Banks Aren't Just Checking And Saving.

       Why is it that big banks always seem to be running afoul of the law? Take JP Morgan Chase for instance, but not only them. JPMC has two federal agencies after them currently. They've also been accused of seeking to hire children of Chinese leaders by ignoring their own policies in order to gain business. But then a good many other financial institutions are guilty of the same. Oops. I mean they are accused of the same.
       It seems like in the good old days, if there was any institution you could trust to be above reproach, it was banks. Oh there were the occasional mavericks who laundered drug money or other crimes, but mostly, after the debacle of the Great Depression, federal laws and watchdogs made sure that banks were trustworthy.
       But nowadays, since there's been so much deregulation, it seems banks and Wall Street firms can't seem to keep their fingers out of the cookie jars. Well, if that's the case, why did we deregulate the lending and banking businesses? Mostly because banks and Wall Street firms told us they really didn't need regulation any more. They had learned their lessons from the Great Depression and would not be making those same mistakes again.
       Ya know what? They were right. To a point. They did learn from their mistakes. The folks that screwed up in the thirties didn't forget. It's the folks from the 80s and 90s and 00s that forgot. But they didn't just forget the mistakes of the past. Oh no. They made up some new mistakes to make. Lots of mistakes. Banking is much more intricate these days. What with credit default swaps and the like, a whole new world of mistakes were opened up to them.
       They're still assuring us they won't forget their new, and old, mistakes and therefore there's no need of government oversight. New regulations will only add to the cost of doing business they say. Actually it's the mistakes that add to the cost of doing business, for everyone. When you continue to make the same mistakes and add new ones to the mix, these banks need more than just regulations. They need to be demerged. The definition of demerge is to break apart that which had merged?
      

How Come No Jobs And High Prices?

       I was reading Mother Jones just now and a comment on one of the articles got me to thinking. I know, that's hard to believe, but it's true. There are lots of reasons why jobs remain scarce in America. Like outsourcing and shipping jobs overseas and mechanization. But here's one I hadn't thought of  before. And it's just as true as can be.
       For the last few decades, there have been so many mergers of companies in America it's hard to keep track. In fact for the average person who follows that stuff, it's almost impossible. Just imagine how hard it is for the rest of us. So what? So every time companies merge it means fewer jobs. Simple, cost savings is one of the main reasons for mergers. The more mergers, the fewer jobs.
      But it means more than just that. It means less competition. Less competition means higher prices. And it means lower wages for the employees and much higher compensation for management, especially CEOs. With less competition there's little reason to keep prices low. It also means fewer job opportunities for employees to consider. Then by keeping wages low for workers, CEOs can demand more and higher compensation.
       So who's fault is it? Corporations are always looking for ways to enhance their bottom line. That's just smart business. CEO's love it because they make out great even if they lose their jobs because of golden parachutes. What's not to love about that? Workers don't get a say. They aren't considered in the plan at all. The only one left to stop these marches to consolidation is the government. It is government's job after all.
       But for the last few decades, government has pretty much sat back and watched the changes take place without lifting a hand. In fact it's big news when a merger is stopped by the government. Why? Where do you think the money comes from to run campaigns? It comes from the giant companies that do the merging? Nobody bites the hand that feeds them, unless they have a desire to get out of politics. How many politicians do you know that have that death wish? Most would have trouble doing an honest day's work.

Are You Satisfied With This Blog Entry?

       When's the last time you had cause to use your insurance coverage? Or how about someone else's insurance coverage? Or how about buying a car or almost anything larger than a loaf of bread? My car got rear ended and since it was the other guy's fault, his insurance paid for it. No hassle, which was the good part. But starting with the guy who looked the car over to the guy who told me how much they'd pay and where I could get a rental car, even the woman at the rental agency. To a man (and woman), they all finished up the conversation by asking "Were you satisfied with the service I provided today?"
       What if I hadn't been satisfied? Or they said "Did I answer your question satisfactorily?" What if I wasn't satisfied? Then there's the questionnaire they send you, or the survey. Do you answer the survey questions honestly? What if you think they should get a two in a one to ten question, one being very unfavorable and ten being extremely favorable? Or what if you're hoping for a better rate on your insurance if you say eleven? Sorry. It doesn't work that way. Trust me on this.
       Here's the thing, when the representative asked me if I was satisfied with the service rendered, they first begin the conversation by warning me that it may be recorded. So if they recorded  the conversation, can't they just write my answer down? Or is the survey a test to see if I remember what I said to the representative?
       If I remember what I said, most likely I was displeased and said so. If I can't remember, I'm sure it's because I was satisfied. Chances are I've never been TEN satisfied. Usually I'm about SIX satisfied if I'm satisfied at all. To be TEN satisfied, they'd have had to detail my car and given me a back rub and maybe a three day vacation at a nearby resort, all expenses paid. Then they might get that TEN, or maybe an eleven if she was cute.
       The thing is, everybody is asking the same dumb question. You can bet they have the question printed out in one inch high letters on the wall over their desk. I'll bet there's a wire from the phone to their seat. If they don't ask the question they get a cattle prod shock. I'm afraid that one of these days, I'll use a public rest room and a recording will come on as I'm washing my hands "Were you satisfied with the service we provided today?" That's where I draw the line.

What's A 501(C)4 Anyway?

       I don't know whether you agree with what the IRS did or didn't do or not, but it has come to light that they did do something very wrong, some time ago. Back when Congress passed the law that provided for 501(C)4 social welfare organizations, the law stated that such organizations must be exclusively social welfare groups. But the IRS decided instead to require that these organizations should be primarily focused on social welfare.
       Now you may not think so, but there's quite a big difference between exclusive and primarily. A lot of political groups realized this difference early on after the Supreme Court decided to let any corporation or extra wealthy person to spend as much as they want on elections. They realized something else. They realized they could create one of these 501(C)4 tax exempt organizations, keep the donors names under wraps and spend like crazy on political ads.
       See they can claim what they're doing is, what? Well they say it's social welfare, but what social group are they talking about? Social circles are different ya know. Now to be honest, you and I could donate as much as we want too. It would just have to be to one of these 501(C)4 groups. But all you and I could afford wouldn't buy much air time on TV. And it surely wouldn't be enough to influence one of these multimillion dollar groups, unless you've got a whole lot more than I know about.
       Well, anyway, along comes Rep. Chris Van Hollen from Maryland to sue the IRS for not adhering to the law's wording. He wants the IRS to follow the law and not make up it's own law. I think that's a pretty good idea. I've got two reasons for agreeing. First, if I decided to change the wording of a law to suit myself, I'd get arrested. Secondly it would cut out a lot of these bitter attack ads or at least let us know who's paying for them. I'll guarantee a lot of donors, especially corporations that like to do business with folks of both parties, would stop paying for these ads.
       Now there's a downside to this law suit. If the suit is successful, some groups who actually do some social welfare good, along with their political work, mostly as an incidental, might not be there to do those good works. Not many, mind you, but some. That's because very few of these organizations do any good at all for anyone but themselves.

Close Your Eyes To Vote.

       Can you imagine that? There have been 7200 gun deaths since Sandy Hook in Newtown Ct. Yes, 7200 deaths involving guns. Now certainly, not all those shootings involved mass murderers in elementary schools. In fact I don't think there has been more than a very few such tragedies. Yet. But, you and I know it's just a matter of time. I also know that all those deaths weren't intended. The figure includes accidents and justified shootings, like police killing in a gunfight. But 7200.
       That's a remarkable number for Americans to have to put up with. Of course we don't have to put up with that number. We just seem to be willing to put up with that kind of carnage. Now if you disagree that we're willing to put up with that many, then why are we allowing it. See here, I'm not suggesting we outlaw guns or anything like that. I'm a gun owner. And the Constitution states I have the right to own guns. But the Constitution also says gun ownership can be regulated. If you don't agree, then you actually need to read it.
       Of course you won't hear the NRA make that statement. They have other interests. Like supporting the business of the gun manufacturers and their bottom line. They don't seem to care how many people get killed. So long as they continue to increase their profits and, of course, they're not one of the unfortunates.
       But what about us? How important to you are the profits of the gun manufacturers? How important are those 7200, or those 26 at Sandy Hook? We're not asking for a lot. We're not asking for anyone's guns. What we're asking for is to begin to help get the guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have gotten them in the first place. And then keep them out of those hands. Why is that such a terrible thing to ask? I'll bet if you were staring down the barrel of a gun, you'd want those guns collected. So when it comes time to vote, close your eyes and pretend it's happening to you. Then pick a candidate who thinks like you.

Don't Tax Money. Tax The Poor.

       I've got an acquaintance who thinks that everyone should pay taxes. Even the poorest should pay something. No more free rides. All taxes should be based on payroll. A wage tax, in other words. The government should get out of the business of charity, is another idea he has that fits right along with his tax plan. And I guess on the face of it, it makes sense. Charities should support the needy and government should get out of their way.
       He thinks that investment money is money we've already paid taxes on and therefore we shouldn't have to pay more taxes on top of that, on the same money. You'll have difficulty finding a rich person who disagrees with that thinking. A few, but not many. That's because the wealthy get a very small portion of their income, if any, from payroll. Most of their income comes from investments. Income from the money they already paid taxes on sometime in the past. No taxes on money, just people.
       First lets look at the tax idea. If you only collect tax on working people, you would be cutting taxes by something over a third. That means a third less for government to use to run the government. So how do you save a third? Cut all entitlements out? But entitlements are a small portion of the budget unless you include Social Security and Medicare. If you eliminate them, you throw millions of people under the bus. Without them the savings become far too small to cover the lost revenue. Even eliminating all subsidies, you won't make up for the loss. Meanwhile the rich will be getting a free ride. Most wealthy folks really don't have to work at all to live quite comfortably.
       Then there's the charity business. It hasn't been all that many years since government stepped into the charity business. I can remember, as a youth, seeing beggars on the steps of the local county courthouse. Sitting there with a tin cup out, hoping someone would throw some coins in it for them. I wondered at the time why these folks didn't get jobs instead of begging. Later I came to realize they couldn't find work because we were still in the depression, or that they just weren't able to find work because of their lack of needed skills. Some were physically unable to work. Private charity was unable to meet the needs of so many people in this country with so many needs. That's why government stepped in to help in the first place. So do you think we can trade the rich for the poor and still come out with enough to run a government?

What A Difference A Dollar Makes.

       There's a great article in the Washington Post this morning about why mobility in America is among the lowest of any rich nation. It explains that, for one thing, spending on education is so lopsided. Wealthier students have an average of $9000 per year spent on them, while poor students have an average of less than $1300 spent on their education. In America.
       Now I know that many people will claim this is untrue, but consider that most of K-12 educational spending comes from local real estate taxes. Poor neighborhoods are obviously taxed lower because of the lower value of the real estate. Of course if you feel this is 'only fair', then you must accept that poor children won't be getting the best schools or supplies or equipment and the best teachers likely won't be teaching them.
       Under those circumstances and coupled with less help from families struggling to survive, most of these children are destined to remain poor. So what's the point? The point is that if you don't like having all these people on the public doll, then start making sure the children of these people get a better start, improved educational opportunities, better funding for their schools.
       The suggestion that more money won't provide a better education is completely disproved by these statistics. The proof that more money does mean better education is right in front of our faces. Check out the alumnae of schools in upper class school districts and the average spent on those students, at school and at home, and what's spent on school districts in poor communities. Then check the success rates of those alumnae from the two different districts.
       Who cares? Both you and I should care. Both of us should demand that poorer schools are improved to the level of those provided by wealthy districts. Why? Because we really don't want anyone on welfare, whether for selfish reasons or equality. If every student had the same opportunities to learn, including improved home life through healthcare, nutrition, and access to learning advantages, there would be far fewer people on those food stamps so many people complain about.

We'll Always Have This Argument.

       Here's the argument and the rational behind it. If you're accustomed to earning $20,000 or $50,000 or 100 or 500 or even more and somebody tells you that you have to make less, you're not gonna like it. And it doesn't matter whether it's wages or profits or stock returns or anything else. And if you're in a position to do anything about it, you're gonna do that and stop it from happening.
       So when the government tells business it has to pay for health insurance for it's full time employees, business is gonna make it's full time employees part time employees. Because business doesn't want to give up the profits it's accustomed to. That's pretty straight forward and understandable. Nobody wants to earn less. Not Even The Employees.
       But ya know what? We'd be having this same argument, even if we were talking about an increase to minimum wage. In fact that argument is ongoing. On the other hand, and from the perspective of the employee, if the management and ownership can afford health insurance, why shouldn't employees be able to afford such insurance? And what about wages? If management can get whopping increases in income, why shouldn't employees get at least a living wage?
       I understand why a company feels it's management is worth more than it's employees, but why is it they think management is worth hundreds upon hundreds of times what it's employees are worth? How many companies have tried to get the product out the door without the employees? If the efforts of one person has value, then that value should be worth a living wage. If that person works half time then they should make living wages for the half time he or she works.
       Now, I understand that many companies are gonna take a hit on this issue. Some will be forced to downsized, some can increase the price of the product, some will grow and some will be forced out of business. But ya know what? The ones who are forced out of business obviously didn't have a management team that was up to the task. They shouldn't have been making what they were making in the first place. That's what they call capitalism. Capitalism isn't the science of forcing people to live on substandard wages without healthcare. At least not if it's capitalism for everyone. And the law doesn't say "capitalism is only for the chosen few."

So where Do You Go On Vacation?

       I have friends who love to go to the shore. Some go a lot. I could never see what they saw in the seashore.  After all, what is there to see? The view? Look, what you can see from the seashore is water. Water from the end of the beach out to a line on the horizon. Then the sky starts. Sand, water, a line and then air. What's that all about?
       Now some folks like to watch the young scantily clad women. I admit that's nice. I suppose women like to watch the young scantily clan men. I don't like that idea. I suppose it's because I'm not young anymore. I wouldn't ever go out on the beach scantily clad. I'll bet people would watch, but not for the same reason they watch the young and scantily clad. I couldn't stand the guffaws.
       No, the best view at the seashore is the view from the water looking back at the land. See, it's the changes in landscape that's interesting to look at. You know, a tree here, a hill there, some rocks over yonder. Now that's a view. Hills or mountains, and valleys and the flowing water of a stream or a mountain lake nestled in a quiet valley. I could walk around, scantily clad, and nobody'd see me. Now that's what I like. You can still see water and air, but you can also see trees and grass and hills.
       The problem with all of this is getting there. It doesn't matter whether you want to go to the shore or the mountains or a city. You either have long waiting lines at the airport or you drive. Driving means road construction. There's only two times of year. Winter and road construction. A two hour drive takes about six hours and if you're lucky, or prepared, you won't run out of gas at a construction site. Or get a flat tire from a pothole not yet filled.
       And as for the beach, I've been there. It's so crowded you're lucky if you can see the water anyway. I know people who have nice homes in the country. Swimming pools, a nearby golf course, a big screen TV. What in the world are they gonna do at the beach they can't do better at home? I guess it's just the "getting away" that people enjoy. 
       I suppose if I was from the flat lands, I wouldn't mind the shore. Some of those flat states are like the shore. But green fields to a line and then air. Except there's no scantily clad young people. I guess that would be a reason to go to the shore.

We All Miss Campaigns.

       I heard, the other day, that there are just twenty nine short months until the next presidential election. Are you satisfied with the level of campaign rhetoric at this point? It seems to me we're getting short changed on the campaign decibel index. Now, I admit, we are hearing some pleasantries being floated toward Hillary, but not much toward Bill as yet, and that's unfortunate.
       And what about the other potential Democratic contenders? I haven't heard much about Joe except for the usual wisecracking. But there hasn't been much speculation about anyone else. I'm sure we'll hear from more, but time's getting short. Then you have the Republican lineup. There's Rand and Paul and Chris and Bobby and Marco and Ted and W's brother, but not many more. Aren't we entitled to a much larger array for this open presidential election. There's no incumbent Barak to hate or vote against.
       Now that I mention it, have you ever noticed how much presidents are disliked and how poorly they've performed, in the eyes of the other party. It's true of almost all presidents. And for several years, at least, after they're out of office. Did you notice how much Clinton was reviled. Then suddenly after the 2010 elections, loads of members of the other party began claiming how great he was. Now to be sure there were still plenty who disliked him, but his name kept getting dropped.
       Of course if Hillary actually does run, Bill will lose all of his charm to opposing party members. Just like George the younger. And isn't it interesting how even their own party faithful want to back away from these pariahs for the first few years they're out of office. You could float battleships between them and newer contenders.
       But getting back to election campaigning, don't you think we, as a nation, deserve to be hearing and seeing many more dirty trick campaign ads by now? I mean, I'm sorry, but I think we're getting cheated in this entertainment venue. Don't you miss all the lies and the bending of truth until it groans and screams in agony? I miss all those lies. From both parties.
       Which brings up another question. Why is it that all the lies always come from the other party and all the truth comes from your party? Have you ever thought about that? Here's another one; why does the other party always think your party is the liar, while you know very well it's the opposing party that spreads those vicious lies?

It's Your Post Office. Sell It.

       There was an OpEd in yesterday's NY Times about the U.S. Postal Service. It was mostly humorous but it did hit on some of the problems the USPS faces. Can you imagine any company being forced to keep 75 years of employee retirement funds on hand. Who could stay in business with rules like that? Or how about keeping tiny outlets open six days a week and deliver door to door each and every one of those six days.
       Oh yes, and do all this while the internet is taking away much of your business with free delivery 24/7. But even worse than that is that the USPS isn't allowed to even sneeze without Congress's approval. Congress has to pass legislation for anything to be changed by the USPS. And I guess you know how long that can take or that the chances the new legislation will appear anything like what is needed or asked for.
       But as humorous as this article was, the best part was one of the comments a reader sent in. The comment stated that since the Congress isn't doing anything anyway, why not have them make mail deliveries for the USPS. Now I don't recall the name of the person who said that, but he (it was a man) should be given his own show on Comedy Central.
       Think about it. Congress is in adjournment more than they're in session, it seems. Not only that but every Congressman and Senator has multiple offices in nearly every city and many towns in their home states and districts. Have you ever been to one of these offices? You walk in and wake the person or persons up to ask your question. Why not have these good folks deliver the mail or have postal workers man the Congressional offices. Let's face it, it doesn't take a lot of training to pass out photos of the legislator.
       I'd suggest the Post Office rely on volunteers, but what with the scarcity of volunteerism and the necessity of Congressional approval, the USPS could be out of business for several decades before anything could come of that idea. I guess we should remember that the USPS is not a private company. It's a government service. And like the article and comments ask; is it the plan to convert it into a branch of UPS?

Who Would Have Guessed.

       Holy Moly, even China, China, is now starting an aggressive carbon cap and trade program to reduce greenhouse gases and clear away it's pollution. Before we know it America will stand alone against the idea of the cap and trade plan. I suppose that's exactly where some folks want us to be, all alone. That way we can thumb our noses at the whole world.
       Obama would like to have a carbon cap and trade program, but there's just too many against the idea. So what's left for him to do? He has to defer to government restrictions. That's not popular either, but at least he has the authority to do the right thing to fight greenhouse gases. So here we are looking down the road at higher prices on energy instead of lower prices.
       Now I know that statement will cause a lot of disagreement, but it's pretty much a fact. What I can't figure out is why the folks who are against cap and trade think that way. After all most, if not all, of these folks are mostly interested in and in favor of business. They prefer the Market to government edict. Well, that's exactly what the cap and trade offers.
       Here's the deal; in a cap and trade program, a level of carbon emissions is set by the government. Then the government steps back and allows the market, business, to figure out how to meet or surpass that goal, or not. If you beat the mark, you can sell the extra to any company too lazy or stubborn to do the job. There is an incentive to find a better way. And hasn't that always been the American way?
       So a company that figures out how to pollute less makes more money, a lot more money, than the company that doesn't. I think, if I'm not mistaken, that's called capitalism. So either way we're gonna get to lower carbon emissions, but cap and trade cuts prices and makes more money for business. That's why I can't quite figure out the arguments against the idea.

Whatta You Think About America's Problems?

       Let's see now. What do you think is the number one, single issue in America that's causing our country to be less than great? What is it that's holding us back? Do you think it's terrorism? Or jobs or the economy? How about the debt and deficit? Maybe you think it's the Congress. Some people think it's one or a combination of these issues.
       Some people think it's the President. If he had never been elected, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. But then the same can be said for our Congress. But what about that deficit? Oh, it's dropping pretty steadily. Well then the debt, it's not dropping? The economy is continually improving though, even if at a snail's pace.
       The lack of jobs, at least good paying jobs, certainly hurts. Let's face it, most of the jobs coming back are much lower paying, so much so, that people cannot live on just one or even two jobs. At least not without help in the form of entitlements or charity. Jobs are absolutely a big problem, but are they the biggest problem? And then we have terrorism which hurts in at least two different ways; you have the danger of attack, but you also have to give up so many rights in order to be protected.
       What about Congress and the President? What if everyone in Congress was replaced tomorrow and the President the next day? Would that solve our problems? Is it apathy on the part of the electorate? What if we raised the taxes on anyone who didn't vote in each election? We'd get more people voting, but who thinks they would care enough to become knowledgeable?
       I personally think the biggest problem facing us today is gerrymandering. What the heck is gerrymandering? It's a way that majorities in state legislatures redistrict so that their majority is guaranteed, thus making it necessary for Congressmen to appeal only to the most extreme part of their party. It means, then, that they must only represent that extreme and never represent the minority. However, any way you slice it, Congress is supposed to represent everyone.
       If we somehow required that each district in both state offices and national house districts were mapped out to as close to a square as possible, or had to conform to municipalities as closely as possible, two things would happen. First a lot of representatives would lose their seats in the next election, and those that didn't would be forced to represent everyone in their districts. How bout dat?

Can You Dance The Mean-Spirited Dance?

       Well, politics have finally come around to candidates calmly discussing the issues of real importance to Americans. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in Kentucky where a U.S. Senate seat is being contested by sane opponents arguing over jobs, healthcare, defense, education and a whole host of other critical areas of concern.
       These discussions began in earnest on this last Saturday when the top contenders explained variously how one would not run to the left or the right of the incumbent, but would run over him. Another challenger pointed out that if the incumbent was told he had a kidney stone, he would still refuse to pass it.
       Fortunately the incumbent decided to keep to the issues and mentioned that his opponent's father talked to Obama who told him to work on women's votes so he sent a check to Anthony Weiner. All this took place at a church social and bar-b-que in the western part of the state. It all took place amid cat calls and booing. A grand time was had by all. Oh, and by the way, this was not "all in fun." This was all done in obvious dislike of one another.
       Ah yes, and what of the really important issues? Those are the issues. It's all about getting elected. It has nothing to do with the needs of Americans, or Kentuckians. Nor is this a fluke occurrence. It isn't just Kentucky. It's about American politics. In fact it's about politics in general.

       You may ask why such a sorry state of leadership. But the answer is that these politicians are giving people exactly what the people want. The people want to be entertained, not bored by facts. There seems to be a desire among the electorate to have their representatives to Washington dance the mean-spirited dance for their entertainment and allow the voters to complain about the real issues.

Just Where Does Poverty Begin?

Do you remember back in 2012 when Obama was running for a second term? Remember how he wanted people making over $250,000 a year to pay more taxes? Remember how they complained that $250,000 was not rich? That it was nearly poverty in some places? Well last night the Daily Show reminded me of that and it got me to thinking about the folks who are asking to raise the minimum wage.
       So I decided to look at what it would take for a minimum wage earner to make$250,000 a year. I got out my trusty calculator and punched in $7.50 per hour for a forty hour work week. My calculator, which never lies, told me it would take 833.333 weeks per year for a minimum wage earner to make $250,000. Or looking at it another way, it would take 641.02 hours per week or 91.57 hours per day based on a seven day week. Another way to look at it is a minimum wage earner would have to work 16.02 forty hour weeks per week to earn $250,000 per year.
       Well. What's the point to all this? I guess my point is more of a question. If $250,00 per year is near poverty, exactly what is minimum wage near? Because $250,000 works out to $4807.69 a week or about $120.19 per hour
       Maybe what we should have been saying is that "for some people, $250,000 isn't such a big amount of money, but for most people, it is. And for people forced to work for minimum wage, it's astronomical. I think that if people making $250,000 or more a year don't want to be singled out, they should stand up and be in favor of a minimum wage hike. And that includes everybody in Congress. And the President.