Nicholas Kristof had an interesting editorial in the New York Times yesterday. The title was "A Nation Of Takers?" Yes, a (?) at the end. So this was another jumping on of the poor, right? Well, actually, no. He lists a group of takers such as, Jet plane owners, yacht owners, hedge fund and private equity income tax breaks, big banks that are too large to fail, and American corporations special tax breaks from states and municipalities.
If you think poor people on welfare are takers, then compare the costs to America of these safetynets for the poor to the costs of the safetynets to these most wealthy. You'll find that the wealthiest folks get the biggest cash savings. And there's a lot fewer of them, compared to the poor. So if you hear somebody complain about the 47% followed by someone else complaining about the 1%, you can be fairly certain that the only thing that's trickling down is pain and hunger.
Kristof goes on to explain what each special rich taker group means to America. For instance the banks are enjoying discounts on borrowing that cost taxpayers around $83 billion a year. The hedge fund and private equity managers save at least 16% on their taxes compared to you, and another $80 billion goes to those corporations, right out of your pocket.
Here's the thing. If you're unhappy about your taxes, don't look to the poor for much help. Look at the rich who are picking your pocket and adding to your tax bills. Then look at your legislators who are all helping the wealthy to make more than just their normal income. Your Senators and Congressman are making it easier for these folks to empty your savings account. About the only way for the FED to loan money to these mega-banks cheaper, would be to pay them to take the money. And who knows, they may already be doing that. Oh yes, and those planes and yachts? There's mortgage interest deduction for the yachts and accelerated tax write-offs and personal tax avoidance for the plane owners. It's a tough life, but it's somewhat softer for the wealthy.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Thursday, March 27, 2014
There's Always An Answer To Any Problem.
There seems to be a problem with voting in America. The one side says anyone who is a citizen should be able to vote by testifying they are a citizen when registering. The other side wants proof of citizenship to eliminate voter fraud. The second group can't come up with evidence of voter fraud that would be effected by such proof. The first group can't prove fraud doesn't exist.
The second problem is voting locations and dates. The first group wants more days including Sunday voting and handier locations. The second group claims the need to cut back days and locations because of costs in those districts that have lower tax bases.
This is what's called a Mexican Standoff. I think there are answers to these questions. First, the states need to provide for convenient days and locations in order to get the most voters out. Next, the states should be required to provide transportation to and from any location where voter IDs are available. The states must pay for any legitimate expenses the voter incurs in obtaining the voter IDs.
But here's the best part. The Federal Government needs to make Voting Day, for both primary and general election a national holiday that requires all companies to provide for at least a half day off, with pay, for all citizens and time off, with pay, sufficient to register. In order to be paid for that half day or more, the workers must show a receipt from voting or registration, to the paymaster. Why is this important? Two reasons come to mind. First it will get more voters out to the polls. You have to vote to get paid. Secondly it would begin to get companies involved with cutting through all the red tape for registering. You might even see space made available at work for that purpose. And the State would still need to pay any costs associated with registering for those who are retired, self-employed or otherwise out of work.
That only leaves those who do not have the necessary proof to register. But states should be required to accept affidavits by at least three neighbors or relatives, of residency, as sufficient proof. That way states would be satisfied, or at least they would be forced to accept the applications, voters would be happy to vote and there'd be more voters at the polls. Only the employers would be unhappy and they might then get after the states to stop with all the monkey business.
The second problem is voting locations and dates. The first group wants more days including Sunday voting and handier locations. The second group claims the need to cut back days and locations because of costs in those districts that have lower tax bases.
This is what's called a Mexican Standoff. I think there are answers to these questions. First, the states need to provide for convenient days and locations in order to get the most voters out. Next, the states should be required to provide transportation to and from any location where voter IDs are available. The states must pay for any legitimate expenses the voter incurs in obtaining the voter IDs.
But here's the best part. The Federal Government needs to make Voting Day, for both primary and general election a national holiday that requires all companies to provide for at least a half day off, with pay, for all citizens and time off, with pay, sufficient to register. In order to be paid for that half day or more, the workers must show a receipt from voting or registration, to the paymaster. Why is this important? Two reasons come to mind. First it will get more voters out to the polls. You have to vote to get paid. Secondly it would begin to get companies involved with cutting through all the red tape for registering. You might even see space made available at work for that purpose. And the State would still need to pay any costs associated with registering for those who are retired, self-employed or otherwise out of work.
That only leaves those who do not have the necessary proof to register. But states should be required to accept affidavits by at least three neighbors or relatives, of residency, as sufficient proof. That way states would be satisfied, or at least they would be forced to accept the applications, voters would be happy to vote and there'd be more voters at the polls. Only the employers would be unhappy and they might then get after the states to stop with all the monkey business.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Such A Shame.
Ya know, I like General Motors. I like Chevrolets and Buicks and even Caddys. I really liked Oldsmobiles, but GM screwed up on this ignition switch thing with it's Cobalt and a few other small cars. Back in May of 2009, all GM's engineers agreed there was a problem with that switch, but GM argued against such a problem with relatives of accident victims. In some cases, vehemently. And it wasn't until relatively recently that they admitted there was any problem.
Heck, they might still be denying it but they've got a new CEO. Her name is Mary T. Barra. she's now leading the charge to try to make things right. But even she has been around long enough to have known about this situation for at least a little while before GM was forced to make a recall of 778,000 cars. That's right, 778,000 cars. So the problem was in 2003 to 2007 Cobalts and other small cars.
Does it make you wonder why it took so long for GM to admit there was a potentially fatal flaw in their cars? It all has to do with advanced math. See, engineers first have to admit there's a problem. Then they have to come up with a new switch. But it's the next step that involved the advanced math. The actuarial department had to to figure out how much it would cost to replace all those 778,000 switches. Then they had to figure out how much GM would have to pay injured or dead passengers in those cars involved in accidents. Then they show top management the difference between the cost of replacement as opposed to paying settlements for the flaw.
It was decided not to mention the flaw. And in fact, deny it. That's what actuarial people do. They show the difference between one solution and another. They don't do the deciding, that's done by the bosses of the company. So somewhere there's a guy or, more likely, several people who decided to keep GMs mouth shut, even if it meant more customers would die.
It's hard to make funny about something like this, but the funny thing about it is that it's unlikely that those few will ever see the inside of a jail cell. Big, important people rarely do time. Look at that general found guilty of sexual misconduct recently. He got a slap on the wrist. Ya see, it's because big important people pull their pant's on differently than the rest of us. And let's face it. The common thinking is that little people don't suffer from jail like big important people do, right?
Heck, they might still be denying it but they've got a new CEO. Her name is Mary T. Barra. she's now leading the charge to try to make things right. But even she has been around long enough to have known about this situation for at least a little while before GM was forced to make a recall of 778,000 cars. That's right, 778,000 cars. So the problem was in 2003 to 2007 Cobalts and other small cars.
Does it make you wonder why it took so long for GM to admit there was a potentially fatal flaw in their cars? It all has to do with advanced math. See, engineers first have to admit there's a problem. Then they have to come up with a new switch. But it's the next step that involved the advanced math. The actuarial department had to to figure out how much it would cost to replace all those 778,000 switches. Then they had to figure out how much GM would have to pay injured or dead passengers in those cars involved in accidents. Then they show top management the difference between the cost of replacement as opposed to paying settlements for the flaw.
It was decided not to mention the flaw. And in fact, deny it. That's what actuarial people do. They show the difference between one solution and another. They don't do the deciding, that's done by the bosses of the company. So somewhere there's a guy or, more likely, several people who decided to keep GMs mouth shut, even if it meant more customers would die.
It's hard to make funny about something like this, but the funny thing about it is that it's unlikely that those few will ever see the inside of a jail cell. Big, important people rarely do time. Look at that general found guilty of sexual misconduct recently. He got a slap on the wrist. Ya see, it's because big important people pull their pant's on differently than the rest of us. And let's face it. The common thinking is that little people don't suffer from jail like big important people do, right?
Monday, March 24, 2014
Dictation Ain't The Same As Dictator.
The question of the week is whether or not we'll be facing the Soviet Reunion or not? Over a span of three presidents, Soviet leader Vladimir Putin has steadily been leading Russia back to it's former glory. Yes, we have seen how he dealt with the separatists in the breakaway states of Chechnya and Georgia. Now Vlad the Great has retaken Crimea.
And while he's in the neighborhood, he's looking at the rest of Ukraine. Of course he's assured the west that he has no interest in retaking Ukraine, he is however, holding military training missions in the region, in fact, next to the border with Ukraine. He's got enough boots on the ground to make sure that no Russian natives are in any way inconvenienced which would be sufficient cause to invade to protect that one drunk driver.
Of course here in America, as the Onion News has stated, there are several varied opinions of what is happening and what we should do about it. They range from appeasement to arming the Ukrainian military with the latest military defensive hardware, and for some, offensive hardware, to sanctions that will bring the New Soviet Reunion to it's knees , to the "who cares" approach.
Anybody who can cause this much activity in the minds of thoughtful Americans is certainly someone we can deal with about as easily as we were able to with the fiercest of Soviet Rulers of the good old days. All of which brings a smile to the hearts of the military industrial complex such as no feast at the richest of banquet tables can compare. Yes Vlad the Great has set his place in history and the New Soviet Reunion is well on it way to fruition.
So, if you long for the good old days of the Cold War, be of good cheer, for it is nearly upon us. This is Vlad's plan for universal and full employment around the world. After all, it's going to take millions or workers working three shifts to ramp up for the war we all assure each other cannot take place. So we'll build up our missile defense systems and our missile offensive systems to increase the mutual destruction prevention theory. For some of you reading this, it will all seem exciting, while those of you with longer memories may have differing opinions. Here's to the New Soviet Reunion and Vlad the Great.
And while he's in the neighborhood, he's looking at the rest of Ukraine. Of course he's assured the west that he has no interest in retaking Ukraine, he is however, holding military training missions in the region, in fact, next to the border with Ukraine. He's got enough boots on the ground to make sure that no Russian natives are in any way inconvenienced which would be sufficient cause to invade to protect that one drunk driver.
Of course here in America, as the Onion News has stated, there are several varied opinions of what is happening and what we should do about it. They range from appeasement to arming the Ukrainian military with the latest military defensive hardware, and for some, offensive hardware, to sanctions that will bring the New Soviet Reunion to it's knees , to the "who cares" approach.
Anybody who can cause this much activity in the minds of thoughtful Americans is certainly someone we can deal with about as easily as we were able to with the fiercest of Soviet Rulers of the good old days. All of which brings a smile to the hearts of the military industrial complex such as no feast at the richest of banquet tables can compare. Yes Vlad the Great has set his place in history and the New Soviet Reunion is well on it way to fruition.
So, if you long for the good old days of the Cold War, be of good cheer, for it is nearly upon us. This is Vlad's plan for universal and full employment around the world. After all, it's going to take millions or workers working three shifts to ramp up for the war we all assure each other cannot take place. So we'll build up our missile defense systems and our missile offensive systems to increase the mutual destruction prevention theory. For some of you reading this, it will all seem exciting, while those of you with longer memories may have differing opinions. Here's to the New Soviet Reunion and Vlad the Great.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Don't Tread On My Cross.
Last evening I enjoyed a really interesting discussion about several cases coming before the Supreme court, one, the Hobby Lobby complaint over the Affordable Care Act's requirement of covering some birth control measures. This one will come before the court this week, the other is Elane Photography vs New Mexico. The state fined Elane Photo for refusing to photograph a wedding because it was between gays. The case hinges on whether or not Elane can discriminate or if they did.
The first one, Hobby Lobby claims strong religious objections and wants to be excused from the law because of the intense religious beliefs of its owners. But it means that employees who do not necessarily agree with all of those beliefs will be forced to do without coverage. Here's the thing though, Hobby Lobby is not a religion, nor owned by one. It is a for profit enterprise.
There's a great, but minority, push in this country to force religious beliefs on the government. It's showing up in states like Texas and a number of other states. Laws are being passed to force organizations like Planned Parenthood to close down. On the other hand, like the Hobby Lobby case, they want to stop government from imposing rules and laws deemed to be against their religious beliefs. The question is, can they and should have it both ways?
Should government stay strictly out of anything related to religion? Should religion have unfettered access to lawmaking in the Government? Or should there be a decision made one way or the other? The Constitution required a separation of church and state. So perhaps government can't impose its will on any religion or religious person, but then government should not be allowed to pass laws brought by religious thinking as in the attacks on Planned Parenthood.
Should the government be purely secular? Is that even possible? Can the government stay strictly out of religious matters and people's business? How would you go about keeping religious thinking out of government?
People can debate the issues, they can and will argue for each side, but there needs to be a set of compromises on the subject. We know Congress is incapable of doing that. The question is, will the Supreme Court step up to the job and fairly and in consideration of the Constitution, create a fair and honest decision? Is the Supreme Court up to that task? We'll see.
The first one, Hobby Lobby claims strong religious objections and wants to be excused from the law because of the intense religious beliefs of its owners. But it means that employees who do not necessarily agree with all of those beliefs will be forced to do without coverage. Here's the thing though, Hobby Lobby is not a religion, nor owned by one. It is a for profit enterprise.
There's a great, but minority, push in this country to force religious beliefs on the government. It's showing up in states like Texas and a number of other states. Laws are being passed to force organizations like Planned Parenthood to close down. On the other hand, like the Hobby Lobby case, they want to stop government from imposing rules and laws deemed to be against their religious beliefs. The question is, can they and should have it both ways?
Should government stay strictly out of anything related to religion? Should religion have unfettered access to lawmaking in the Government? Or should there be a decision made one way or the other? The Constitution required a separation of church and state. So perhaps government can't impose its will on any religion or religious person, but then government should not be allowed to pass laws brought by religious thinking as in the attacks on Planned Parenthood.
Should the government be purely secular? Is that even possible? Can the government stay strictly out of religious matters and people's business? How would you go about keeping religious thinking out of government?
People can debate the issues, they can and will argue for each side, but there needs to be a set of compromises on the subject. We know Congress is incapable of doing that. The question is, will the Supreme Court step up to the job and fairly and in consideration of the Constitution, create a fair and honest decision? Is the Supreme Court up to that task? We'll see.
Monday, March 17, 2014
Times Must Be Tough.
Oh my. Woe is me. Word has come down that America's CEOs have only got a 1% income increase this year. Can you imagine? Only 1% increase in your salary? Of course some folks didn't get any increase and in fact some got their wages cut and some few even lost their income entirely. Still only a 1% increase for our corporate leaders. It's nearly unimaginable.
I did say 'nearly' unimaginable. That's because last years average income package for the nations CEOs was $8.6 million. You heard it right, $8,600,000. That's eighty six followed by five zeros. So let me see??? $8,600,000 times point zero one. Hey, that comes to eighty six thousand, $86,000 per year. What's so bad about that? I mean, I realize that barely covers the dues at their country clubs, but 86 grand. I know more than one person who could live on $86 thousand, and still pay the taxes on it.
What if they got the same raise that most workers in America got? How about zero dollars? Do you suppose these CEOs could get by on zero Dollars? I'll bet they could, what with $8.6 million in income. I'll bet they could get by for the next twenty years if they had to. That would be $430,000 plus interest. They might have to cut back on the number of country clubs they belong to and maybe they'd have to sell one or two of their vacation homes. They might even have to, oh and I hate to say it, they might have to eat hotdogs one meal a month.
It's hard to imagine how horrific life would be for them. No, I suppose they should continue to make somewhere near twenty times what the President of the United States makes. After all they do have a more important and more stressful job than the president, so they should make a lot more than the president. And don't forget, the president also gets free rent. Oh and just like most CEOs, he has an airplane at his personal disposal. So all you employees, you shouldn't feel bad about your low wages. You can be proud of you boss as he dons his tailored suit and silk shirt and flies off to the French Riviera.
I did say 'nearly' unimaginable. That's because last years average income package for the nations CEOs was $8.6 million. You heard it right, $8,600,000. That's eighty six followed by five zeros. So let me see??? $8,600,000 times point zero one. Hey, that comes to eighty six thousand, $86,000 per year. What's so bad about that? I mean, I realize that barely covers the dues at their country clubs, but 86 grand. I know more than one person who could live on $86 thousand, and still pay the taxes on it.
What if they got the same raise that most workers in America got? How about zero dollars? Do you suppose these CEOs could get by on zero Dollars? I'll bet they could, what with $8.6 million in income. I'll bet they could get by for the next twenty years if they had to. That would be $430,000 plus interest. They might have to cut back on the number of country clubs they belong to and maybe they'd have to sell one or two of their vacation homes. They might even have to, oh and I hate to say it, they might have to eat hotdogs one meal a month.
It's hard to imagine how horrific life would be for them. No, I suppose they should continue to make somewhere near twenty times what the President of the United States makes. After all they do have a more important and more stressful job than the president, so they should make a lot more than the president. And don't forget, the president also gets free rent. Oh and just like most CEOs, he has an airplane at his personal disposal. So all you employees, you shouldn't feel bad about your low wages. You can be proud of you boss as he dons his tailored suit and silk shirt and flies off to the French Riviera.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Whatever Did We Do Before 24/7 News?
Say, have you decided who to vote for in the upcoming presidential elections yet? Better hurry, you only have two years, seven months and a few days to decide. Of course the political talkshow hosts have been anguishing over this timely matter of utmost urgency ever since the campaigns of the 2012 elections. In fact some were debating the 2016 outcomes before the 2012 campaigns got started.
Of course with 168 hours of airtime per week to fill, why not. They have to talk about something. And explaining over and over again just how the 2016 campaign will shake out, gives them a great deal of current news to digest and then, again, explain and predict and show us, with charts and graphs, exactly why things will turn out exactly as they have warned us. The beauty of politics is that by the time they have explained their predictions often enough, usually up to 168 hours, they change their predictions based on the newly released facts that someone caught a cold or took a vacation trip or visited a sick friend.
What's really fun though, is to then watch or listen to the various political party representatives explain why it's their party that will benefit most from these developments because, while some Congressman talked with his long lost cousin for over an hour, a senior Senator, who shall be nameless, caught some zzzs on the floor of the chamber during a slow session.
Do you realize that if the polls, so often cited, actually predicted final outcomes to races, there would be 5.72 successful candidates for each seat and we'd have 19.27 presidents serving in the Whitehouse at the same time. I don't think that would relieve the stress for them, but it would make for some interesting pillow talk in the residence area. I should point out that the numbers cited in this paragraph are true and accurate to within 4% to 6%.
Of course with 168 hours of airtime per week to fill, why not. They have to talk about something. And explaining over and over again just how the 2016 campaign will shake out, gives them a great deal of current news to digest and then, again, explain and predict and show us, with charts and graphs, exactly why things will turn out exactly as they have warned us. The beauty of politics is that by the time they have explained their predictions often enough, usually up to 168 hours, they change their predictions based on the newly released facts that someone caught a cold or took a vacation trip or visited a sick friend.
What's really fun though, is to then watch or listen to the various political party representatives explain why it's their party that will benefit most from these developments because, while some Congressman talked with his long lost cousin for over an hour, a senior Senator, who shall be nameless, caught some zzzs on the floor of the chamber during a slow session.
Do you realize that if the polls, so often cited, actually predicted final outcomes to races, there would be 5.72 successful candidates for each seat and we'd have 19.27 presidents serving in the Whitehouse at the same time. I don't think that would relieve the stress for them, but it would make for some interesting pillow talk in the residence area. I should point out that the numbers cited in this paragraph are true and accurate to within 4% to 6%.
Monday, March 10, 2014
I'll Go Short If You Go Long.
Ya wanna know how to make lots of money? Short a company. Any company, well at least any company that sells it's stock on the stock market. Mostly hedge funds do it, but if you have a few bully friends, you might be able to pull it off yourself. That's what Bill Ackman the big hedge fund manager does. He just picked a company which had high priced stock and then he bet that it's stock would drop a lot. That's called shorting the stock.
It's somewhat complicated, but Ackman managed to help his wager along by contacting his favorite Congresswoman and arrange for an investigation into that company. Then when word leaked out and the stock prices dropped, he won his billion dollar bet. You read that right a $$$Billion dollar bet. Now you have to understand it was all quite legal. He didn't have to use any bullies or thugs or anything like that. And he had the right to ask for an investigation. Anyone can, although you or I might not get an investigation on our own, but he's a multi-billionaire. You can bet he can get an investigation.
But on a smaller level, I suppose you could bet on a local widget maker going out of business. Of course you might have to pull a few strings to shut down his supply of materials. But on that scale, it would be illegal and you could land in jail. See, it has to be on a huge scale for it to be legal. Now if you could figure out how to shut down a big time company, then it would be legal, because then you're just shorting a company.
Boy I sure wish I had shorted on Oldsmobile or Pontiac. I wonder if I complained about Frosted Flakes having too much corn and sugar, if I could win on that bet? That's the problem I've always had. I'm not a big time hedge fund manager. I'm not even a small time hedge trimmer. But if you happen to be a big time hedge guy or gal, have at it. Just remember, I gave you the idea.
It's somewhat complicated, but Ackman managed to help his wager along by contacting his favorite Congresswoman and arrange for an investigation into that company. Then when word leaked out and the stock prices dropped, he won his billion dollar bet. You read that right a $$$Billion dollar bet. Now you have to understand it was all quite legal. He didn't have to use any bullies or thugs or anything like that. And he had the right to ask for an investigation. Anyone can, although you or I might not get an investigation on our own, but he's a multi-billionaire. You can bet he can get an investigation.
But on a smaller level, I suppose you could bet on a local widget maker going out of business. Of course you might have to pull a few strings to shut down his supply of materials. But on that scale, it would be illegal and you could land in jail. See, it has to be on a huge scale for it to be legal. Now if you could figure out how to shut down a big time company, then it would be legal, because then you're just shorting a company.
Boy I sure wish I had shorted on Oldsmobile or Pontiac. I wonder if I complained about Frosted Flakes having too much corn and sugar, if I could win on that bet? That's the problem I've always had. I'm not a big time hedge fund manager. I'm not even a small time hedge trimmer. But if you happen to be a big time hedge guy or gal, have at it. Just remember, I gave you the idea.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
How's Your Deregulated Electric Bill?
Here in Pennsylvania we're fortunate to have far thinking legislators who figured out that Pennsylvanians would be much better off if they weren't tied to just one provider of electricity. They were way ahead of their time in thinking this would open up our state to competition, which would in turn lower rates. In fact they were so far ahead of their time they didn't take into consideration one simple fact. Such a minor human frailty.
GREED! Greed is in every person. It's more prevalent in some than in others. And given the opportunity to make a little extra profit is always a popular idea. But tripling your profit is just a bit more than just a popular idea. It brings to mind snake oil salesmen of bygone years. It also reminds me of a practice long held to be illegal. That of the bait-and-switch.
Now I'm sure the folks who run these new retail electric firms are good people in their communities. No yellow horns growing from their foreheads or red tails with an arrowhead point. No they 're good folks who give to the right charities and do all that is asked of them in the name of helping their fellow man, with a receipt or course.
Here's the thing though, they've eaten from the tree of life and they know all about huge profits and how to do Ponzi schemes and bait-and-switch and all that. Even more important, they know what it takes to get legislators to do their bidding. If our heroes need to eliminate regulations, a fat donation to a campaign war-chest will show the way to savings for consumers.
Now don't get me wrong, I think it's wonderful these folks are good Samaritans ay home, I just don't think they should undo all the good they do by robbing from the poor, as well as the middle-class and even wealthy, in order to live a fatter life for themselves. As it turns out, our legislators weren't as far sighted as we might have wanted.
GREED! Greed is in every person. It's more prevalent in some than in others. And given the opportunity to make a little extra profit is always a popular idea. But tripling your profit is just a bit more than just a popular idea. It brings to mind snake oil salesmen of bygone years. It also reminds me of a practice long held to be illegal. That of the bait-and-switch.
Now I'm sure the folks who run these new retail electric firms are good people in their communities. No yellow horns growing from their foreheads or red tails with an arrowhead point. No they 're good folks who give to the right charities and do all that is asked of them in the name of helping their fellow man, with a receipt or course.
Here's the thing though, they've eaten from the tree of life and they know all about huge profits and how to do Ponzi schemes and bait-and-switch and all that. Even more important, they know what it takes to get legislators to do their bidding. If our heroes need to eliminate regulations, a fat donation to a campaign war-chest will show the way to savings for consumers.
Now don't get me wrong, I think it's wonderful these folks are good Samaritans ay home, I just don't think they should undo all the good they do by robbing from the poor, as well as the middle-class and even wealthy, in order to live a fatter life for themselves. As it turns out, our legislators weren't as far sighted as we might have wanted.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
War On The Great Plains.
Hey, Kansas is ground zero. There's a war going on out there. The question, and the reason, for that war is to find out whether or not the courts have any power. The state cut funding for education and the state Supreme Court decided that the Kansas Legislature had to pay the poorer school districts enough to equalize their funding per pupil with the wealthier school districts The idea being that every child is entitled to an equally good educational opportunity.
So the Governor and the state Legislature is deciding whether or not to comply with or ignore the ruling. Gov. Brownback and the legislature claim that they alone have the power to oversee the purse strings. Another question is why did the state government decide to reduce educational funding? Well, they did it so they could pass the largest tax cuts in state history. It seems that lower taxes for adults, who can vote, are far more important to Kansan legislators than education for Kansan children who cannot vote, and by golly they aren't gonna have any court tell them differently.
So ya see, the problem, and the question, is just how much power should a court have. Should a court, even a Supreme Court, have the right to force a government to live up to it's legal requirements to provide that education or not? The state government says that no court should have the authority to override the rights and responsibilities of the legislative branch. But the courts seem to be saying that when the legislative branch abdicates its responsibility, the court has the right and requirement to force them to fulfill their responsibility.
If the legislature is right and the courts do not have the right to prevail in this, then what about other arenas? Would the court's powers be diminished to the point as being little more than a figurehead oddity? If the courts are right, is the legislature nothing more than an arm of the court?
Seems to me that when the legislature ignores it's fiduciary responsibilities, we need the court to step up and when the court oversteps it's authority, the legislature needs to put it in its place. The conundrum is to know who's right. That comes down to the wording of the state constitution. Who gets to determine that? Isn't that the role of the courts? It may still be winter there, but it's getting hot.
So the Governor and the state Legislature is deciding whether or not to comply with or ignore the ruling. Gov. Brownback and the legislature claim that they alone have the power to oversee the purse strings. Another question is why did the state government decide to reduce educational funding? Well, they did it so they could pass the largest tax cuts in state history. It seems that lower taxes for adults, who can vote, are far more important to Kansan legislators than education for Kansan children who cannot vote, and by golly they aren't gonna have any court tell them differently.
So ya see, the problem, and the question, is just how much power should a court have. Should a court, even a Supreme Court, have the right to force a government to live up to it's legal requirements to provide that education or not? The state government says that no court should have the authority to override the rights and responsibilities of the legislative branch. But the courts seem to be saying that when the legislative branch abdicates its responsibility, the court has the right and requirement to force them to fulfill their responsibility.
If the legislature is right and the courts do not have the right to prevail in this, then what about other arenas? Would the court's powers be diminished to the point as being little more than a figurehead oddity? If the courts are right, is the legislature nothing more than an arm of the court?
Seems to me that when the legislature ignores it's fiduciary responsibilities, we need the court to step up and when the court oversteps it's authority, the legislature needs to put it in its place. The conundrum is to know who's right. That comes down to the wording of the state constitution. Who gets to determine that? Isn't that the role of the courts? It may still be winter there, but it's getting hot.
Monday, March 3, 2014
Mostly, Chicken Hawks Take Cheap Shots.
Well, whatta ya think about Russia's moves in the Ukraine? Hmm, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham both state categorically that Pres. Obama is showing weakness, in fact probably extreme weakness. My guess is that every other Republican Senator is in agreement. And probably a few Democrats agree too. So, whatta you think? I suppose it looks that way and that's because there isn't much America can do short of starting WWIII. Putin knows that. He's no dummy. He knows we're not going to go sending troops and planes and tanks and all that, so what would you do?
Now if you were to ask what would be fun to do, strictly in a hypothetical case, I'd love to send troops in unmarked uniforms, along with planes and tanks, all unmarked into Syria. Putin would surely get the idea, although he just might call our bluff by sending his own troops in, because he's a radical. But, ya see, that's the problem. It's easy to find fault with Obama. You can call him weak or unprofessional or aloof or whatever you want depending on the circumstance, but the proof is in the doing. Just what do you do in a situation like this. Russia is arguably still the second most powerful country in the world. And if Russia's leader is willing to be a loose cannon, just what do you do?
Talking tough doesn't mean much unless you want to be a loose cannon too. The thing is, though, one loose cannon is one too many as it is. Two loose cannons make a war. So the only thing left to do is outfox him. Make it just too costly, economically, to start a war he couldn't win anyway. Heck, nobody could win such a war. All these chicken hawks who love to talk tough, do it because they don't actually have to follow through on all the tough talk. Finding fault with the one who actually has the responsibility is just taking cheap shots. If their positions were reversed, they'd be just as unlikely to be able to make a difference. But it is an election year.
So, would you like to have us go to war? Because at this point in time, it would be fairly easy to make that happen. Some troop movements in the right, or wrong, direction and pow, right in the kisser. Only there wouldn't be thousands of killed in action, there'd be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. Not everybody has to think about those kinds of outcomes, but right now, Obama does.
Now if you were to ask what would be fun to do, strictly in a hypothetical case, I'd love to send troops in unmarked uniforms, along with planes and tanks, all unmarked into Syria. Putin would surely get the idea, although he just might call our bluff by sending his own troops in, because he's a radical. But, ya see, that's the problem. It's easy to find fault with Obama. You can call him weak or unprofessional or aloof or whatever you want depending on the circumstance, but the proof is in the doing. Just what do you do in a situation like this. Russia is arguably still the second most powerful country in the world. And if Russia's leader is willing to be a loose cannon, just what do you do?
Talking tough doesn't mean much unless you want to be a loose cannon too. The thing is, though, one loose cannon is one too many as it is. Two loose cannons make a war. So the only thing left to do is outfox him. Make it just too costly, economically, to start a war he couldn't win anyway. Heck, nobody could win such a war. All these chicken hawks who love to talk tough, do it because they don't actually have to follow through on all the tough talk. Finding fault with the one who actually has the responsibility is just taking cheap shots. If their positions were reversed, they'd be just as unlikely to be able to make a difference. But it is an election year.
So, would you like to have us go to war? Because at this point in time, it would be fairly easy to make that happen. Some troop movements in the right, or wrong, direction and pow, right in the kisser. Only there wouldn't be thousands of killed in action, there'd be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. Not everybody has to think about those kinds of outcomes, but right now, Obama does.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
What's a Radical Extremist.
The Huffington Post had an article yesterday by Allen Frances he titled "Wolfish radicals in Conservative Sheep's Clothing." And I hate to and have to admit I've called these crazies Conservatives too. Frances is talking about folks like Sarah Palin putting a bull's-eye on Gabby Giffords, or Ted Nugent calling Obama a "sub-human", or Gov. Perry of Texas talking of seceding from the union. The tea party itself for gleefully shutting down the government. That's not to say that every person who considers themselves to be Tea partiers were in favor of such silliness, but too many are.
All of the above have little or nothing to do with conservatism. They are radically far beyond conservative. But the media still insists on calling them "Conservatives." Why? Why does the media insist on calling them Conservatives? I think because if they rightly called them radical extremists, the media would probably lose a substantial segment of it's viewership. The networks would have to create a completely new series called The Nutcases of Alaska, or Name Callers of the World or Haters from Texas. Or as they're most properly called, Radical Extremists of America. But whatever, the media would be labeled as freedom haters.
These folks, not conservatives, are well trained and experienced name callers. If they get asked a question they should have an answer for, but don't, then the one who asked is on the hit list. If they don't get equal time on the networks to spew their venom, they scream, if someone disagrees, it's because they hate freedom, or are a Muslim as though all Muslims hate freedom.
Actually the idea of these folks being predatory is a fair and honest appraisal of their approach to political discourse. They pretend to be Conservatives when in fact the hate the idea of freedom, independence, democracy or a Republic. They want a country in which everyone thinks exactly like themselves or just shuts up and puts up. And they see no problem with vilifying anyone who doesn't go along.
All of the above have little or nothing to do with conservatism. They are radically far beyond conservative. But the media still insists on calling them "Conservatives." Why? Why does the media insist on calling them Conservatives? I think because if they rightly called them radical extremists, the media would probably lose a substantial segment of it's viewership. The networks would have to create a completely new series called The Nutcases of Alaska, or Name Callers of the World or Haters from Texas. Or as they're most properly called, Radical Extremists of America. But whatever, the media would be labeled as freedom haters.
These folks, not conservatives, are well trained and experienced name callers. If they get asked a question they should have an answer for, but don't, then the one who asked is on the hit list. If they don't get equal time on the networks to spew their venom, they scream, if someone disagrees, it's because they hate freedom, or are a Muslim as though all Muslims hate freedom.
Actually the idea of these folks being predatory is a fair and honest appraisal of their approach to political discourse. They pretend to be Conservatives when in fact the hate the idea of freedom, independence, democracy or a Republic. They want a country in which everyone thinks exactly like themselves or just shuts up and puts up. And they see no problem with vilifying anyone who doesn't go along.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)