially some Conservative politicians are trying to make some hay out of this by claiming that too many foreigners are sneaking into the U.S. to have a baby then returning home (or not) with a U.S. citizen child. They want to change the Constitution to read that a child born in this country is only a citizen if one of the parents is also a citizen. What these two things have in common is that they point out the intolerance of some people. For these folks, only certain people are good enough to be Americans. Presumably White Angelo-Saxons. Maybe even Protestants. Which would mean only WASPs need apply. And all of them must swear to be heterosexual. The odd part to all of this is that the same folks who demand these changes to the Constitution are the same ones who demand that we all defend the Constitution exactly as it is or risk being anti-American. If they got their way, then the next change they would demand might be to eliminate you from the list of acceptable candidates for American Citizenship. Then they might even want my hide. So, my friends, we need to fight this ignorance with the golden rule. It still works pretty well. DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU!

I Like Oil, You Like Oil, We Are The Friends Of Oil

Far be it from me to find fault with the Oil Industry. I mean, let's face it, Fossil Fuels are the elixirs of life. They are what made the internal combustion engine possible. They power our world. From the electric toothbrush you use after each meal, to the TV reality show you watch constantly to the SUV you drive to the store down the street, to the movie, to work, to the flight you take on your vacation to the City of Lights or the City of Sin or wherever you go. Yes children, fossil fuels are what our world is all about. And the best part is that it is an unending supply of energy. There's enough coal to pollute, I mean power our electric grid far into the future, and there's enough oil to supply our wander-lust as far, as well. And if supplies are interrupted there's always natural gas, anxiously waiting in the wings. But here's the best part. Fossil fuels are safe. There's never a fear of a mishap. Right? I mean, the single most feared word in the English language is "oops". You won't hear that kind if word bandied around the oil fields, or in coal mines or at gas drilling sites. Not in this day and age, no sirree. Ya know, if there were as many oops' used at a nuclear reactor as there is in any and all of the fossil fuel industry, we'd never have even discovered the atom.