Would You Like That Patent Super Sized?

Just so you understand the depth of Chinese ingenuity, here's a story in the Washington Post this Morning about a new push by China to increase it's domestic patent registrations. Their plan is to have 2 million patents per year compared to America's 530,000 per year. Now that sounds like a real plus for them and makes everyone else sound like sour grapes, doesn't it? The thing is, many of those new patents in China are questionable because they don't require any review of the patent application. Just fill out the form and you are granted a patent. So what, you ask? So the company gets the patent and then goes out and sues a major company for infringement. There may be no real, honest infringement, but it's often cheaper for the major to pay off the little phony patent holder than it would be to go to court. It happens all the time. Even here in the U.S., but on a small scale. So I'm waiting for these Chinese patent holders to take on big guys over technology they've stolen from U.S. companies. Here's how I think it'll come down. A big American company, doing business in China, with it's manufacturing there, asks a Chinese parts company for input on the design of some new part. That's being done already. But the parts company rushes out, before the design is complete and registers it. Not so hard with this no review process. Suddenly the big international company can't use it's own idea without paying through the nose for it. Then that same parts company is the only one who can make that part and for a whole lot more money. If you don't like it, you can buy the finished product from another Chinese company for less money. It's made by the parent company of the parts maker. Now you may see this as conspiracy theory talk, but what's to stop it from happening?  After all, China is ruthless in it's war on foreign industry and technology. I'm just saying that America and the rest of the world better prepare themselves for this kind of assault.

Virginia? Education Lovers? Naw.

Here's a question that's come up in Virginia. You know, the state for lovers. Gun lovers, that is. But this question is about education lovers. The state got a waiver on No Child Left Behind to require less from some students than from others. Say what? Yep, if you happen to be Asian, you'll be expected to do a bit better than white students. Hispanics, blacks and special needs students won't have to try as hard on those standardized tests. This according to an article in the Washington Post this morning. So what I don't understand is how that's gonna help the students. Oh, it'll help Asian students and even white students, but does this mean that schools and teachers won't have to try as hard for Blacks, Hispanics and Special Needs students? Shouldn't schools and teachers be required to try harder with students who are having a harder time understanding the curriculum? What does this say about what kind of life you want for these lower performing students? Or don't they matter enough to bother with? Why not just ignore them altogether? Or send them off to a factory instead of first grade? I mean, if you aren't interested in teaching them, wouldn't it be kinder to at least show them how to place part A into Part B all morning, then take a ten minute lunch break before its back to the mines? I somewhat understand the difficulty of teaching a child who just doesn't get it. I even understand that it requires more time and more staff and more innovation and more motivation, to get some students to understand and learn some things. I even understand that all this costs more money which means more taxes. I get it, honest. But ya have to look at the whole picture. Without that better education, they will be more likely to end up on welfare, commit crimes and in general, be a drag on our economy for their whole lives. So which is more cost effective? Until politicians understand the ramifications to their actions or non actions, we'll continue to decline as a nation. Houston, we have a problem.

What's Wrong With Chinese Businesses?

Okay, let me ask you if you're in favor of Chinese companies moving into America? After all, we seem to have been sending our companies to China, why not let them send theirs here, right? Well there's a couple of differences. First, when we send a company to China, they demand that we also send our technology with the company. When they send theirs here you have to wonder if they see it as an opportunity for a little espionage on the side. Sorta like ordering a steak with a side of pasta. Well, Huawei, and ZTE, both telecommunications companies are being investigated by the House Intelligence Committee, Committee on Foreign Investments and the Treasury Dept, at least. They're trying to buy several companies and patents and they're spending nearly a million on lobbying. Lobbying? Now it's not unusual for a large company to lobby. Even a foreign company. But these are potentially bad players. The owner and founder of Huawei was in the military. He quit to start this company. Now it's pretty well known that China is "the world's biggest perpetrator of economic espionage" according to intelligence people as reported by Bloomberg News in today's NY Times. These companies and folks who see things their way say that they want to be global players. That means lots of countries. But to do so, they have to be big Americans players. But do they want to be big global espionage players of just business players? The only thing with China is that it wants to be a big player in its own national companies, both public and private. Does that mean they also want to be big players in lots of countries business? You know what I think. But what do you think?

Picking The Fight.

There's been a knock down, drag out fight going on in Washington for a few years now. Like family fights, its all about money. The Democrats want to spend it and the Republicans want to save it. Now when you're in debt, as we are, saving money is the right thing to do. You save money to pay the debt down. But remember that both parties did the overspending that caused the debt. And when there isn't enough money to cover your expenses, you have to cut out some of the things you spend money on. They will need to be stopped, eliminated or at least slowed. In Washington that means entitlements mostly. That's the Republican view and it's the right thing to do. However, the only thing is that we're way beyond just that small imbalance in our family budget. We'd have to cut much more than the entitlements. We can't even pay for the necessities. Like repairs to the house and car. Or in the case of our country, we can't afford to repair our infrastructure or even the dome on the capital building which has over 1300 cracks in it. Now without those repairs to the roof, the interior will begin to fall apart. So without those repairs, serious damage will result, thereby costing much more. Now at home, dad and maybe even mom goes out and finds as second job to be able to afford those repairs. In Washington the Democrats want to increase the governments income too. The only (second job) available to the government is more taxes. The only problem with that is that the Republicans have sworn not to raise the historically low taxes now being paid. The Democrats say that without the proper tax increases, they won't agree to entitlement cuts because that wouldn't be enough. See what I mean? It's just like at home. The fights are almost always about money. Even when they're about something else, they're about money.

If The Drug Cartels Can Do It?

So what's the deal with Super PACs? How come they can run ads that are strictly attack ads and they don't have to release the names of the donors? When My name gets announced if I give a couple thousand and these donors give millions secretly. How come? Well, that was supposed to be handled when the Federal Election Commission said you had to release the names of donors if they gave the money strictly for the purpose of an attack ad. Simple enough. Just give the money with no reservations. So then the FEC was told to correct it's rules. But the FEC is made up of three Democrats and three Republicans. Any questions? So now these Social Welfare nonprofits are supposed to report the names of the donors. Is there a way around that? Well, only if you don't want to tell who's making those donations. But if you do want to keep it secret, you just give the money to one nonprofit who gives it to another nonprofit who gives it to the Super PAC. In a way its in the time honored tradition of money laundering. If you pass it around a few times, nobody knows where it came from anymore. Okay, but why is it so important to know the names of the donors anyway? Well, if you don't want the company you are part owner of to do that, you might want to know. Or if you buy their products, you may not like it. But even more importantly, you may not like the person you're going to vote for to be beholden to some rich guy. But how does the candidate know if the donors are secret? They won't be secret to the candidate if he wins. If the candidate wins, the Lincoln bedroom will be booked solid for four years.

Legitimate Women.

I've been reading about and listening to this Todd Akin from Missouri. He's a U.S. Congressman on the House science committee and he's running for the U.S. Senate. But instead of campaigning, he's teaching sex education. That's right. He is a strong supporter of the right to life wing of the Tea Party. In that capacity he has decided to impart some of his extensive knowledge of the female body to the people of Missouri and to the country at large. I find this very helpful. For instance I had no idea that a woman can go out and get raped and it might not be legitimate. And of course, if it isn't legitimate, she could get pregnant. I wonder if he's suggesting contraception? Anyway, if, on the other hand, it is legitimate rape, why, that woman can curtail the process of becoming with child. I had no idea. Why wasn't I told this before? Exactly how is a woman able to do it? Does she just squeeze or is it more of a thought process? Does it work better for women with high IQs? In The Borowitz Report, a blog, he suggests Akin would do less harm in the Senate than on the house SCIENCE committee. I disagree. I think he would be best suited to a position on the faculty of Johns Hopkins Medical School. Or perhaps editor of a major medical journal. Perhaps he'd like to be appointed head of the World Health Organization. Talent like this is hard to come by and should not be wasted on mere Senate membership. Even though the perks are nice. In his spare time maybe he could council women who have already been raped, legitimately, or he could council women who may be raped in the future, illegitimately. And by the way, what is this legitimacy issue with him all about? Let me say here and now that I do not consider myself to be an authority on anything about the Female species. The longer I live, the less I know. But this Mr Akin seems to be far more knowledgeable than anyone else on earth. Either that or he's been skinny-dipping in some sea in Israel. Why doesn't he write a medical textbook?

It Takes A Lot Of Money To Buy A Judge

I don't know how much you pay attention to elections. But of elections I can't imagine anyone paying much attention to judicial elections. There are very few folks who could name the judges in the appeals courts or state Supreme Court of your states. I'll bet most people can't even name the judge in their own county. And why should you? You don't expect to ever have to go to court. So on election day when you step into that booth and start picking candidates and you come to the section on judges, you vote for whichever party you belong to or you vote for the one who's name you recognize from the TV ads. Question is, was that an ad complaining that he is a terrible person unfit to be judge or was it the ad that said he's the best? If it's an ad you remember, it was probably an attack ad. Now why do you suppose PACs and Super PACs spend so much money on judicial elections? Even more important how can Super PACs spend millions on judicial elections but not divulge the names of the donors to the public. You can bet they divulge the names to the candidates they support. Why? Because they want some consideration in court after the election. So, therein lies the difficulty. Because while some judges won't play favorites, there is that possibility. And so far it has been proving to be the case that a whole lot more decisions are being made in favor of business interests than in the past. I can tell you this much, we all need to pay more attention to who we vote for and we need to speak out against money in Judicial elections. Better yet, lets appoint these judges based on merit.

Republican vs Democrat.

What is a "true Republican?" What is a "true Democrat?" Is there a litmus test for either of these titles? Does one "win" the title by exhibiting some special gift or ability? Well, a look at the Republican party won't easily explain the process of deciding the issue. A look at the Democratic party won't give you any clue as to the proper etiquette involved. But to the best of my ability, let me try to decipher the answers to these most vexing questions. A True Republican is a person who acts and thinks exactly like Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, but not like FDR or hmm, there must be someone else. Well anyway, the idea is to think and act exactly the way a particular constituent thinks you should act. You should be a strict constitutioinalist, which means you should accept without question certain sections of the constitution and ignore certain others. Okay, so what is a True Democrat? To be a true democrat, you should be, ahhh, hmmm, to be a true Democrat you must ahhh? Come to think of it I don't think there is any such thing as a True Democrat, but you should believe strongly in the Constitution. At least certain sections of it and most often not the same as those the Republicans believe in, and you should ignore other sections of the Constitution, but not the same ones as the Republicans. I think a True Republican is just like Reagan, but completely different, while a true Democrat is unlike anybody else. Now as a Republican you may disagree with me. You may feel I've been unfair in my calculations and you're willing to stand united against me. As a Democrat, you may disagree with my findings for a myriad of reasons but you will never be united.   

My Capital Gain Gets Taxed Higher Than Yours.

Here's one of the really big controversy's of the day. Capital Gains Taxes. Just how unfair are they and to whom are they unfair? Some say the tax is unfair because you already paid taxes on that money and now they want to tax it again. WRONG! The capital gains tax is not on the money you already earned, it's on the money made off that investment money. Here's anther one; it's not fair to folks who work hard and have to pay a higher rate. The reason for a lower rate on capital gains is so wealthy investors will keep their money here in America. But look at Romney, he only pays 14% or less in total while a secretary puts in long hard days going bug-eyed over a computer. One of the real problems comes from the "Carried Interest" tax exemption. Money managers, like Romney's income from Bain, doesn't get taxed like normal income. It's taxed as if it were capital gains. Then if you're wealthy enough and smart enough, you can use additional tax shelters that allow you to defer paying taxes for years. Oh, it's all completely legal. It's just that these shelters and exemptions or aimed squarely at the wealthy. I mean if you qualify for food stamps, you're still legally permitted to try to use these loopholes, but then you don't have any money to hide. If you had enough money to hide, you wouldn't qualify for food stamps. So in actual practice, only rich people can use these loopholes. What this country needs is for the tax code to be more fair. Lets say that any and all income is capital gains. That's because even a one dollar bill is capital. So either that or stop giving the rich all these extra loopholes and shelters, especially shelters, so we can lower the rate for everyone. Problem is, rich folks don't want to lose their shelters and loopholes and exemptions, and they've got the money to fight any proposal put forward to do so. And lets face it, money speaks louder than poor people can holler.

Thirst, Tis A Terrible Thing.

It has just recently come to light that our president, the person chosen to lead our country to a brighter future, has frittered away the opportunity to carry out that sacred responsibility by consuming beer. And, as if that were not enough, he has brought into the White House itself, a micro-brewery for the production of beer. Now while I'm not suggesting such an act is illegal, it is in complete non-alliance with fair play. You see, while having your own micro-brewery in the White House might make you popular with beer swilling Minnesotans, and Wisconsinites, it most assuredly will not be approved by Californians and New Yorkers, both known for wine making. Nor will Tennesseans or Alabamians, where corn liquor is the favored beverage, be mollified. It might be necessary for the president to consider a grape arbor and some cornstalks on the grounds. While he's at it he might want to consider planting some seeds of the Camillia sinensis plant in order to harvest tea leaves for those who do not imbibe in less gentile liquids. There's an added advantage of such a planting as you might harvest a Tea party as well. The Coffee plant also comes to mind as does the Theobromo cacao or cocoa tree, in order to round out the selection. Then, of course you must consider an orange and lemon tree so as to satisfy the southeast USA. I can attest to the taste of Tomato juice as well. It will also become necessary to house a cow. My only hope is that there will still be room at the White House for the purpose of running the government of the United States. After all, it is no small task to balance the dangerous waters of international affairs, the terrible troubles of our economy, the vexing responsibilities of our banking and businesses oversight, the well being of our populace and provide for the drinking habits of all who visit the White House.

The Third Economy

Here's another question Mr or Ms President. Our economy is still in very poor shape. The stock market may have come back, but the rest of the economy is still stuck in recession.  Your job, since you've accepted the presidency, is to get the economy rolling again. What is your first move? And since the congress has been unwilling to grant any favors regarding the economy for the past three and a half years, what can you accomplish in the next four years? On the one hand, you can try to stimulate by ordering infrastructure improvements and raise taxes on the wealthiest, as the president wants or you can cut entitlements including Medicare and medicaid, food stamps, education funding and much more while cutting taxes for the wealthiest and some for middle-class as the other candidate wants. But infrastructure spending requires congressional support and taxes on the wealthiest won't be enough to pay for those expenditures. On the other hand, cutting entitlements means more people losing their jobs, which means less confidence and in order to do that, you need congress to approve. Now you could suggest trying to get congress to get together and compromise. But then we tried that. Now, back in the old days, that used to work. Now-a-days, however, congress will have none of that. So, Mr or Ms President? Just how are you going to get around those problems? And remember, you have to stay within the law. See, as president, you don't own the country, you just manage it for the owners and your bosses are the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court. And the court hasn't been all that helpful of late either.

There's No Good Guy, There's Only Bad Outcomes.

What would you do if you were president. Right now. Start with Syria. The rebels are clamoring for the U.S. to take some actions. Like a no fly zone and weapons. But they're not alone. Pundits and politicians are recommending action or even demanding it, for humanitarian reasons and for political reasons too. On the other hand, can we really afford to get into this civil war? But a monster is killing his own people in order to keep what he doesn't deserve. He's a partner in crime with the leaders of Iran. Setting up a no fly zone in Syria would be very dangerous. That's because Assad has a sophisticated air defense program, as shown in the downing of a Turkish plane. So it's a manpower and finance question. Whatta ya do Mr or Ms President? There are opposition leaders who are finding fault with your inaction, but as with our intervention in other mid-east countries, when we did something, they started finding fault with the fact that we did something. And I honestly don't think that either party would act differently this time. So you're gonna be accused of being the bad guy either way. Now, do you spend our young men and women and our money to do the right thing? Or do you do the right thing by staying out of it, militarily? Here's a better question. Can we afford it? Do we have troops to do the work needed to handle the job? Where do we get the money to do it? Our military has been overextended for a long time. How many times can we keep sending our youth into harms way? And the last two wars we borrowed the money to go to war. Can we afford to do that again? Can we afford to raise taxes to do it? So you wanted the presidency, huh? Well you got it. Don't choke on it.

No Good Guy Awards For This.

Well, there they go again. The Chinese tried to purchase some extremely hard metal called maraging steel from American companies. This stuff is used almost exclusively for the production of nuclear materials. Like for making nuclear bombs. You know, like  B O O M ! But the characters who were trying to buy this stuff, claimed it was to make playground equipment. What they didn't say is that they were buying it for Iran. And if you make a bet that Iran wanted it for it's nuclear weapons industry, I'm pretty sure you'll win the bet. Now China claims they're helping to impose sanctions on Iran, in fact they're buying less oil from Iran. But that's because they can buy oil just as cheap elsewhere and it makes them look good. But they still have profiteers in China working hard to get around those sanctions. Next you hear lots of folks saying that China is a friend and a great marketplace for our exports. And that's true. They're happy to get our exports. Exports like jobs, technology, entire industries, critical supplies of products they can't make. All of those kinds of exports they want from us. In return, they are even more happy to send us defective, contaminated cheap junk. Which for some reason we Americans just can't get enough of. We even buy our Olympic uniforms from them. I suppose that's fitting. Why shouldn't we show respect for the country that will wind up owning us one of these days. Now you may gather that I'm not a fan of China from this entry. But when you look at the
American companies that rush to China to build their factories and the technology they're willing to hand over for the privilege of sending their companies over there, you just might find room to agree.

Who Do You Americans Think You Are?

Who ever said that banks are bad actors. Some banks are very bad actors. Take Standard Chartered Bank of England. Their New York branch has been running Iranian money through New York for years. Money laundering can be very lucrative if you don't get caught. Now that they seem to have been just that. Caught, I mean, the response from the bank is, "Who are you telling us, the rest of the world, that we're not going to deal with Iranians." Well,. to answer that, I'd say "We are America, if you want to do business in America, that's who." That's because if you want to do business in America, you have to play by our rules. Actually, they're not alone in this business of flouting U.S. sanctions rules. Some of the other actors are Lloyds, UBS, Credit Suisse, Barclays and some others. It seems to be the case that the bigger the bank, the bigger the misdeeds. Although, I'm sure that some small banks do their share of bad deeds. It just seems like people who roll up their sleeves and pick up a tool and put in a hard day at work have little opportunity to cheat and do harm. They may cheat or they may do harm, but it's difficult to do both. But if they roll up their sleeves and do nothing other than try to figure out how to make money from doing nothing, these folks seem to always want to cheat and do harm. I mean that seems to be the approved way of doing business. In the case of Standard Chartered, they had a handbook for employees on how to get around American sanctions rules. A handbook on how to cheat. Ya can't make this stuff up folks. Well, except that they did make up this handbook. They sat down and wrote or typed out the instructions on what to say, what to leave out and how to report fraudulently.And when they get caught, and are about to be shut down, in America, you can bet there's a handbook on how to apologize in a way that lets them off the hook.

Why Our Economy Stinks.

Let me snow you with some stats, Between 1960 and 2000 personal assets in the U.S. averaged 4.6  to 6 times the Gross Domestic Product of America, in 2006 it got to 6.64 times the GDP. In 2008 it dropped to as low as 3.55 times the GDP. In 2009, the Total personal debt was 50.7 Trillion or 3.5 times the GDP. What does all this mean. Big numbers, that's what it means. But what it comes down to is Americans have somewhat less money including savings, home values and everything else and prospects don't look all that great, what with a government bent more on making the other guy look bad than on making us more secure. It's not too hard to understand why confidence is none too high. So if you're sitting in your living room and some politician comes on the air and tells you the only way to save the country is to fire more government workers, stop paying out more on entitlements and cut taxes for job creators, but you know the other guy will not vote for that idea. Do you jump up and run to the store to buy a new washer and dryer or do you call the repairman, after trying to fix the dumb things yourself. Or consider that you're sitting in that same living room and another guy says the only way to save the country is to spend a lot of money on infrastructure and raise the taxes on the rich, but you know the other guy will refuse to vote for that idea. Do you jump up and run out and buy that refrigerator and dishwasher, or not? See? In either case, there's no confidence that anything will be done to help you. Neither party is willing to listen or compromise. Being "in power" is just too important. They'd rather be captain of a Titanic, than sit in the rowboat. Next to you.

What do Jobs Reports Mean?

So the latest jobs report came out with 183,000 new hires, somewhat above the 110,000 to 125,000 needed to stay even with population growth. But the unemployed rate went up from 8.2% to 8.3%. Now there's a head scratcher. Here's another one. The number of private sector jobs is even higher, but government layoffs cut the total back to the 183,000. It's sometimes hard to understand, made even more so by competing ideological views of the numbers.But if private sector hires seems to be on a very slow rise, but rise none the less, what's needed to jump start the process of recovery? Many say a government stimulus in infrastructure is needed. Many say we can't do that because of the tremendous debt.  But then they've been saying that for some considerable time. Ya know what? Such a stimulus would dramatically increase the debt. No getting around that. But the idea is that with increased employment comes increased tax revenue and a lesser burden on entitlements that, combined, would begin to pay down that debt. Still, it would mean taking a gamble that to a conservative mind is no sure bet. On the other hand, to a progressive mind, this bet seems to be the only game in town. The reason being that by shrinking government and cutting taxes as the only means of stimulating the economy, it leaves more unemployed which tends to shrink demand for goods and services so much so, that business is leery of hiring any new employees and in fact may cause layoffs. What it comes down to is two choices: Take a chance or trust to chance.

The Chamber of Commerce Hates Cyber Security.

Cyber Security. Boy there's a word you didn't hear about back when JFK or the Reagon, or even Bill Clinton was in office. But they say that a cyber attack could screw up our water supply or electric supply or our defense. So I have to say that it must be important. That's why representatives of this and the previous administrations have lobbied congress to pass into law a bill that will help protect our country from such an attack. And to our great good luck, congress agrees on it's importance. That's why the Senate just failed to pass such a bill because of a filibuster. The bill would have caused some sharing of information between government and private sector industry. Now in spite of the fact that we need such protection, the Senate couldn't get the 60 votes necessary to end the filibuster. So on the same side we have the government, past and present, pushing for the bill. Who in the world would be against it? It seems that the Chamber of Commerce is against it. They claim it might cost corporations too much money to provide such protections to water supplies and electric service. I wonder how much it would cost them if there were to be a cyber attack? I'll bet the answer is that it wouldn't cost them a dime. That's because they'd come running to to government to rebuild those systems at taxpayer expense, with a little something extra thrown in for the company. But think about it. These companies the Chamber is trying to protect are considered public utilities. They are guaranteed a fixed profit. Why does the Chamber of Commerce care when the taxpayers pay for it, now or later? Let the people decide.

Ain't Being A Super PAC Great?

Well guess what? The IRS has decided that maybe they should look into the allegations that so called Social Welfare Nonprofits under the 501(C)(4) section of the tax code aren't actually social welfare advocates after all. The IRS thinks that maybe those outfits, like American Crossroads, run by Carl Rove and all the other Super PACs are just fronts for political attack ads by partisan political activists who are able to raise millions of dollars secretly. What are the chances? See, by forming a 501(C)(4) nonprofit corporation, you don't have to pay any taxes on that money because you're supposed to spend the money on social welfare issues. So the question the IRS has, is do they spend that money on those social issues or on attack ads against a political candidate? What are the chances? So, as I said earlier, the IRS has decided it might look into the problem, if there is one. If there is one? Do these folks at the IRS ever turn on their TVs? But at least they've decided to look into it. Exactly what does that mean? What it means is that about three or four years from now, when the IRS finds that these 501(C)(4)s have been naughty, and decides to fine them, the American Crossroads corporations of America will have spent all the money, gone out of business and found a new loophole to take advantage of, in order to continue their attacks. Which means the IRS won't be able to collect a dime and since it was a corporation, the executives of those corporations will be exempt from any charges against the corporation. Remember, corporations are people too. And other people can't be held responsible for their evil-doings. Either that or the Carl Rove's of America will explain that they didn't know this sort of thing was happening on their watch. And they'll apologize. Do ya love it yet?

Just What Is Tax Policy

I don't generally go this far, but I just finished reading an article in the Washington Post that talked about Mitt Romney's proposed tax plan. Now to be honest, I guess I missed that. But this article refers to a study of that plan by two groups of researchers. The Brookings Institute and the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Based on their findings, it would reduce tax collections by $360 billion per year. To make that up you can kiss good bye to such tax breaks as "mortgage interest, employer provided health-care insurance, education, medical expenses, state and local taxes and child care." But even bigger news than that is the tax savings of $87,000 for the top 5% and an increase of $500 per year in taxes for the bottom 95%. These aren't my numbers. The Brookings Institute and Tax Policy Center are the ones that came up with these figures. So, if Mr. Romney gets elected president, and unless you fit into that 5% group that will get, on average, $87,000, you can expect to pay an extra $500. Now to someone like Mr. Romney, $500 is a small price to pay so that the richest 5% can get an extra savings of $87,000. Also a small amount to someone like Mr. Romney. Now I'm not telling anyone how to vote. If you're a 5% person, you might feel Mr Romney is onto something very helpful and may wish to vote for him. On the other hand if you're looking at paying out an extra $500 in taxes, you may disagree with this plan he's come up with. Or you may even feel that the richest 5% are desperately in need of that extra $87,000 and are willing to help pay for it. If so, you might wish to vote for Mr Romney. Otherwise, you might want to think again about who you want to vote for. I'm just saying.