Half Is Not Better Than Nothing At All.

       Ya know, the more I think about the Supreme Court's decision in the Voter Rights act, the more I've come to believe they were half right. Now, I'm not suggesting that being half right is a good outcome. I don't think I'd be proud to state I was half right on an important issue that affected so many people so negatively. They might as well have been all wrong as being half right.
       Here's the thing. I think they're right when they said this is not the 1960s. It isn't. They pointed out that our country is far less racial and is discriminatory far less than they were back then. All that's true. Even their idea that Congress should fix the problem is true. That the Congress should rewrite the voter rights act to reflect the America of 2013, is a true statement.
       Where the Supreme Court is incorrect is in saying that the Congress should fix the problem. They could just as well have suggested that Peter Pan should swoop down and fix the problem. Or maybe Vladimir Putin has a great idea on how to fix the problem. Or maybe Pres. Morsi of Egypt. He looks like he could use a change of address. How about a born again Baby Face Nelson.
       The thing is, Congress is incapable of passing meaningful legislation on this issue. And what's worse, the Supreme Court's Justices knew very well Congress couldn't possibly do it under current circumstances. Heck, the Congress can't do anything unless they are under extreme pressure. What the court should have done is say we are going to strip out section 5 of the law as soon as Congress can pass a revised Voter Rights law.
       A new law that reflects the current attempts of voter suppression. That would include every state that has tried to pass or has actually passed any form of voter suppression law including, but not limited to, photo voter IDs that require costs of getting such an ID or costs to acquire proof for such ID. Ya see, that's where the Supreme Court Justices screwed up.

You can't compare Obamacare With The NRA.

       Well, whatta ya think. The National Football League, the NFL, has backed down on supporting the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare. It seems the NFL was in talks to provide support in getting people to enroll. It's not unusual for the NFL to support health issues. So it seemed like a good fit. M y guess is that they would have done it if it weren't for one little mistake.
       Kathleen Sibelius, HHS Secretary was so happy that she prematurely announced the NFLs participation, thinking it would provide the impetus to other pro sports organizations to participate. Big mistake. As soon as Republicans got wind of the possibility that anyone would help Democrats promote the law of the land, they jumped on the NFL like a pack of scorpions. Are groups of scorpions called packs? I didn't even know that scorpions grouped up. The Republicans jumped on the NFL like a pack of wolves. I know they pack up.
       Not only did they jump all over the NFL, but they warned all other sports not to engage with anyone involved with such a controversial undertaking. On the other hand, the Republicans recently partnered up with the NRA to support and sponsor a NASCAR race. Does anyone think the NRA isn't controversial? So why is it that it's in bad taste for organized sports to support a controversial Democratic undertaking, but it's not in bad taste for NASCAR to huddle up with the NRA? I suppose it has to do with which Party is involved with which party.
       Or maybe it has more to do with which Party whines the most about the other Party's involvement with which party. Maybe if the Democrats whined louder and longer and sent more letters of disapproval to certain sports, then maybe the spikes would be on the other shoe. Then maybe the Democrats would look like whiners and obstructionists instead of the Republicans for a change.
       Just as a point of interest, of all the developed countries in the world, America stands alone in not having universal healthcare. America also holds a record of having the most expensive healthcare per capita of all those countries. And the Republicans stand alone as the only party standing in the way of implementing such humane healthcare. Which is parallel to the NRA and gun safety.

Immigration To Self Deportation.

       Why is it that the Senate struggled so mightily to pass an immigration bill? And why is it the House will struggle even more so and will very likely fail to pass anything worthy of honest consideration, but struggle none the less? I mean, come on, this is the easy stuff. They should be able to figure this out on the ride to work in the morning.
       If our legislators can't get this done in a reasonable period of time, like two weeks, how will they ever be able to figure out the more complicated stuff? Like creating jobs? Oh, that's right, government can't create jobs. Well, they can create an atmosphere that is conducive to job creation. Or at least they could if they were to spend less time figuring out the simple stuff.
       Of course some people just can't be convinced it's in the best interest of everyone to make immigration law more open and inviting. We've got the proof now, but some folks just won't buy it. Maybe we should pick one or two states and pass a law that says no first generation immigrant is allowed to live there. They could visit, but they can't stay. Then we could invite all the naysayers to move there. Anybody who refuses to move there must keep their mouths shut on the subject.
 I'd make a suggestion or two about which states to pick, but I have friends in some of those states and I know they wouldn't want to host such rabble. I'm sorry, rabble is such a strong word. Perhaps I should have said unenlightened. My friends wouldn't want to be saddled with those unenlightened.
       Another reason why setting aside a couple of states for these naysayers is that it would appear there might be such a concentration of politicians among them they'd likely implode. There's every reason to believe they'd form some sort of militia and invade neighboring states with the intent to cause mass self deportation to break out. I'll bet people who can trace their ancestry back to the pilgrims at Plymouth Rock would volunteer to self deport themselves just to get away from those unenlightened ones.

Somebody Stole My Recipe.

       Well, let's see. So far Hong Kong (Actually China) has spit in our face and Russia is about to do the same. This Edward Snowden story is long past getting out of hand. And while we're at it, the mam is not a whistle blower. A whistle blower doesn't pick a sworn enemy nation to hid out in. An enemy that then allows him to fly off to another sworn enemy country in order to make connections to a third country who promises to give him sanctuary.
       Here's a recipe for problems. If you take one high school dropout and have him vetted by a company with a suspect reputation and then have a government contractor hire him to access some of the most sensitive computers in the entire country. Then let him gain all the sensitive data he wants any time he wants and then walk off with this data. Maybe, just maybe, there's a problem in this scenario.
       I don't know when it was that all these positions started being filled by private contractors, but it's gone on far too long and far too far. What if you had a bakery with some great tasting deserts? You kept all the recipes in a file marked secret recipes in a locked file cabinet. Then you have a cleaning company come in and you hand the guy a key to the cabinet. He takes the secret recipe file out and takes it to to office copier where he copies all the recipes. Then he walks out and goes over to your competitor and hands over all the recipes. Most likely for a price.
       That's the act of a traitor. No matter that he first gave some of the recipes to the newspaper. He is still a traitor. He betrayed your trust. That's what Ed Snowden did. But what about the competitors? What about China and Russia? Right now they're snickering at us. Will we retaliate? Should we retaliate? You betcha we should. China wants a deal on that ham and sausage company. They should hold their breathe. Russia's gonna want something sooner or later. There needs to be a price for everything.

What's Gonna Happen To The Farms?

       The House of Representatives defeated the Farm Bill this week. But that's not the important issue. And it doesn't mean there will no longer be farms. In fact what will, in all likelihood, happen is another extension to the current bill will get passed until something can be worked out. So what is the importance of this political maneuver, or was it a maneuver at all?
       In the past, farm bills have always passed both houses of Congress by wide margins. Nobody ever wanted to mess with farmers. They drive tractors. With plows. Nobody wants to wake up some morning to find their lawn planted with cabbage. Or even skunkweed. So pretty much everyone voted in favor of these bills in days of yore.
       The other thing is both houses are normally certain of having sufficient votes before bringing such a bill to the floor. But this time, somebody goofed. The Senate passed the bill with no problem. The House leadership thought they could do the same. Oops! The legislation went down to defeat. So the Republicans blamed the Democrats and the Democrats blamed the Republicans. Nobody's brave enough to blame the Tea Party. Until now.
       So how did this happen? Not the blaming part. Everybody knows how the blaming works. But how did this happen. Well, usually each side gets what they want and everybody votes in favor. But this time the Food Stamp program got cut by an extra $20 billion. So the Democrats decided not to vote for the bill. A bunch of Republicans voted against the bill because it didn't cut enough from the Food Stamp program.
       Ya see? When ya get too greedy, things have a way of going sour. I've never heard of anyone "on food stamps" who wouldn't prefer to be rich enough not to be on food stamps. If you ask anybody, they'd rather have more money. Taking food stamps away from people who can't afford to buy good nutritious food, doesn't help anybody. It sure doesn't help the poor and it doesn't help middle class taxpayers in the long run. So who does it help? Folks who are mostly interested in ideology, that's who.

Tax Reform? No Way.

       On MSNBC's Morning Jo this morning they made a good point that trying to tax the rich does two things. First it causes those wealthy folks to move their financial lives off shore. So we don't get any taxes at all. Secondly all that's left is small businesses to pay those higher taxes, thereby cutting the potential for new jobs. I still have a problem with this one, but assuming it's true, then that only leaves the middle class to pay all the bills. The poor still can't afford any tax. Which is another discussion.
       So why is it then, that neither left nor right seems to want to change the system? Oh, to be sure, both the Republicans and the Democrats demand change. To get to tax reform, now. Yep, the politicians agree wholeheartedly with this idea. We must reform our tax code to make it more fair. Democrats want the rich to pay more, the Republicans want tax relief for the rich.
       But if you peel back the layers of polititalk what you find is that, since both sides are financed by the rich and mainly by rich corporations, there's no real desire to change the system. That's because most giant corporations like our tax system just fine the way it is. It allows them to deduct most of their income or keep it offshore so it doesn't count as income in the U.S. at all.
       In order to fix our problem, these mega-corporations would wind up paying a lot more in taxes. Now who would be against that? Well, of course, the Democrats and Republicans in office, that's who would be against that. But it's more politically correct for everyone to be in favor of fixing our tax system. Heck, even corporations will tell you that. If you want to hear that sort of thing.
       The real question is do we want things to change? Tax accountants and lawyers don't want change, corporations don't want change. Even the IRS probably doesn't want change because 75% of them would be layed off. Even talk show hosts would be unhappy with change. And sorry but what the middle class and the poor want doesn't count.

A Case For The Check.

       On the anniversary of the Newtown massacre it's time to remember the background check that doesn't happen. The undone background check that allows any criminal or mentally incompetent to step up to the vendor and put his money down and buy any conceivable firearm with any size or capacity magazine and any amount of ammunition and immediately walk out with that weapon and go anywhere and either resell it to another criminal or use it himself to kill as many people he wants in as short a time as possible.
       Now this criminal can't go into any gun shop or store that sells guns and purchase those guns without a background check. Anyone who goes into that gun shop or store is in no way harmed unless he is a criminal. No honest hunter, sport shooter or gun owner has ever been harmed by a background check.
       It has been said that criminals will get guns, no mater whether or not there are background checks. And at least in the short term, that is true. But as guns become less and less available, those incidents of gun violence will inevitably become fewer and fewer through attrition. And still no legitimate buyer will be harmed by a background check.
       So why is it that the NRA is so vehemently oppose background checks? Background checks that they used to support? The answer is simply that the support the NRA receives from  gun manufacturers has increased to the point that the vast majority of all their income comes from those manufacturers. And, the more guns manufacturers sell, the more their profits soar. These gun manufacturers don't want anything to slow those sales. Even the fear they suggest increases their sales.
       So I guess, if you are a strong supporter of gun manufacturers and don't care about people, then continue to oppose any kind of gun legislation. But if you support hunters or sport shooters or gun owners and you do care about people, then you need to support at least background checks.

Scandals, Blanks And Lips.

       Have you heard of this California Representative Darrill Issa? He's the chair of the House committee investigating the three, so called, sandals that would bring down the Obama Administration. First there was the Benghazi tragedy, which Issa and all other conservatives accused Obama, Hillary Clinton and every other progressive in the world of wrongdoing. Turns out that the problem was mainly one of CIA talking points and unfortunate under funding.
       Then there was the IRS scandal in which a section of the IRS was targeting certain conservative groups when they applied for tax exempt status. Issa again rode to the rescue by accusing Obama's staffer-in-charge of news conferences, of being a "paid liar" and for which Issa needs to apologize. It turns out that it wasn't the White House at all, but a conservative Republican manager of that office who started the targeting. It also turns out that the groups targeted actually were involved in activities that made them ineligible for tax exempt status.
       Finally there was the case of the whistle blower or did he just leak NSA secrets that endangered peoples lives, and the FOX News reporter who should have known better. But that has turned out to be a non-starter against President Obama as well.
       The thing is, all of these scandals were not scandals at all. Well, except for the scandalous fact that they took attention away from the real problems facing Americans. And Mr Issa? He's still the man who shoots from the lip. What are the chances that he'll ever apologize to anyone for his mouth and what comes from it?
There are reasons for Congress to do in-depth investigations. But there are never reasons for shooting from the lip. At least not until you have something besides blanks in your brain.

Why Are We At Cyber War?

       Well President Obama and Chinese leader Xi Jinping are done with two days of "informal" talks, says the New York Times today. They couldn't agree on cyberespionage though. Are you surprised at that? We know China is already waging cyberwar on us and we're waging counterespionage on them. Now you may ask why it is that they're waging this all out war on us and we're not waging it right back on them.
       You may ask, but that doesn't mean the government is gonna tell you the answer. Here's what I think. I think that they're cyber attacking us to get our secret information, but there's no point in cyber attacking them because the only information we'd get is our own information right back. See, China hasn't figured out how to do very much except steal secret info about almost everything and then hire interpreters so they can print it out in Chinese or Mandarin.
        So why do you suppose China's Xi Jinping isn't willing to talk about ending cyber-attacks? I'll tell ya why. It's because China has everything to gain from cyber-attacks and nothing to lose. It simply isn't in their best interests to give up such a lucrative enterprise. Now if there was a reason why cyber-attacks were harmful to China, then Xi Jinping would be banging on our door demanding an end to such dreadful goings ons. They wouldn't be able to wait. They'd be accusing us of stalling.
       The real question is why haven't we come up with a way to make cyber-attacks a bad deal for China? If China got stung by a bee every time it put its fingers in the cookie jar, China would soon enough stop putting its fingers in our cookie jar. Then our cookies would be safe. And our secrets too.
       I don't think the secret to stopping them is to keep whining about it, Our best approach is to find a way to sting them every time they try to get our secrets. Something that makes their efforts backfire. They sure wouldn't like it, but it's better to have them unhappy than to have us unhappy. At least it would be better for us. And after all, isn't that what the whining is all about?
     

Government Subsidies Rarely Work Well.

       I suppose you've heard of the Farm Subsidy bill. Congress is working on passage of the bill that's good for five years and totals just short of $1 trillion dollars. That's twelve zeros after that 1. One of the provisions in the bill is for more efficient irrigation equipment to conserve water which is in short supply and has been since before 1966 when it was first included in the Farm Bill.
       So it's free money for farmers to buy better watering equipment. And it works. It must work, because farmers are now planting more acreage and planting more water demanding plants. So the bill that provided the means to conserve water through better, more efficient equipment has caused farmers to use more water than ever before on more land than ever before.
       Well Senator Udall of New Mexico and Rep Blumenauer of Oregon tried to put some changes through the bill, but so far the Senate has passed the bill without those changes and prospects don't look good for the House version either. Which means things will not change. More land will be planted, thirstier plants will be grown and the water tables in the Midwest will fall lower.
       In case you don't know it, for the rest of the country, we'll soon be subsidizing water pipelines to send them more water so they can grow more crops on more land to use up more water. Our water. And knowing the way our government works, that means that you folks up in Maine will be sending your water to Arizona. Folks in Georgia will see their water head to Oregon. Let's hope there isn't a water collision somewhere in Kansas. Not that Kansas wouldn't be pleased to get the water that spills out, but their water is coming from Alaska. California will be shipping theirs in from Hawaii by way of container ships through the Suez Canal.
       Wouldn't it make better sense to help the folks back East to do a little more farming so the folks out in the Midwest can do a little less? It wouldn't take a pipeline to send some more tractors East. That way the Mid-westerners could save more water and the Easterners could keep more of its own water.

How Much Is Education Worth?

       Hey! Did you know that President Obama has suggested a 94 cents per pack of cigarettes tax to be used to fund pre-school for poor children and to make universal pre-school available for every 4 year old child in America? What's not to like about that? Okay, if you like to smoke cigarettes it would mean an increase in your cost of lighting up.
       But ya know what? That might be just the thing to convince you not to light up at all. After all, while smoking is an enjoyable habit, and I speak from experience, it can and usually does harm your health, and I'm still speaking from experience. But if you still refuse to quit, then that's your choice. It's my choice though, and I hope most folks will agree, your paying an extra 94 cents per pack so our children and grandchildren can get a better education, is a really good choice. And it's a great way to use that 94 cents.
       Now I know that some folks are against any kind of tax, even if it doesn't directly affect them. You've made your point on the subject many times. It's just that not raising taxes is one thing. But cutting education so that they can cut taxes on the rich, makes no sense. The rich just don't need more help. They already have all the help they need. They already get more tax relief than the poor or middle class combined. But when we cut education, we cut the future of our children.
       Is cutting the future of our children a good idea? Will it make future generations happier if they lose out on opportunities because of those cuts to education? Here's the difference; Rich kids won't lose out on opportunities because their children attend exclusive private schools. Upper middle class will even select schools with better funding. It's just the poor and lower middle class whose children will suffer the consequences. If that's okay with you then stop complaining about so many people being on welfare.

America, Iraq, China. What a Crew.

       If you're one of the folks that considered the Iraqi war to be a necessary evil and a potential for access to a major source of oil for America, I've got some bad news for ya. If you're one of those folks who thought we only went to war in Iraq for it's oil, it doesn't matter any more. If you thought we were saving Iraqi's from a cruel dictator, they don't care. If you're someone who thinks the Iraqis owe us for setting them free, you're gonna be disappointed in the news today. But there is an upside too, of sorts.
       An article in the New York Times this morning tells the real story. U.S. oil giant Exon Mobile is getting beaten out by China's oil companies in Iraq. The reason for this turn of events is because they're willing to pay whatever Iraq wants and under whatever terms Iraq wishes to impose. Western oil companies complain about strict terms and low profit margins, but China doesn't care.
       Why are the Chinese so accommodating while America's and other western companies are such whiners? Western companies have stockholders they need to keep happy with big profits. Chinese companies are owned by the state. All they care about is enough oil for energy to keep its industries and population happy. These Chinese companies don't need to make any profit at all. For China, whatever it takes to make Iraq happy, is okay with them.
       Iraq doesn't feel any responsibility to repay America for causing a war in which hundreds of thousands of its people died and for which instability is a nearly daily occurrence. On the other hand, the financial gains from selling to the Chinese and China's willingness to play by Iraq's rules could go a long way to easing the sectarian strife by keeping more Iraqi citizens employed. Getting a regular paycheck keeps a lot more people happy than a revolution or austerity does. America might want to consider this fact when it comes to austerity.

Fair Taxes Are Fair.

       Have you paid much attention to corporate taxes? I suppose unless you're a corporation, you haven't. The point is some corporations pay the somewhat high 39% or close to it. But other companies pay no tax at all or nearly none. That's not a fair arrangement. Not to Americans and certainly not to companies paying the full boat. But then, that's the case with a lot of our tax code.
       Now there's a newer idea that's beginning to get listeners. It's a tax on the profits of products and services on the corporation that generates those products or services in the jurisdiction of final sale. In other words, if Apple builds a new I-phone, it wouldn't matter where it was built or who holds the patent, it would only matter where it was sold. So if Apple or GE or any other company sells $9 billion and makes $5 billion in profit in America, they pay taxes on $5 billion. If they sell $20 billion to the rest of the world, the rest of the world can tax it any way they want.
       This would include any company from anywhere in the world. So if a Chinese company sells cheap electronics here or Bangladesh sells cheap shirts here, they have to pay the same taxes on profits here on those items sold here as our own companies. The advantages are several. First, there would be no reason to hold profits offshore in tax sheltered locations. By taxing the profits on all product sold here, by all companies, the tax rate could be lowered considerably. There would no longer be tax advantages for manufacturing items to be imported to America. Foreign manufacturers would no longer get a break that American companies do not.
       It may not be a perfect idea and given our Congress's track record, a simple law just might wind up being hundreds of pages long and remain just as confusing as our current tax code. But at least we'd be leveling the playing field for our own manufacturers.