Super Wheat Ain't Sweet.

       Ya know, I don't understand this whole thing about genetically modified food products. But this much I do know. Lots folks get spooked when they hear about companies like Monsanto developing altered corn, wheat and a lot of other grains. Probably even fruits and berries too. I think folks are afraid they might begin to glow in the dark or sprout and extra hand or whatever.
       But we can feel safe because our government keeps an eye on them and others in that industry, to make sure they don't do anything dumb like making a seed that is immune to any kind of weed killer. Except we now find that some of that wheat is actually growing out in Oregon. The big questions are how did we find out about it and why is it growing in the first place, since it was never approved by the government?
       Funny thing happened on a farm out in Oregon. Farmer Brown (not his real name) decided to clear a wheat field so he could use it for another purpose. Perhaps to pan for gold. At any rate, he sprayed the field with Monsanto's best weed killer. That'll be that, he thought. But that wasn't that because the wheat improved. Well at least it kept growing.
       So what's the big fuss about one lousy field of wheat, I mean we could just burn it down. But what if it won't burn either? It's modified not to be bothered by weedkiller. Well fire is a weed killer. Maybe it's impervious to fire too. That would be good for houses. We could build wheat homes. Well, the problem is that our biggest buyer of wheat outside America, is Japan and they stopped buying any wheat from us until this matter is cleared up. Even the European Union doesn't want our wheat unless we can prove it's not genetically modified.
       This sounds like a job for superslueth. Our government man in the field, so to speak. He's better known as double O slash 14234P-9483-3202309234098X for short. Seriously, if our government won't even approve it, it can't be all that good for us. It would be nice if the EPA and the Agriculture Department would clear this thing up.
     

Chinese Ham.

       Well folks, here it is at long last. A Chinese company is buying Smithfield Foods for $4.7 billion. So now your favorite ham or bacon will be coming from China maybe not right away, but the way that country and its companies work are familiar. You remember, defective baby cribs, lead in the paint, contaminated baby-food.
       So from now on you'll want to check to see if that Christmas ham really does glow in the dark, just like Rudolph. It may be unfair to characterize Smithfield as becoming unfit. The Company CEO claims nothing will change. That it will be a boon to American farmers, industry, stakeholders, and, I suppose, every living creature on earth.
       The thing is though, China doesn't have a sterling track record, in my opinion. They have figured a way to get rid of chemicals, lead, and other pollutants by introducing these things into products they then export to America. Why should we expect a different outcome in this case?
       It's not that I dislike the Chinese people. I know a very few Chinese people, but none are still resident citizens of China. They're all nice people, but as is the case with most countries, it's not the people that are the problem, it's the governments. Hey, even our own government can be trying at times. But it's hard for me to trust a country that's tried to screw us as many times as China has. I'm surprised they didn't just try to steal the company's intellectual properties and use a similar name to market their own ham.
       I guess there just isn't much intellectual property to putting two pigs together and standing back. After all, pigs do naturally procreate. Maybe they couldn't figure out how to get enough bacon on a container ship. If they start using a 3-D printer to make sausage, count me out.

There's A silver Lining Even In Cruise Ship Mishaps

       I suppose you've all heard about the latest cruise ship that had a fire and had to return to port. It's hard to imagine all the problems that have befallen cruise lines of late. Like hitting a coastline and half sinking, losing your electrical power, losing engines, fires and more fires. It sure isn't reminiscent of the"Love Boat" years, now is it?
       I'm sure that cruise ships have, over the years, had their share of problems. I seem to remember one even being attacked by pirates, but I don't ever remember hearing about so many problems. It can only be explained by one of two reasons. Either the 24-7 news cycle has caught up with the idea that they can fill air time with something new and exciting, or there really is an unexplained rash of new incidents of serious problems aboard these floating hotels.
       Whatever the reasons or causes of all these problems, I can see a silver lining in these mishaps. I think it would be a wonderful gesture if we arranged for our Congress to enjoy an all expenses paid cruise aboard the next cruise ship to have a mishap like one of those that have taken place on the open sea.
       How about one where first the communications systems fail, then the sewer blocks up, then they lose power, and nobody knows where they are. It just might be that a few weeks together with no working toilets might bring them closer together. Failing that, perhaps some of the least desirable, most controversial legislators might be assisted in leaving the ship via gangplank, blindfolded.
       Of course then we'd have to contend with an enraged 24-7 news industry. They'd want to know who took Congress and for what reason? Where is the House and Senate and what secret mission are they on? At that point it would be advisable to throw your TV out the window before you are driven insane. The upside is that our government might actually be able to work.

Just How Useless Is Congress?

       Raise your hand if you can clearly explain what derivatives are. No? Well how about credit default swaps? No? Well maybe that's why one of the "Too Big To Fail" banks is writing legislation to eliminate the Dodd-Frank law that was passed because of the financial crisis of 2008-09. That weak law required a few of those bets to be separated from taxpayer protection. But that idea didn't sit well with the TBTF gang. Because it would mean they would not make as much profit.
       But the whole idea of Dodd-Frank was to get taxpayers off the hook for banks' risky bets and transactions. You know, the kind that forced us to spend billions to prop up those banks because they were too big to fail. Their failure would hurt America. So ya see, you don't really have to fully understand these risky bets the banks were taking part in. All you really have to know is that if you have to pay the debt if they screw up, it's a bad deal for you.
       Well, if that's the case, why is Congress allowing a Citigroup employee to write the legislation? Good question. If Congress allows it, then shouldn't these too big to fail banks be broken up into smaller banks that aren't too big to fail if they make a too risky bet? Even better question. But as it now looks, the Dodd-Frank law will become the Dodd-Frank useless piece of paper. And we'll be right back where we were in 2008. And if somebody in one of these TBTF banks decides to make a really wild wager and loses, we'll all wind up with a big increase in our national debt.
       So the question is; do you really want these folks writing our laws so they can do pretty much anything they please? Here's another question; why is it that Congress would allow these folks to do its work? If the industries we are supposed to regulate, write their own rules, then what do we need Congress for anyway?
     

If It Weren't For Lobbyists.

       Do you remember way back when bank lobbyists were still writing any legislation that had to do with banking issues? Then finally came the financial crisis of 08 and 09. Well guess who's back in the business of writing legislation for financial regulations? Now I understand that Congress isn't peopled with great financial minds. Many of the technicalities associated with banking and the regulating of its activities are very complex.

       I understand that, but what I don't understand is why would you turn over the responsibility of writing these regulations to the very same people that got us in trouble five years ago? Over the years these same lobbyists convinced successive Congresses that existing tough regulations were no longer needed. They explained the banking community was much too sophisticated to allow any trouble to overtake them.

       But then, to the great surprise of Congress, these very sophisticated lenders and investors did allow trouble to overtake them. Now wouldn't you have thought they might have tucked their tails between their legs for just a short time at least? Certainly not. They almost immediately warned of over regulating. Then they were quick to point out that some were too big to fail and some were even too big to convict.

       Now since there is nobody in this entire country who is not already in the employ of the banking industry with the understanding of the complexity of the industry to write these regulations except the lobbyists of the banking industry. Ya see how neatly this all falls into place? So lets's recap this story. First banks say they're too smart. Then they prove they're not. Then they claim nobody else is smart enough. Then they start rewriting the regulations again. Ya gotta love em. They're killing us, but ya gotta love em.

CorporateTaxes 101.

       Last week I suggested taxing US corporations for profits they make overseas that are not taxed. Low and behold comes Apple to testify before Congress Here's the deal with them. They create a subsidiary in Ireland. They transfer all or most of their intellectual property rights to this subsidiary. Then the subsidiary charges Apple for the right to use the property. That way, Apple can show little or no profits in America.
       The reason for doing it in Ireland is because they worked out a deal with the Irish government to allow them to pay a whopping 2% in taxes instead of 35% to America. But the best part is they can go before the Senate and claim to have paid every cent they owed in taxes. Unfortunately, they're right. Our tax laws don't prohibit this kind of maneuver. It would be illegal to shift profits overseas, but it's not illegal to pay for the use of intellectual property and deduct that amount from your profits.
       Ya see, there's no law against being sneaky. But here's the problem, if I had a couple of thousand I wanted to hide, there's no way for me to do it legally. I can hardly send it to Ireland and expect to have such a good outcome. What if I won the lottery and transferred my good fortune for picking the right number to a subsidiary in Ireland? Would that then relieve me from paying any taxes on that money? All I'd have to do is go to Ireland to spend the money.
       It's just that I'm not so sure I'd want all my money in a place like Ireland. I just don't drink that much whiskey. What if I wanted to bring it back to America? Then America would want me to pay taxes on it. But a big corporation like Apple, they don't mind that their money is in Ireland. They can afford to fly over there any time they want. Heck, they probably have their own plane they can set on automatic pilot and fly directly to the bank they probably now own over there.

Distractions Are Amazing.

       Okay, we've had some time to digest the three latest "Watergate like" exposes of the Obama years. I will say, this president has had his share, and then some. There has been the birth discussions, mainly by a certain real estate developer/gambling mogul/sometime presidential candidate. That accusation blew up in his face, but there still are some Birthers out there.
       Then we had the complaints over his announcing the killing of Osama BinLaden. But hey, he did have the right to make the announcement. How about the bad talk of his not closing Gitmo? But he promised. Of course, if Congress won't let you do it, and no states will accept the prisoners, then what did you expect?
       There have been many examples including the complaint of his unwillingness to have an open inclusive administration. Now on that one he has been less than forthcoming. But what about these latest three? First was Benghazi. But after all these months of accusations it turns out that the talking points he was accused of, actually came from General Petraeus as head of the CIA.
       Then there was the one I really thought he was wrong about. The deal with checking out reporters phone records. Now that was overreach. Except that whoever leaked that to the press, did in fact, endanger people's lives. People who were helping us. People in a sting operation. Naw, he did the right thing. And he's not interested in prosecuting the press. Only the perp.
       So that leaves just one of the intrigues that prominent statesman and a few wackos claimed would bring this president down. The IRS scandal. Which as I've said, such in depth investigations should be carried out on anyone applying for tax exempt status. But it just doesn't seem to be attached to Obama.
       The thing is that with all his flaws, and there certainly are some, there's been nothing that can measure up to the level, or down to the level, of recent history regarding impeachment, no matter what some folks prey for. Those folks can be indignant all they want, but so far, the President is on firm footing. The thing is, the real work of government ain't getting done.

See What Ya Missed?

       Ya See! If you had elected me president, I could have eliminated the national debt or at least been well on the way to doing so by now. The thing is, I have a plan that will work. Guaranteed. I can assure you that
I would pay off the national debt in less than ten years. Not only that, but I would lower corporate taxes from the current 35% to 30%.
       Not only that, but I would have agreed to lower the corporate taxes by 1% each time the debt decreased by one forth, so that when our debt was paid off, the corporate tax rate would be 26%. Try to find any other candidate that could have promised that. Oh, I know, every candidate would have promised that, but I have a real, verifiable plan that cannot fail to accomplish this goal.
       Not only that, but it would have given us enough of a surplus to stimulate the economy to boot. Now I don't want this to get out, but here's my plan. First of all, I would require any company doing business in America to pay taxes on the profits of any business done in America. Secondly I would tax any American corporation on the profits made in any other country by the difference between what they pay there and what our rate is. So if they do a billion dollars worth of business in Estonia with profits of 200 million, and Estonia's tax rate is 10%, then that company would owe America 20% or $40 million..
       Lastly I would eliminate one tax loophole. Currently if a corporation decides to relocate an operation to China or India or any other country, they get a tax write-off for the cost of moving jobs. Well, if they move jobs off-shore, there's not gonna be any write-off for that. Now, there will be at least one exception to all of this. Companies like GE will be exempt. That's because they didn't pay any taxes the last I heard. They owed no taxes and got back $3 billion from Uncle Sam. We just can't afford to lower their taxes any more.
       One last thing. If for some unknown reason my plan wasn't working, then all subsidies to any and all companies, industries or persons would be suspended until the national debt was paid off. Probably about three years. This would not include subsidies for the poor.

Swaying Not To Sway.

       Here's something interesting in the Washington Post. The new head of the Security and Exchange Commission was testifying to Congress about a proposal to require publicly traded corporations to reveal any political campaign donations they make, to their stockholders.
       Some Congressmen are telling the new head of the SEC that she should not endorse this proposal because it would cause the SEC to become embroiled in an IRS type scandal. Apparently because the SEC personnel would be unable to stop themselves from becoming partisan activists.
       An admonition not to allow herself to be swayed by anyone bent on inappropriately targeting conservative corporations was advised by the chair of the sub-committee she was testifying to. In other words, don't enact this rule because it might be detrimental to the recipients of the largess.
       But isn't there an attempt on the part of the chair of this committee to sway her against approving a rule that might hurt his fund raising abilities? Wouldn't it make better law to require transparency between management of Corporations and their stockholders? I mean after all, the stockholders are the owners. Shouldn't the owners have the right to know where the money is flowing that otherwise might be flowing into their pockets? Or into research and development? Or even employee benefits?
       It's not that corporations can't throw money away, or invest in a Congressman or Senator who might throw business their way or pass legislation favorable to them or fix a parking ticket. All of these things could be beneficial to the corporation. Or it's management. But the stockholders might not see it as being beneficial to the stockholders. And the stockholders might not care if a Congressman likes it or not.

Shame On The IRS

       Have you been following the IRS scandal? You know, the one where IRS employees have been targeting conservative groups who were applying for tax exempt status as public service organizations. This outrages me. How could these people get away with this targeting for as long as they did? There simply is no place in our society for this kind of outrageous activity.
       Apparently any Tea Party group or group with patriot in the name applying for the tax exempt status of a non-profit public service organization was put through all sorts of extra hoops. They were required to provide proof of the public service end of their work and proof they were not engaged or will not engage in political activity.
       I can't believe the IRS isn't targeting  progressive organizations applying for tax exempt status as well. The additional information they were requiring of the conservative groups, is information they should require from all or any group applying for tax exempt status.
       The problem is that groups in the past have misused this classification. They claimed to be public service  non-profits, but in fact were engaged, almost exclusively in political attack ads and advocacy. The real problem is not that the IRS targeted conservative groups, but that it did not target progressive or liberal groups as well.
       Even more importantly, they should have been prosecuting groups who misused that status in the recent past. That would have been a better tool to discourage misuse of that particular tax exempt status by political groups.

TV. It's All; About Ratings.

       Have you noticed how much broadcast television ratings have dropped? TV programming just isn't delivering the way it used to. The number of cable networks making out pretty well running reruns of old TV shows seems to be growing. Between them and the ones showing old movies, there's barely any room for broadcast television to register any viewers.
       Why do you suppose that's true? I think the problem is that the level of intellectual content is so low, that people are finally getting sick of being taken for dopes. Just think about the programming these days. How much of it are viewers likely to be watching ten years from now as reruns?
       That's what made the broadcast networks. Of course ten or twenty years ago they didn't have the competition. But uncharacteristically, they put lots of money and effort into providing good viewing for their TV audiences. Normally lack of competition breeds mediocrity and competition provides the impetus to do better. The opposite has happened in Television.
       Here's a test question you can ask yourself. How many of the TV shows on any of the networks that are not already reruns, might you likely be watching ten or twenty years from now? How many sitcoms, westerns, private eyes and the like from current programming will you realistically be watching in the future as reruns? It's a trick question, because there aren't any. Or very, very few. No Dean Martin shows, or Ed Sullivan or Johnny Cash or Red Skelton or any of those.
       Today's programming includes pretend reality. Pretend Reality, is that what everyone wants to see? Is that something you're likely to be watching in the future because you enjoyed it so much in the past? Everything seems to be done on the cheap today in TV. Good ratings don't seem to come along on the cheap. I wonder if anybody has noticed that? I suspect not.

How much Is A person's Work Worth?

       I've got a question for ya. How much is responsibility worth? I mean, if I have a job that requires me to put part A into part B, and if I get it wrong, the whole finished product is screwed up. Then that's responsibility. As opposed to putting part A into part B, but if I get it wrong, the inspector catches it and fixes it, Which would move the responsibility to the inspector. Now the one with the responsibility should be compensated for the additional responsibility.
       The same is true in the case of the Chief Executive Officer of a company. He, or she, has responsibility for the entire company. Everyone pretty much agrees with that. The only question is just how much is the responsibility worth for that CEO. Should it be fifty times as much as the average worker? Or a hundred times as much as the worker, or a thousand time as much? Or should there be no correlation between them.
       Suppose you're an average worker making $25,000 a year, should your boss make $10,000,000? Even if you're making $50,000, how much should he make? Should it be determined by how well the company does? Because some CEOs make that much or more even though the company does poorly or even has to declare bankruptcy.
 And I've seen where companies declare bankruptcy, pay the CEO a bonus and demand the employees take pay cuts. So let me ask again, just how much is responsibility worth? Here's another example. You work hard, you make that $25,000 or $50,000 and you pay into some sort of retirement plan. That money gets invested. Investment managers make more than your boss makes and get special tax breaks to boot.
       The thing is, there's no answer to the question I asked about the value of responsibility. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, compensation is in the pocket of the well connected, which means the boss. And it seems that fair compensation is whatever bosses want it to mean. And if you don't like it, don't just quit, because you may not be able to collect if you do.

       Well some of these companies pay their average worker maybe $25,000 a year, some pay $50,000 per year. But many of these same companies pay their CEOs tens of millions per year. So if your an average worker in a company and you make $50,000 a year and your CEO makes $50,000,000. a year, that's 1,000 times, if you're that average worker making  $25,000, that CEO is making 2,000 times as much as you. Should that matter? How much worse can a CEO be if he only made $1,000,000. Would that mean that he'd let the company go down the tubes?  

It's All About Education.

       Ya know what this country needs? America needs a new group of educators and journalists who will keep a close eye on every change or effort to change our educational systems in every state in the country. Too what purpose you may ask? You may ask. The reason we need such a group is to bring to the attention of all Americans just how shortsighted many officials including governors, legislators, both state and federal, and private organizations and groups really can be.
       As an example, consider the sequestration and its cuts to programs like Head Start, just to name one. This program provides the opportunity for the children of lower income families to enter public school somewhere near the preparedness level of wealthier children. At this most important stage of the educational growth of a child, it's critical to give every child every advantage possible.
       When the various states cut back funding to school districts, the districts are forced to cut back programs that all too often are proven to help students think independently. And when the school districts were and are forced to cut back, often boards are poorly equipped to make the wisest choices.
       So exactly what would this group of educators and journalists do? Publicize the changes proposed, explain what those changed will do, good or bad, to the public. Mostly, the public has no idea what happens to the educational process their children are involved in. They don't know what's being considered or how it will effect the students.
       But there's one more thing this group should do. It needs to stand ready to propose optional changes that will accomplish the reasonable goals of the board but without harming, or do the least harm, to the student body. The best thing that could happen in a near-perfect world would be to have Green Beret teams for each state group. These Green Berets could be sent to schools in need or in danger, such as failing schools, with the expertise and authority to fix the problems. Better yet, call them SWEET Teams (Strategic Wake-up Educational Energy Team).
   

Foreclosures Available, Cheap.

       Remember all those people who lost their homes to foreclosure at the height of the Great Recession? Remember that many if not most lost their homes due at least in part to abuse by the banks? Well, first they were told they would receive settlements as compensation for the unfair treatment they received. It would come in the form of a check. For most of those folks that check would amount to $300.
       So if a bank wrongfully foreclosed on your home, you get $300. Now such a sum might pay for a third or so of one month's rent. Of course the banks are satisfied. They won't get sued and they made billions and billions of dollars in profits.
So these folks received their checks, only to find out that the checks bounced. Yep, you lose your home and get insulted with a check for $300, that bounces. But that's not the end. See the bouncing was a systems failure. So new checks are sent out. But for 96,000 ex-homeowners the new check is for less than it's supposed to be. You heard that right. If they were due $300, they got a check for even less.
       So let's add this all up. The bank took your home, in a few cases even after the mortgage was paid off, and for most others, in ways not exactly legal. Then they're told they'll get a check to make up for their loss of a home. It turns out to be for $300, which bounces. The new check is not for the $300, but for something less. So now Goldman Sacks and Morgan Stanley say they'll send out new checks for the balance. Ya gotta believe they have big hearts
       I don't know about you, but I think that if these outfits couldn't handle the foreclosures correctly and can't handle the settlement checks correctly and wormed out a meager $300 settlement, and managed to stay out of prison to boot, it's not that they're too big to fail. The problem is that they seem to be too big for their own boots. They're bigger than God.

Red Or Blue, Money Helps.

       Ya know what? If you live in a red state or a purple state or even a blue state, if your state is still thinking about signing up for the Obamacare online marketplaces, or has decided not to sign up for it and let the federal government do it, you should think again. Did you know there are more uninsured citizens in red states than in blue states? Here's the thing, if your state signed up, it's getting more from the government to help you figure out what's the best insurance for you, than the states that didn't sign up.
       The point is why should your state be obstinate and refuse the money while most others are gonna get the money? Unless of course, your state doesn't care if you get insurance coverage or not. In fact the states that aren't doing anything about it are mostly thinking they can save more money by not giving you insurance.That way they can give out bigger tax cuts to the wealthy.
       But where do most of the people live that don't have insurance coverage? Answer, they live in the states that refuse to go along with the new federal health law. Which happens to be the red states. I guess what I don't get is why those states who refused the money think it's better to save money than it is to give healthcare to those in need? Saving money is a good thing unless it involves your health.
       Look, I understand not agreeing with the president. I don't agree with him all the time either, but when it comes to giving a helping hand to those in need and at the same time eliminate the costs to hospitals and the government of treating those same people when they get sick, why not? The government pays, either way, so why not give these folks the kind of medical care that will likely keep them healthy. Which, by the way, will save tons of money in the long run. That's because a doctor visit is way cheaper than a hospital visit.

What's A Sequestration Among Friends?

       Well, Congress is up in arms over cuts to arms. They want to know what cuts will be necessary to the defense budget to comply to the sequester. Congress is not happy about any cuts to the military and especially this sequester thing. and make no mistake, Congress is just the arm of government to stop it from happening. Just look at the air traffic controller cuts. As soon as Congress found out they might be delayed from getting home for the break, the problem went away with a near unanimous vote to refund that portion of the Transportation Safety Board's budget.
       That's right, Congress will brook no interference with it's travel plans when it comes to getting home for vacation. Nor will they stand for any threat to our defense contractors or even our military itself. When it comes to sequestration, a funds saving measure Congress arranged for, there's no funding cuts they'll approve. Well except for useless waste like Meals on Wheels to feed elderly shut-ins or preschool for needy children, you know, things like that.
       You haven't heard anyone in Congress demanding reports on how these sequester cuts will affect their poor mother-in-law living in a fourth floor walk-up who's confined to a wheelchair now do ya? If there's no money in the budget to feed her, then she can eat cake, I suppose. And let's not waste our time worrying about young children not even in school yet. Why should they be given a Head Start. Let them start at the same time as everybody else.
       I feel as though I should applaud our Congress on it's multitude of success stories on such things as blocking nearly every bill except for naming post offices. It takes a fine government to thwart any attempt to improve the lives of it's citizens. And if Congress spends more time seeing to the needs and demands of corporate America, we must remember that corporations are people too. Corporations have feelings and we don't want our Congress going around hurting our corporations' feelings, now do we?

Employees Don't Buy What Companies Make.

       Columnist Harold Meyerson had an interesting editorial in the Washington Post today. He talked about how people are not better off. It used to be that folks could reasonably expect to be better off than their parents were. No more. He attributes that to the change we underwent from stakeholder economy to shareholder economy.
       Ya see, in a shareholder economy like we have now, the emphasis is on the stockholders of companies. But there used to be far more focus on stakeholders, that is employees and their well being. When did that change take place? Back in the early 1980s unions started to decline in earnest. Employee share of the wealth earned by corporations has decreased dramatically. But payouts to stockholders have increased just as dramatically.
       What he's saying is that employee wages have stagnated while stock returns have increased. Unions don't count for much these days. Therefore there's nobody looking out for the best interests of the workers. Certainly companies don't see it as their responsibility. If you're not happy with your lot with this company, then leave, quit. That's fine, except where would you go? Job prospects aren't that good. Companies know that. Fewer workers are needed to do what jobs there are.
       Globalization helps to depress the market for all jobs except for the highest paying, highest tech positions. But here's the problem. Companies don't want to pay employees. They'd rather pay stockholders. But those same companies need customers who can afford the products they make. How can you reasonably expect an employee to buy your product if you don't pay him or her enough to buy that product?
\       Stockholders may be able to afford your product, but there isn't enough of them to keep your company in business. That's because stockholders are mostly wealthy folks or retirement funds. As an underpaid worker, you may own an IRA, but that doesn't help you buy the company's product. It'll barely help you retire someday. It's a catch 22.