Milk For The Rich.

Ya know I still can't get over all those corporations who don't pay anything in taxes. And as if that wasn't bad enough. some are complaining that their tax rates are too high. Too high? They're not -paying anything now. Just how low does their tax rate have to go to be acceptable to them? Then you turn around and hear a politician running for president say that there are poor people who aren't paying any taxes at all. As if they were stealing food from his refrigerator. Speaking of refrigerators, they pointed out that most of these poor people actually have refrigerators. Poor people? Have refrigerators? How unfair is that? And just what do they need refrigerators for anyway? You don't mean to say they have food do you? I thought they claimed to be poor. Where are they getting this food from anyway? Well, some get milk from WIC, a program that provides certain nutritional foods for women, infants and children. Milk? Say, that just isn't right. Maybe we should pass a law that says if a poor person doesn't have any money to pay taxes, if they don't have a job and have no other source of income, then they should pay with milk. We could instruct the IRS to confiscate some refrigerators to keep all that milk in. Because everyone should pay something in the way of taxes. After all, how in the world are we going to lower the tax rate for corporations if poor people don't pay any taxes. Things are going to change around here after these folks get elected. No more free rides for the poor. We need that money so we can give it to the rich. Just like Robin Hood, except in reverse. Now you may wonder why we should favor the corporations? Well it's because they're the ones that pay for all the campaign advertising.

It's Hard Being Me.

There are two kinds of people in America. No, that's not right. There are three kinds of people in America. Well, actually there are probably five. And if I add any more to the list, I'll loose my train of thought, if I had one. So let's stick with five. First you have the far right person. He, or she, believes everyone should be left to his or her own devices almost entirely and they want someone to make sure it happens. Opposite of that is the far left person. He or she believes the government needs to help nearly everyone to do nearly everything. Then you have the moderates on each side. These two aren't all that far apart and in fact are nearly independent. That leaves those who really don't give a tinker's damn. They aren't going to vote at all but they are going to complain about anyone who gets elected. This is my group. All except that I do vote. In every election. I feel that if you're going to find fault with an elected official, you should have at least voted. Either for or against that someone. If you voted against that person, you can claim you were right all the time. If you voted for that person, you can complain that he or she has changed and isn't the same person you voted for. There is a tremendous advantage to being in this category, as opposed to being either left or right, either moderately or aggressively so. See, left can only find fault with right and visa-virsa. But me, I can point out the inability or unwillingness of everyone to do the job they were elected to do. There's just one problem with being correct all the time. It's hard work and half the world hates you for being correct. The other half thinks you just stole the idea from them. There could even be some truth to that. And that's more than one problem, isn't it?

You Think Things Are Bad Now?

Ya know, we keep hearing how bad things are for banks and business and industry and we even hear that things seem to be bad for the unemployed. Well that last, at least, is true. But if you look at the rest, things aren't quite as bad as they sound, or they are but it's mostly of their own doing. Take banks for instance. Reports in the news tell us that bank profits are down. Well duhhh. They built up quite a profit machine with mortgages, especially bundled toxic mortgages. Now who was at fault there? I don't think anybody held a gun to their heads and forced them to make loans to people who couldn't afford to repay them. Then there's industry. Industry decided to begin to close plants in this country and ship the manufacturing sectors along with the technology to countries like China. Now those countries have the manufacturing capabilities and the technologies and our industries wonder why they can't compete with China. Well duhhh. What happened is, over time, the industrial jobs here went to bankers and a host of other endeavors. Now they lost their cash cows and everybody wonders why profits are down to levels not seen in more than a decade and unemployment is high. Well duhhh. When your economy is based on ill-gotten gains, and the roof falls in,  it's time to change the way you do things. The days of gigantic record breaking profits may be over for good. Get used to it. We need to borrow some technology and manufacturing back from places like China and begin to get competitive again. It's not like we can't do it. It's just that everybody has to work together. Industry, banking and government. Problem is, nobody trusts government to be able to come together to do it's part. If we fail to do it, it will be government that will be the one to screw things up. Not because it's too big or too small or too much regulation or too little, but because it won't be able to agree on just what it's function should be. Nor does that excuse industry and banks for not trying. Unfortunately, the ones in all this who suffer the most are the ones who can do the least to resolve it. That doesn't excuse us for not trying.

Here's A Question For Ya.

Would you like to do something really useful today? And everyday? Something that won't cost you anything except maybe a couple of minutes every day? Maybe something that would help somebody out? Well have I got a project for you. Make a phone call or email or twitter or whatever, to your Congressman and both Senators. Just ask one simple question. What did you do today to put one person back to work? Do that every day. Even if you drive them crazy bothering them every day, that's the question that needs to be asked every day of each one of those folks. You should ask the same of the President. It may be a simple question, but it's the one question that they need to think about and answer to all of us for. After all, that's what they're there for. I don't think that they were elected to just argue. Didn't you vote to have them solve our problems? Well the best way to solve our problems is to put everybody back to work. Isn't it? Well if each and every one of them put just one person back to work every day, it would at least be a start. It would be a tremendous improvement over what they've done so far.

Prisons Or Schools. Which Would You Prefer?

Do you know Charles M. Blow? Well, he's a regular OP ED columnist at the N.Y.Times. He pointed out today, that the U.S. spends about 2 1/2 times as much on each prisoner than on each public school pupil. Now I know, I know it costs more to keep prisoners in prison, what with guards and barbed wire and so on. But the point he was making is that if we educated our kids better, if we made sure they received proper medical care and nutritional care and a better education, we could very likely save a bundle on prisons. In fact we wouldn't need as many prisons. Maybe the idea is that since the prisons are already built, we might as well continue to use them. Unfortunately, the prisons are horribly overcrowded and courts are beginning to require us to release some prisoners. I guess we either need to build a lot more prison space or improve the way we treat children. So how are we doing on the decision? Well many states are cutting back on nutrition programs and on school funding. All of which sounds like we've decided which way to go. I don't know about you, but I just can't believe our politicians and elected officials think that the best way to preserve the future for our young people is to deprive our young people of an excellent education and basic health and nutrition. In fact, you can forget the excellent part and reduce that to depriving our young people of even a mediocre education. And all of this doesn't even touch on birth control. That's a whole other subject. But if we are unwilling to provide birth control, then we need to take the responsibility of the resulting children. I realize I'm asking a lot, but don't you think we'd be a whole lot better off as a nation if every child was receiving a good education, and a healthy nutritious upbringing?

What's A Little Water Amoung Friends?

Hey. Could you get me a drink of water, please? Not from a half of a billion people I couldn't. In fact probably quite a few more than that. That's just the number of people that could finally get regular, safe drinking water for the paltry sum of .16% of the GDP of the world, or $168 billion. Now, let me be the first to say that's a lot of money. In fact, I'm not so sure we can afford to spend that much money on a half billion people I don't even know. On the other hand, I guess I never will get to know any of them if they don't get some clean water. Question is, do I need or want to get to know any of those folks. I mean I'm sure they're nice people, but hey, I know enough nice people already. Come to think of it, I know more than enough not so nice people and they all have all the water they want. Maybe we could give the not so nice people's water to those who don't have any. I suppose you could say that that half billion people seem to be surviving on what they have, so "What? Me worry?" Then again I'll bet those folks aren't too happy that we're not helping them. It's just a guess, mind you, but I think we might have enough people who aren't too happy with us. Ya know, I wonder if helping other people is a good thing? Isn't it written down somewhere that we should be doing that sort of thing? Then again, there's that old saying that no good deed goes unpunished. If I gave .16% of what I made, it would come to, ahhh. I'm a rusty on math, but ya know what? That's way less than one percent. Heck, I could do that. Of course being capable of doing it and actually doing it are two different things.

Ding Dong, Something's Wrong.

There's a new book out about Bernie Maddof. He's the guy who is the undisputed king of the ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is a polite way of saying you got screwed. Now the ponzi schemer can be a person or a corporation. Oh wait a corporation is a person. I know, I know you think I really hate corporations. Actually I don't hate corporations. I hate that our supreme court thinks they're persons. A corporation is actually just a piece of paper filed in some courthouse somewhere. A person, you can get mad at or punch out, which could lead to jail time, but a corporation, you can't punch out a piece of paper and if you did, you wouldn't go to jail for it. I understand we need corporations. Corporations are industry and business. Nearly all business and indusrty have incorporated. It's all there, spelled out on paper. You can't argue your case with a corporation. You can talk with an employee or even the owner, but you can't reason with a piece of paper. That's why I can't understand a group of nine, supposedly well educated, president appointed, senate approved supreme court justices. They're smart folks. How come that bell in their collective heads didn't go off. You know. The bell that rings "ding- dong, something's wrong"? How come it didn't go off when somebody suggested "hey lets make corporations into people". How come? What was it, a gag? Did they all have a good laugh about it afterword?  I mean I can understand they wanted corporations to recieve some protections and of course they saw the advantages for the government to be able to tax corporations.  But don't you think they've gone just a little bit overboard? The way things now stand, corporations have far more rights and privilages than people. I mean human people. As opposed to corporate people. The court wants corporations to be able to have an unfettered say in the election process. But don't the employees and owners already have those rights and privilages? Isn't giving the corporation those rights a duplication of rights and privilages? Shouldn't there be some double jeopardy protection in there somewhere? Ding-dong, something's wrong.

When Is Less More And When Is More Less?

Didja ever notice how different things somehow seem tied together? For instance, this Super Committee formed of six Republicans and six Democrats are supposed to figure out how to save $1.5 trillion? By the way, those folks are already beginning to get besieged by influence peddlers. Oops, I mean lobbyists. Anyway, if they don't come to an agreement or if congress doesn't pass their recommendations, there will be $1.2 trillion automatically cut from defense and entitlements. Now here's how things relate. Take food stamps as an example. If you cut food stamp in half, let's say by $250 per month, that would be $3000 per year less those folks would have to live on. Now tell me how that would be different from a $3000 tax increase for someone else? Or cutting additional funds from schools to lower a deficit or pay down debt. How does that help our children's futures if they are less well educated because of a lack of funding. Oh I know all about the idea that throwing money at education won't necessarily improve education. But taking money away from education certainly won't improve it either. Some places they've cut back on the hours or days of school. But statistics prove that more hours and or days of teaching improve student scores and even more important than scores, they will improve students chances for a better life. Ya know what I think? I think some folks don't give a tinkers damn about our children's future. They only care about not paying a few cents more in taxes or even more important to them is paying a few cents less in taxes. But they know that saying they want to help the children sounds good.

Hi Legal Tender. How's It Goin?

Now there's an interesting concept. An article in the paper this morning suggests that the twentieth century was in large part the century of children's rights. We as a society and increasingly around the world, recognized the need to protect children from abuse from society. To protect children. Good idea. In fact, so good that advocates for business and industry decided to take a page from that same playbook. So, as children gained legal rights, so did corporations become recognized as persons. Yep. Corporations are legally persons. And people, persons, have a variety, or as it's called in law books, a bundle of rights. So what's in your bundle? Maybe that's not as important as what's in corporations bundles. Because what rights corporations have, seems to outweigh the rights of actual "people". No wait. Corporations are "people". I guess I'll have to state that differently. Corporate rights seem to outweigh human rights. I don't think that was supposed to be the intended outcome. On the other hand, if I were a conspiracy advocate, I might think that was exactly the intended outcome. I guess it all depends on just how smart the folks who pushed these rights through for corporations were. But now if you try to protect children from harmful advertising, the corporate rights under the first amendment to free speech, take precedence. Is that the right response from our courts? Should the courts be showing favor to corporate rights over child needs? Are profits that important? Just how important is the dollar? Will the almighty dollar be the next to receive legal rights? Next time I open my wallet, should I salute that lone dollar bill in there? Or will just a simple greeting be enough?

Jiudge For Yourself.

Now, you know me, I would never find fault with our court system. However, Wisconsin shows up bright, to light a bit of a problem. Oh, alright, it points out a real blunder in our judicial system. Wisconsin, like many states, elect their justices, including their supreme court. Which means lots of money spent on the contests. Here's the rub. When is it advisable to recuse yourself, as a judge, from a case involving a major donor or the lawyer that defended you, or your cousin Vinnie? Well for some justices of the Wisconsin supreme court, the answer is "never", "under no circumstances". In fairness, if a corporate sponsor spends a lot of money getting you elected,. you'd better not chicken out when it comes time to rule in his or it's favor. Now in other states and the federal government, justices are appointed, for life or even longer. This isn't much, if any better. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to suggest that any judge would ever soil his or her reputation by being a party to any wrongdoing or even the appearance of wrongdoing. What I am suggesting is that they do it all the time. But claim they aren't. See, as long as they disavow any wrongdoing, then it's okay to do it. It's not that they're bad people. It's just that when you accept gifts from someone, there's almost always a string attached to it. Even if that string is only an expectation that you be fair and honest. So the problem isn't the string itself, it's the shape and size of the string. If you get my drift. There's gotta be a better way to settle on the folks that will settle on our conflicts. Maybe the legal bar associations in each jurisdiction should appoint two candidates which cannot accept any campaign financing other than public financing and no independent advertising, then the voters decide on which of those two will judge. It may not be the best, but it certainly is better than what's happening now. And that's my finding. And I disavow any connection to the bar.

Ahhh! The Good Old Days. They ain't what they Used To Be.

A couple of days ago Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the country wrote an editorial stating that he thinks  the super rich aren't paying their fair share in taxes. Since then I've heard several people who disagree on the tax thing say that he could always write a bigger check if he wanted. Fair enough. But since they think the taxes are unfair, they could always write a check for less then they owe. Now I understand they would run the very real risk of being investigated, fined or even jailed. But if Mr Buffett sent in a check for more then he owed, it would most certainly get kicked out by the system and turned over to an investigator who would look at it and think "this guy must feel guilty". "What's he feel guilty about"? The thing is, nobody, not you or me or even a rich guy like Warren Buffett wants to have the hassle of being investigated. Mr Buffett has a team of accountants and lawyers, but he still has to pay them overtime for an investigation. I've seen, and you probably have to, these emails that circulate from time to time about all the various taxes people have to pay these days that they didn't have to pay 100 years ago. We don't have time travel, but if we did, would you want to go back and live then? 100 years ago, they didn't have the cure for polio or TB or a host of other things, they didn't have an interstate highway system or regular air service. Our military still depended on horses and mules for transportation. And so did most people. What about your ice box? What's in it? In January, how much fresh fruit and veggies did you have in there? Turn your lights on and check the TV to see what the weather's like. We have our problems today, but people don't work in sweat shops for a couple dollars a day. Say what you will about unions, but folks aren't forced to live in company towns, in company houses and shop at company stores anymore. No it may sound romantic and exciting to think about the "good old days", but today is a whole lot better. And your taxes share some of the credit as well as some of the complaints. If big government is so bad, try no central government for a little bit. You'd soon enough cry "enough already". Because states, on their own, couldn't provide us with what we have today.

Isn't Afghanistan Great?

How would you like to win the lottery for $360 million? Not interested? How about if the fix was in and you would be guaranteed to win? For just one buck, you would win $360, million? Still not interested? You're not convincing me. Actually just such a thing is going on. It's an ongoing lottery win in which the winnings continue to grow. The $360,000,000 figure was from last winter, so it surely is much higher now. I'm talking about the amount of money the U.S. government is paying to Afghan contractors that's winding up in the hands of  criminals, insurgents and corrupt Afghan political elites. Of course the government paid out $31 billion to the contractors so the amount stolen is just a small part. At least that's what it's being called. Small amount? $360 million? Small? Now that's not what I would have called it. There's a number of names I might have attached to that much money. But I can't imagine ever calling it "small". See, here's what happens. Uncle Sam pays an Afghan company to haul fuel as an example. So they haul the fuel, but some of the money is paid to insurgents not to attack the tankers. It's just like an old time movie where the gangsters collect protection money from the merchants so their stores don't get robbed. Or another scenario is where the contractor pays the Afghan politician a bunch of money to lock in the contract. Ever hear of such a thing? You have? Oh, you mean like here in America. Well, yes, except that in Afghanistan, all politicians are on the take, pretty much. The question is, what can we do about it. Well, about the only thing we can do is pack up and come home.

Who's Running This Show, Anyway?

When you follow politics, in my opinion., you're looking for trouble. And that's just what you're likely to find. There's an ad that's been running on TV lately about a guy who is predicting the fall of the U.S. Government, and much worse. He has supposedly predicted the bankruptcy of GM and the same of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and probably everything that has happened since the beginning of time. Now I don't know if this guy's prediction will come true. But I remember reading a book back in the 70s titled "How to profit from a monetary crisis". This book instructed me to buy silver and gold, stock up with food to last for a year and buy some guns. Seeing the unrest around the world, it's easy to predict such desperate times here in this country. My guess is that there will be some folks who will do just that. Heck, I'm sure there are lots of folks that have already done that. Been doing it for years now. Just waiting for the time when things will fall apart, our government will collapse and anarchy will prevail. I think they look forward to such a time. But is that what we should be doing? I mean, times are tough. Our government has completely forgotten how to function, unemployment is high and has been for several years. And the president nor congress has any idea to fix it, or rather, they have conflicting ideas. Now, it's not bad to have conflicting ideas. It's just that they still need to come to a conclusion, which requires some negotiation and even a little bartering. Give and take, so to speak. These folks in Washington no longer seem to understand that concept. So, the time has come for all of us to wake up, get up, call each of them and explain that if they don't wake up, get up and do their job, we'll replace them. In fact, at this point we need to do that anyway. Boy. If this isn't the right time for term limits, it never will be.   

It All Depends On What You Sign.

There's a guy who wrote an editorial that got published in the N.Y. Times. He claims that the wealthy ( job creators) should be taxed at higher rate. He says that billionaires are taxed at a lower rate then the middle class. Well, he obviously doesn't understand that the rich, excuse me, the job creators don't like to be taxed as high as the middle class and that if they were, they'd stop creating jobs. Well, he says that these job creators (rich) wouldn't mind paying more taxes because they love America and think the middle class and the poor have been suffering while they haven't. He doesn't understand that job creators (rich) may love America, but they don't have to create jobs just because they do. They'd rather get even. He claims that job creators (rich) would never pass up an opportunity to make a profit, even if the tax would be high. This guy is dreaming, he's in la la land. Job creators (rich) always need tax breaks before they would consider creating any jobs. And anyway, they pay a lot of money in taxes. He says that while job creators (rich) may pay a lot of money, that the percentages are much lower. But he doesn't understand. They pay millions in taxes. But while the middle class pays at a rate of between 33% and 41%,  the job creators (rich) pay between 15% and 25%. Just who is this moron that thinks job creators (rich) are willing to create jobs without special tax relief? Why should they do that? Because they love America? Give me a break. Who is this nut? His name is Warren Buffet, one of the wealthiest (job creator) men in the country. He claims that he's spoken with many of his  mega-rich (job creator) friends and they all agree. No matter, we've signed a pledge with Grover Norquist not to raise taxes on job creators (rich) and by golly we're sticking to our guns. Who the hell is Grover Norquist that he should be getting Congressmen and Senators and Governors to sign a document taking away their responsibility to make decisions that may be in the best interest of America. And didn't they swear an oath or something when they were elected to office that said they would always act in the best interests of America? Can you tie your hands behind your back and still perform your job?

STRAW POLLS. Ya Gotta Love Em.

Have you figured out this STRAW POLL thing? As near as I can determine, it's a group of political junkie Iowans who want an excuse to get together from time to time to get to meet and greet some political celebrities. It looks like a chance to party, big time. It doesn't appear to have any real significance for the actual caucuses or primary elections. It is not an accurate prediction of who will get nominated and certainly not who will eventually get elected. Maybe the only reason is the party thing. Now when my friends and I want a party, we just decide on a time and place and do it. Of course my friends and I aren't really into autographs and rubbing shoulders with stars and so maybe that's what it's all about after all. Notice how I made the point that I actually have friends? Okay, so they may only be acquaintances. The real point is, we don't get the kind of news coverage that the STRAW POLLS get. And that's what is most annoying. How come when we get together we don't have a lot of cameras and reporters falling all over us? Actually, that may be the thing about STRAW POLLS. Did you ever hear about STRAW POLLS until there was 24/7 cable news programming? No. So obviously the reason for STRAW POLLS is to fill air time and pay for reporters and camera operators. But how come politicians spend so much time and money on this thing that doesn't mean anything to their chances to win? I suppose if they don't, they won't be able to bring in the green. That's it, I'll bet. It's the money. STRAW POLLS bring in cash for campaigns. Build war chests. It's the money stupid. Now I get it. Maybe I should hold a STRAW POLL. Whatta you think?

Coke Anyone?

Let me tell you about my day, or at least a small part of it. I was down town and parked on a side street to go to a store around the corner. At the corner was  parked a Coca-Cola truck. But it wasn't the usual delivery truck we're all used to seeing. it was a large tractor trailer truck. It was so long that not only was it parked in front of a fire hydrant, it also stuck out into the side street blocking just slightly more then half of the side street. But hey, I would be in the store for a while and the motor on the truck was running so I wasn't concerned. When I came out of the store however, the truck was still there. I knew I would have trouble getting around the truck. Then to my delight, I noticed a police car, lights flashing and a cop in the car obviously writing a ticket. Was my day made? Just think though.  Coca Cola brand has decided to cut costs by laying off half it's drivers and using tractor trailers to deliver it's product to diners. It's cheaper to pay a parking ticket from time to time then it is to hire more drivers and use smaller trucks. Do you think this makes them more competitive in the marketplace? Who are the competing against? Pepsi? Pepsi is doing the same thing I'm sure. So who are they competing with? China? They bottle that stuff regionally, they don't import coke from Singapore already bottled. The bottom line has become so important that it's more profitable to break a few small laws like blocking a fire hydrant and a side street then it is to hire another driver. Does anyone understand why our country is in trouble? Ya know why we have so many unemployed?  Because Coca Cola would rather pay a fine . Do you know how I know Coca Cola would rather pay a small fine for blocking a fire hydrant and a side street? Because the driver was still delivering cases of coke. Not falling behind on the deliveries was more important then the ticket. Now I understand that in this day and age the bottom line is extremely important. After all, some CEO's pay package may depend on it. But that CEO's pay package is standing in the way of some people getting their jobs back and this country getting back on it's feet. Hey Coca Cola. China ain't gonna move in on ya.

I'll Bet You Didn't Know This, But???

Ya now what? Here's the real question for America. No it isn't how much to cut from the budget and no it isn't how much to increase taxes, although both sound enticing to lots of people. It isn't even how much of each to do. At least not yet. The real question is, first let's get the answers to a few questions. Here's a question for ya. How many taxpayers are there in the country? Then ask what the average taxpayer pays in taxes each year? Then ask how many of those taxpayers will be removed from the rolls as the government is reduced in size? Check the amount of lost revenue against the savings. Are we closer to closing our debt obligations. Now look at increasing taxes by eliminating the Bush tax cuts and how close that gets us to closing the debt crises. If either solves the problem, do it. If neither solves the problem completely, then it's time to look at some combination of the two. Now I know that many economists have already done that. The problem is that somebody doesn't have their listening ears on. When you increase taxes, lots of people don't like you and may not vote for you. When you cut the budget by eliminating entitlements and a whole lot of other things, lots more people are put out of work. It seems to me that we already have enough people out of work. That's the problem. If everybody was working, we'd have enough money to pay our bills. Putting more people out of work won't help. Ya know what I think? I think we need a little old fashioned compromise. Problem is, our politicians have lost that ability. It's like getting old and loosing your memory. In Washington, they haven't compromised in such a long time, they've forgotten how. It's been what? A couple of years?Another question to ask is what got us into this dilemma in the first place? There's a bunch of reasons. The Bush tax cuts, two wars, a housing bubble, derivatives. The list is long but it boils down to deregulation, irresponsible tax planning and unfunded wars. We borrowed too much and didn't keep an eye on the money changers. We need to make sure we don't make those mistakes again too soon.

Just Whose Fault Is It, Anyway?

Ya know, when the rioting in England started a little bit ago, I began wondering if it was more a result of the austerity programs the conservative government had instituted then was being admitted. I also wondered that, if that was true, would or could such a thing happen in this country. Well as it turns out, the riots in England are to a fair degree in response to those cut-backs that have cost lots of jobs. To think that you can cut the size of government and not throw people out of work is a bit silly. Now if you do it during times when the economy is humming along and going great guns, it won't be noticed too much because those who loose government jobs will likely find work in the private sector, but during a recession with lots of others out of work? Not so likely. But could rioting happen here in America? An Englishman working in New York pointed out that you can notice a difference here because there is no show of class distinction like there is in England. In America there seems to be a feeling of opportunity. Well maybe so, but that doesn't mean we haven't had class warfare here or that rioting hasn't happened here. So what is it that people want? And what are the two political parties prepared to give people? I realize I''m biased but here's what I think. Republicans feel that everyone has an opportunity to become successful. They just have to try harder. Democrats say they realize that for many there really is no opportunity unless we give them a hand. Roughly speaking, Republicans say if you really want it, go get it, otherwise shut up and accept your place in life, but don't ask for any of my money. Democrats say we need to share some of our money to help folks become contributing members of society. Republicans say these folks are just lazy so don't waste your money and certainly don't ask for any of mine. Democrats say some may just be lazy, but most really do want to do better.  Another way to look at it? On the one hand if you don't do it on your own, it's your own fault, on the other hand, if we don't help it's on our hands.

Am I Dreaming Or What?

There are two things I have to say tonight. First I have to say that you may have noticed that I don't take our legislators very seriously. The reason for that is that they don't take their jobs seriously. Either that or they don't respect the people they're supposed to be serving. In which case I'm not showing them respect. When you consider the job they've been doing the last few months, I don't expect to be giving them any credit either. You don't give someone credit for doing a bad job. You find fault with them. You could even give them a scolding. And hopefully you give them the boot in the next election. Personally I hope their life savings went down the tubes in the Stock Market. And how do we take their pension away along with their benefits? Can you imagine? You couldn't dream up something like this.
The other thing I want to bring to your attention was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart tonight. A regular on the show, John Oliver, did a piece about a couple who bought a home in Florida. They paid cash for the home. Then along came Bank of America who had decided to foreclose on the home. Did you remember they had paid cash and so therefore had no mortgage. No matter, Bank Of America continued. The couple sued BOA but only after being turned down by three lawyers. Finally a young lawyer who had only been a lawyer for eight months took the case. They won the suite, including an extra $3000 for their trouble. BOA refused to pay the $3000 so the couple and their lawyer filed the paperwork, got the sheriff and two repo men and foreclosed on a BOA branch office. They took everything that wasn't nailed down. Furniture, copiers, computers, carts, stool, drawers, everything. Now, unfortunately that's all of the story they showed on the Daily Show, but can you imagine? You couldn't dream up something like this.

I Like To Dream Of A Bright Sunny Day, How About You?

Here's an idea I just read about by Ross Douthat in the N.Y.Times. Both parties, the Republicans and the Democrats are indulging in a fantasy that they will gain a lasting supremacy over our country and drive all decision making on law for the foreseeable future. Well, we just saw all that unfolding in the debt limit debates. But Douthat points out that  no matter what happens, it's unlikely that either side will prevail for very long and that in the meantime we do need them to govern. Now there's the real problem. I think that things are going to swing back and forth just as always, but the need for sound governance remains no matter what. Right now we see more contentious disagreement in congress then usual. But also right now, because of the difficult economic times we're in, we need more sound governing. The thing is, right now we're seeing less sound governance. When you are fooled into thinking your side will find itself in a permanent position of power, folks seem to start acting like they're already there. That's when they usually make the worst mistakes. It's the mistakes that are the real problem because as soon as the other side gets back in control, they swing too far in the other direction in an attempt to reverse the actions. Right now, we need a congress that will govern sanely. Right now, congress is anything but sane. Right now we have a whole lot of people suffering and a very few living very comfortably. Everything the congress seems to be doing just exacerbates that imbalance. You have to wonder how many members of congress want exactly that scenario. Then you have to wonder just how many people want those congressmen to continue to represent them. Then you have to hope for a quick election that will return our congress to sanity. Boy are we dreamers.

What's Up At The Market?

Boy oh boy, the Standard and Poors downgrade of the U. S. rating from AAA to AA1/2 is sure setting a fire under a whole lot of people. Politicians are blaming each other for this bad news, and they're all correct in doing so. The Group of 7 countries are holding a teleconference, Israel is stalling the opening of it's market. All the world markets are in an uproar over it. But ya know what? They're the wrong markets that are in an uproar. Don't get me wrong, the downgrade could send stocks  down which hurts IRAs, and all sorts of retirement funds and credit. But like I said, it's the wrong market to worry about. The market everyone should be worrying about is the grocery market. Food prices keep going up, but fixed income folks aren't getting more income, minimum wage earners aren't getting any help either. Now if your retirement fund takes a hit, that's bad news. On the other hand, you'll still be able to afford to put food on the table and a roof over your head. So, it may not be the roof you always hoped for and it might not be steak, but it's still better then minimum wage. It's still a roof and it's still nutritious. But a minimum wage worker is a code phrase for, no benefits and part time employment. You should try living on $7.50 per hour. I'd hate to have to try. You would too. It wouldn't be so bad if companies had to pay a living wage, or had to sell products and food and rent homes or apartments for an affordable price. I understand that companies have to be competitive, I get it, but how about their employees? Don't they get to be competitive too, when they're at the store or at home? What galls most of these folks is that their bosses are extremely competitive when it comes to their salaries and benefits, but not so much when it comes to the employees. Then they get upset if the employees decide to organize. I'm not asking for a complete redistribution of wealth, but just a little help would be appreciated. Come on. You rich folks can afford it.  Honestly, it's the right thing to do.

It May Be No Big Deal To Some, But It Is The Constitution.

Here in America we have this thing we call a Constitution. It's a small thing, but it's ours. We sort of like to follow it's instructions. Which is why I am so confused. If you listen to Republicans, especially Tea Party folks, you hear them talk all the time about following the Constitution. They talk about getting back to following the Constitution and what the forefathers envisioned. But if you read the Constitution and listen to them, you'd think they were talking about something else. They talk about a Christian  nation where others aren't really welcome. By others I think they mean non white, non Christian. Another thing you might wonder about is how the Constitution they talk about all the time calls for majority rule.  But since they're in the minority, they think they should rule. Now the Constitution says that not only should the majority rule, but it should always be vigilant to make sure the rights of the minority not be trampled upon. Ya know, that's a really good idea. We should always try to be fair to the minority. And I think we have. After all, we seem to have allowed them to take over the government and run the country. The thing is, however, they don't seem to be worried about the rights of the majority.  I guess it's a fine point, but I suppose it's not the responsibility of the minority to be vigilant about the rights of the majority. Now to be fair, the Republicans do hold the majority in the House of Representatives. But the Tea Party isn't even a majority in the Republican party. So here you have something like 15 or 20 percent of the Congress, completely in charge. How did they do that? Who gave them that much authority? What's that? You say they just took it? How did they do that? Do you suppose the rest of the Republican party and all of the Democrat party just cowered in the corner and let them? I'll bet that's exactly what happened. Boy I'll bet the president has chastised them for this infringement on the Constitution. What's that? You say the president is in the corner too? Well, who's in charge of the government? Oh, that's right. You did say the Tea Party is in charge. Well, I guess there won't be any new jobs until the debt is cleared up. I think the predictions are that will happen right after a comet crashes into the earth and destroys all life on the planet. Where would the Tea Party be without a Constitution.

Have I Got A Deal For You.

Folks, I still can't get over General Electric. Like our government, I'm just so darned proud of G.E. Can you imagine? Last year they had five billion dollars in profit. That's right five billion. And that's just in the good ole U. S. of A. They had even more profits overseas, for which they paid taxes. It's just that they paid taxes on that foreign profit to other countries. Here in the U. S. they paid,--- are you ready for this?  They paid a whopping, ahh, umm. Well the thing is they didn't have to pay any taxes on that five billion dollars. Do you mean to tell me that's it? They didn't have to pay any taxes and it was all above board? Hmmm, well ahhh, actually that's not all. See, the government was so proud of the job G. E. did that it gave them a three billion dollar bonus just for good measure. Hey. Wait a minute. That's sixty percent of what they made in profits. That increases their profits to eight billion dollars. Here, let me put it in perspective for you, so you'll better understand. If you made $50,000 last year and you didn't have to pay any taxes, you should have gotten $30,000 extra from the government. Or if you made $30,000, you'd pay no taxes and get $18,000. $20,000? No taxes and $12,000. If things went bad for you and you only made $10,000, you'd still get $6,000 and pay no taxes. Now if---. What's that you say? You did pay taxes and you didn't get any bonus money from the government? How does that make you feel? Uh huh. Well if I were you, I'd get in touch with your two Senators and your Representative and tell them you'd like the same deal that G. E. got. After all, fair is fair. And if they complain, tell them you'll create a job. Hey, somebody's gotta mow your lawn, right?

How Do You Reduce Debt And Create Jobs At The Same Time?

Here's another reason for Americans to be proud of it's legislators. Because of Republican Congressmen and Senators and the Airline industry, who are against simple majority votes, concerning unionization of Airline and Railroad workers, they have forced the FAA nearly out of existence. Temporarily the FAA is paying Air Traffic Controllers and Airplane inspectors out of "other sources". For how long this will work, I don't know. But because of this, several things are happening. First the FAA can no longer collect the taxes paid by passengers for flights. Hey sounds great, right? Not so fast. Airlines just raised the price of the tickets the exact amount of the tax, so you're still paying the same price. Funny how that worked out. Only it has cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars so far. And now that the Congress finally got past the debt ceiling thing, they all went home for a month. By the time they return, the government will have lost over one billion dollars in revenue. The FAA had to lay off 4,000 employees which put another 70,000 out of work. How's that for debt reduction and job creation? In a move to temporarily extend the FAA's ability to function, it was decided to stop funding some rural airports. So guess where the Republican controlled house decided to close airports? Only in Democrat's districts. Like Harry Reid's district. It's either that or eliminate the simple majority rule on unionization thing. Does any of this strike a cord? It's something of a hostage deal again. Hey, it worked so well during the debt ceiling negotiations, it looks like that's how the new rules of Congress will work. Yes boys and girls. The minority does control the Congress and the White House. In a way it does sound funny doesn't it? Then again, it's sort of sad to see our government knuckle under to extortion.

Balance This.

So. Let me ask you this? Who thinks the country should pass a balanced budget amendment? You know. A "pay as you go" plan? Well who can say they have, in fact who has always had such a plan in place in their household? You do? I beg to differ with you. I don't think you have. I can say that because I don't know any people, or at least very very few, who can honestly say that. Do you have any idea what that means?  It means no car loan. No mortgage on your house. You always have to pay cash. If everyone had to live by those rules, very few folks would own their own homes. Then again, who would be the landlords for all the people who would suddenly become renters? I can only imagine a system like medieval Europe with lords and surfs. Think back to all the things in your life that you bought on time. Now imagine what you would have done without those things. Where would you have lived? With your parents and grandparents? How about getting to work? How about that great vacation you're still paying on? Have you paid off your student loan yet? Or the wedding, or the ring? What about all those Christmas presents bought on your charge cards? In fact, what charge cards? Now I understand that a number of states have balanced budget requirements, but a budget can always be "balanced" so long as you're willing to "play" with the figures. It's what's between those little dashes that matters. In a local city, the budget for this year was balanced by assuming that certain revenue would be forthcoming. Well guess what? It didn't happen. It was never expected to happen. By anybody. But it balanced the budget. Now they've got as problem. There's an old slang saying that figures lie and liars figure. To be sure, our country has overstepped it's borrowing. By just a tad. But, boy oh boy what a tad. If anybody thinks that the, just signed, legislation solves the problem, it hasn't even begun the process. That's because figures aren't the only ones to lie. Congress has far more experience and a lot more finesse then Bernie Maddof. And ya can't put them in jail for it.

It's High Tea Time In The Old Town Tonight.

Here's something for the record-books. Ya know all the Tea Party favorites that got elected to congress in 2010 who promised to eliminate wasteful spending? No more earmarks? Well at least 22 of them have quietly fought tooth and nail for pet hometown projects. One of them, when questioned about the pork project, stated it wasn't an earmark because the price wasn't included. The price wasn't included? Isn't that worse then pork? Another, Rep. Bachmann, said of hers that a bridge is better than a teapot museum. Well, yes it is better than a teapot museum, but then it's a bridge that supposedly breaks the law covering scenic rivers. One congressman voted to cut out an earmark, but then quietly added the earmark back in. Now, far be it from me to find fault with an elected representative of the people just because he or she has managed to go back on his or her word of honor, but don't you think these folks should have trouble sleeping at night? It seems they do not. You see, they did these things in order to please certain folks from their home districts. Like when you require that the Pentagon build a new ship it doesn't want and doesn't know how to pay for. It's not that I want to be critical or that I want to see people not get a new job, but maybe we could get them a job building something that somebody actually wants. By somebody, I mean somebody that knows how to pay for it. Wanting a willing and able customer isn't unreasonable, is it?