Abra Cadabra, It's Gone.

       Everybody knows that the Pentagon is Master of Waste what with hundred dollar screwdrivers and $500 toilet seats, but I just read a disturbing report on the 8.5 trillion dollars the Pentagon can't account for. $8,500,000,000,000 and the military can't figure out where it went or what it was spent on? Do they know what accountants do for a living?
       Since 1996 the Department of Defense has been required by law to be always audit ready. It appears they have missed that goal. If it were a foot race, the DOD would still be in the starting blocks when the last of the runners of the marathon crossed the finish line. The military sent pallets full of hundred dollar bills to Iraq and Afghanistan and nobody knows where it went. Add to that $8.5 trillion the new fighter plane F-35 at a cost (so far) of $1.5 trillion and it starts to add up to  a big deal
       Think about this; there are 123 million households in America. If we had to pay up for this missing money, it would amount to $70,000 per family. The only reason you didn't get that bill is because they borrowed the money. That's right, half the U.S.A.'s debt is the money given to the Pentagon that they can't account for. Now I'm sure that some of that money was wisely spent, just as I'm sure that much of it wasn't.
       So the next time you hear somebody claim we need more money for our military so it can protect us from all comers, just remember, we've got the largest military in the world, by far. We already spend more on our military then the next five largest militaries in the world, combined. We don't need to increase the DOD budget, we need the DOD to find some of the money we already gave them that they lost.

Conflict Of Interest Anyone?

       Ya know who oversees the big banks and Wall Street? That's the job of the Federal Reserve. Back in 2007-8 when most of those huge banks known as "TOO BIG TO FAIL" they had to get bailed out. Guess who served on the board  of the New York Regional Fed? Jamie Dimon, the CEO of J.P. Morgan Chase. They got a $390 billion bailout. Mr. Dimon was one of the people who decided to do that. He helped to approve giving that money to JPMC, his own company. And he isn't alone when it comes to bankers sitting on the boards of the Fed.
       The FED has 12 regional agencies and next year 4 of their presidents will be former executives of Goldman-Sacks. Ever heard of that outfit? It failed back in 08 which was a big part of the cause of the Great Recession. And as you must have heard, nearly all those Too Big To Fail banks are larger now than they were back in 2008 when they got bailed out. What happens when they screw up again? And they will, on that you can count?
       Bernie Sanders is the only politician running for President who's paying any attention to this fiasco. While I don't see him as getting elected, he's got some really important points and this is one of the biggies. The Fed needs to be shaken up, as Senator Sanders says, the fox should not be guarding the henhouse. Too much conflict of interest.
       Suppose your job was to make sure kids got to school on time. But my job was to try to get starting time to be later. If I get appointed to your Board of Directors and assigned to wind up the clock every day, that wouldn't bode well for your responsibility now would it? Think Federal Reserve. It's not so much that I don't trust big banks, it's that I don't trust the folks that run them. Individually these big bank execs are pretty much good people, the problem comes in when there's a profit to be made.

The Problem With Taxes.

       When it comes to taxes, the United States is stupid. I say that because our country's tax system allows corporations to keep money overseas, but even worse it encourages large corporations to relocate their headquarters to other countries so that they don't pay any taxes in America.
       Some countries have very low taxes on corporations, so when a company gets its tax bill, it looks at it and then it looks at what it might be if they relocated their headquarters to somewhere like Ireland.. And if they're multi-national they already know they don't have to pay taxes on profits on sales outside America if they don't bring those profits home. So they keep that money outside America.
       Now isn't that dumb? It's dumb and it hurts all of us because every citizen has to help make up that loss of income. We need to change the tax law we have now. My suggestion is to use a 'Point of sale' tax. No matter where it's made and no matter what company or country it comes from, if it's sold in America, the company's profit on that product or service is taxed by America. Either that or it's taxed based on the sale price. Now if an American company makes it here but sells it in another country they don't owe the U.S. any tax on it.
       This would give American companies an edge over all it's foreign competition. Of course at that point other countries would likely change their laws to help their manufacturers. But that's okay. That only means it would level the playing field. And we need to stop paying companies to leave America. That's extra dumb, yet we do it anyway, in the form of tax breaks for the costs of making the move.
       As long as America is fair about it and doesn't try to give special tax breaks for American companies, we would be on sound footing with international law, I'm convinced. The same would be true for any other country. Fair is fair.

What Very Wise Decissions?

       I've read that Donald Trump would have more money today if he had simply invested the money he was given wisely and sat back in his easy chair and lived a comfortable lifestyle. Of course that presumes he could have chosen wisely. He claims he does make wise choices. all the time. Extremely wisely. But just how wise are his choices?
       Lets just look at his bankruptcies. He's declared bankruptcy four times by his own admission. He claims they were very wise decisions and he has profited by them. I have to say honestly that I can neither agree nor disagree with that statement. What I can say is that the banks and investors who got the short end of the stick in those bankruptcies didn't profit from them.
       The thing is though, by going to the courts to save you money by cutting out the lenders and investors is, in effect, receiving a government subsidy. Instead of owing millions, he gets a pass on most of that debt, which is basically a gift of the money owed. Most of his loan debts are canceled. He doesn't have to pay them back.
       Wouldn't you like to have your mortgage paid off for you? Or maybe your student loan (which by the way, I think should be), or car payment? But just because you overextended yourself and got in over your head is not a good reason to be relieved of your responsibilities. There are times when that might be justified, such as illness or injury, but mostly we're expected to pay our bills and not buy what we can't pay for. Are ya listening Donald?

We've Got A Budget!

       Now he's done it. Now President Obama has added another half trillion dollars to the deficit, and with only a stroke of the pen. Well, actually it was the House of Representatives that did it, but of course Obama will be accused of doing it, so he should get any credit too. This, even though it was a veto-proof vote. Of course the Senate will also need to vote on it as well and you can bet they'll make a few modest changes just to show they're doing their job.
       Of course there are some good things about this 1.1 Trillian dollar budget, like continuing funding for Planned Parenthood, but mainly it's a big giveaway on tax cuts. Of course Conservatives will tell you that tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations actually help the economy grow. And truth be told, it does make one segment of the economy grow. The wealthy make more money and get to keep more of that money, and they are a segment of the economy.
       So ya see, it's true what they say about tax cuts. In the meantime you're gonna have to pay more taxes in order to pay for some of those tax cuts and your children are gonna have to pay more taxes, and your grandchildren and great grandchildren and great-great grandchildren and on and on. And do you know why? It's because politicians can't help themselves.  Politicians just can't help but make promises they can't keep. They just naturally can't pass up a chance to give money away to folks who don't need it and make folks who can't afford it pay for those gifts.
       The reason this budget passed overwhelmingly is because there's something in it for everybody. Well, everybody but you. No, on second thought there is something in it for you. The Bill!

There's A song Here Somewhere.

       Well the word is out. Dow Chemical and DuPont are set to merge as equals. But then the plan is to split into three companies. But what will this new company of three companies from two companies be called? I've got a suggestion. how about Du-Dow. It's short, it's catchy, it's descriptive, it's all you could ask for.
       'Chemical company five miles long......Du Dow, Du Dow
       one for three and three for all................Oh de Du Dow day
       Gonna glow all day, gonna glow all night. Bet my money on two
       headquarters. Somebody bet on de profits.
       Now I'm sure this makes perfect sense to the CEOs of both companies and it looks like the Boards of Directors of these two companies are in agreement. As for the stockholders, well, lets say they're sitting there waiting for the money to start flowing.
       I think mergers are a good thing if it means the company can survive when it might not without the merger, or if it means better products and service for the paying customer, but I don't like the idea of merging simply because they can eliminate jobs and or services. Just because it'll make more money for stockholders while putting folks out of work and customers holding the bag because it kills competition, isn't my idea of a good idea.
       Ya see, if they're in competition, then you just eliminated some of the competition and made the new company tougher on the rest of the competition. Now if they're not competitors, then what are their combined interests? Of course this being a free country, they can pretty much do as they please. Especially if they're big enough and rich enough to afford good smart lobbyists.

Why Is That Corporate Person Treated So Unfairly?

       Let's see if I've got this right. One class of American persons who, by the way, are not allowed to vote and are not minority southerners, are complaining that their tax rate is far too high. This same demographic are the ones who have almost as many tax loopholes as there are stars in the sky. These persons also send more untaxed profits than the total combined incomes of about half of the entire population of the country, to offshore tax haven destinations.
       It's odd that these persons don't ever seem to complain that they can't vote, but then they don't really need to vote. Ya see, they already pretty much own the folks you and I will have to choose between on election day. Ya see, it's either a Conservative who sees things their way or a liberal who also does. The only real difference is that Liberal politicians claim to be on the side of the 'working man' while, hmmm, while the Conservatives also make that claim.
       Huh, it looks like there really isn't any difference when you come right down to it. Oh, I'm sure there are some very few elected officials who earnestly do want to help the average person. And if you ask any confirmed supporter of any politician, they'll tell you their pet politician is one of those few.
       So if you believe confirmed supporters, you're looking at a very few 535 members of the Congress who want to help. Out of a total of 535 members of Congress you can see what a very small number that aren't in the good graces of the non-voting class we speak of.  Now if you don't ask ardent supporters, that number of genuine helpers melts down to about as many as you can count on your hands. No second counts allowed.

Atta Girl Stacey!

       I'd like to applaud Stacey Newman of Missouri for her common-sense approach to gun control. Ms. Newman is a state legislator, and while I don't usually consider state legislators to be any higher on the evolutionary scale than members of the U.S. Congress, I have to tip my hat to her. In other words, I think our form of government was designed by really smart people, but it's being run by idiots.
       Anyway, the reason I applaud Ms. Newman is because of her thoughtful and thought provoking bill to the state house of Missouri, that before anyone can purchase a firearm, they must go through a process designed like the process required for a woman to get an abortion. In Missouri, the law is very stringent on that subject. So, for instance, to buy a gun, you would have to meet with a licensed physician to discuss the risks of gun ownership at least 72 hours before purchasing a gun, buy the gun from a licensed dealer at least 120 miles from where you live, watch a 30 minute video on gun deaths and visit a hospital while victims of gun violence are being treated.
       And these are just for starters. There are a slew of additional requirements that would have to be met before you could buy that gun. Of course, as the Daily Kos article points out, the bill has no chance of becoming law in Missouri. But the thing is an abortion is a constitutionally protected medical procedure right just like gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right.
       When you look at it in that light, you have to begin to wonder if the constitution is being interpreted in completely different ways for different people, in which case you have to ask yourself if that's a constitutional approach to interpreting the constitution. I don't mean to turn this into any kind of tongue twister, but it seems to me that guns are far more dangerous to far more people than abortions are.

Can You Believe That?

       If yesterday was 'did you know day', then today must be 'I can't believe they did that day.' Yesterday the Senate voted down an amendment to block people on the Terrorist Watch List from buying guns. Yep, you read that right. Republicans blocked the measure. It seems they'd rather allow suspected terrorists to buy any kind of guns legally than cave to Democrats ( and I might add, about 90% of Americans) demands for some kind of limitation on gun sales.
       One Republican Senator voted in favor of the amendment and one Democrat voted against it. So for you folks in Pennsylvania, next election just remember that our Senator Pat Toomey prefers to allow terrorists to buy guns in America. In fact he insists on allowing terrorists to buy our guns. I think you could almost say Senator Toomey is a friend to terrorists. Not really, that's unfair. I'm sure Mr. Toomey hates terrorists almost as much as you or I, but somehow he's decided more gun sales is more important than stopping terrorists from buying guns.
       When is it proper to allow for partisan politics and when has that sport gone too far? I mean lets face it, Democrats love to vote against Republican wishes and Republicans love to reciprocate. It's what they do in Washington. I suspect they even keep score. I'm not sure if they keep track and announce a winner monthly, quarterly, annually or by some other means. I do know that by a clear margin, the Republicans win this competition far more often than do Democrats.
       But while scoring one for the team may be good in most sports, when it comes to the U.S. Congress, the team they're all supposed to support is us, not any party. If there's any partying to be done, we're the ones entitled to do it. Unfortunately it's Congress that does the partying and we get stuck with the bill. They get to go home with the hot chick, namely corporate sponsorship.

I Proclaim Today 'Did You Know' Day.

       Did you know that today is 'did you know' day? Did you know that there is more than one mass shooting per day in America? Did you know that there have been more gun deaths in America in the last four years than all the deaths in the Korean conflict, Viet-Nam war, Afghanistan and Iraq combined? Did you know that firearms take a life in America every sixteen minutes? Did you know that there are 300 million guns in America, that at least 2,000 persons on the terrorism watch list legally purchased firearms in America, that according to Harvard research, 40% of firearms are sold without a background check in America?
       An article in the New York Times today gave these details and a lot more. And the thing is we're not even trying to do anything about it. Not a single piece of legislation addresses the problem. In fact some states continue to make it easier for anyone to buy a gun. One side says we need better mental health care, the other side says we need better background checks. Guess what? We need both. And we need fewer guns, not more. We need to begin to eliminate some classes of firearms for public purchase and we need required training for purchasers of any firearm.
       Here's the thing, as I've said before, we've tried more guns. It hasn't worked. Think spaghetti. The more you eat, the more weight you gain. Maybe the less you eat the less you'll gain. Shouldn't we at least give it a try? Fewer guns and no guns for people who can't pass a background check. Hey, even guns owners agree with that one, by 80%. Only the NRA disagrees, which means that Congress disagrees, because, apparently, whatever the NRA thinks is good enough for Congress.
       The NRA used to be an organization that looked out for the best interests of gun owners. But it's morphed into an organization that looks out for the best interests of the gun manufacturers and their profits. The question we have to ask ourselves is which is more important to all of us: the profits of the gun industry or the lives of American citizens? If that's a question you have difficulty answering, then we're in worse shape that I thought.
      

Prescription Ripoff.

       Here's something I don't get. Well actually I get it, I just don't like what the answer is. In a comparison with other developed countries, the U.S. spends substantially more for prescription drugs. So, now, if you're wondering why, the answer is somewhat simple. Primarily the reason for high prices for drugs in America is because of the pharmaceutical industry's political clout.
       Lets face it, what country would require that their medical care program must pay full list price for all drugs. Well Medicare and Medicaid is not allowed to negotiate the price of any drug. Here we are, the largest market for prescription drugs in the modern world and we can't negotiate a fair price.  We basically have to accept whatever the manufacturer say's it wants. That's called political clout.
For example, Amgen's and Glaxo's Prolia costs little Norway $260 for a syringe while Medicare pays $893, or the cancer drug Rituxan costs Norway $1527, but Medicare pays $3678.
       The Pharmaceutical Industry claims that without the high prices Americans pay, they would have to curtail their R & D research. Notice they don't mention the huge profits they make off us. They're not gonna curtail those . So we fund worldwide drug research. Fair enough, but then if they need America so much, why do they insist on pulling out of America in order to save taxes? Many have moved their headquarters, at least on paper, offshore. Fair is fair enough, but this practice ain't fair.
       How come we allow these sort of things to take place? It's called political clout. When an industry greases enough hands, namely politicians, anything is possible. If this industry and many others want to keep proffered status with America, they ought to be required to pay taxes in the amounts appropriate to the business they do in America. Then they can move their headquarters anywhere they want.

Arm Everyone.

       Robert Lewis Dear shot twelve people in Colorado last week. Three died, one a police officer. Of the nine who were wounded, five were police officers. But it was at a Planned Parenthood facility so I suppose some will suggest it was justified. S-I-C-K! The Republican candidates for the presidency have mostly decided it needs no comment at this point.
       I'm waiting for some sort of response from the NRA. I wonder if they will suggest that this incident wouldn't have taken place if only there were more guns there. Hey folks, ya gotta understand this is a tough spot to put Conservatives in. On the one hand more guns is the bible quote of nearly all Conservatives, but on the other hand there were six policemen who were shot. They all carried guns. But on another hand this was a hated Planned Parenthood center, but on the other hand not everybody that got shot was an employee of the hated center.
       I'll bet Trump and Carson and a few others are agonizing over this one.  I'm waiting for the decision on strategy from the Republican clan of presidential hopefuls. My bet is on the line that "it's all Planned Parenthood's fault." Yep, if only Planned Parenthood wouldn't offer so much women's medical care with all those tests they do for women. Then we could have closed them up. Then there wouldn't have been this killing spree.
       Think I'm kidding? Just wait and see the responses from Democrats and Moms Against Guns and other anti-firearms groups. That's when the NRA will feel forced to speak out about this situation. And I'm sure they'll work something into their narrative about the need for more guns and less Planned Parenthood. That's right folks, the NRA is about to join the Pro Birth People, aka Pro Life.

The Mice That Roar.

       GIVE ME YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, YOUR HUIDDLED MASSES, YEARNING TO BEATH FREE, THE WRETCHED REFUSE OF YOUR TEEMING SHORES. SEND THESE, THE HOMELESS, TEMPEST TOST TO ME, I LIFT MY LAMP BESIDE THE GOLDEN DOOR.
       This is the inscription on the Statue of Liberty that will need to be scrubbed away and made illegible if many Americans have their way. After all, you can't make such a pledge on the one hand and then steal it away on the other hand. Don't misunderstand me, I worry about the possibility of allowing in terrorists and murderers to come into our land. But then there has long been that possibility.
       A lot of folks felt that way about Italians and other ethnic groups in the past. Our lack of courage led us to send Americans of Asian decent to internment camps in WWII in spite of the idea of a free America. Are we Americans so frightful and so unwilling to offer the freedom we enjoy to anyone not like us in every way? Is this, after all, what America is all about?
       Do any of you understand just how stringent our refugee program actually is? You can't just decide this morning to hop a flight to America and expect to be accepted under that refugee program this afternoon. It takes up to two years to be vetted. And if you can't be properly vetted, you don't get in. Stop allowing yourself to be frightened by conservative candidates hoping to squeeze your vote out of you. We Americans need to stand tall about some things. This may be one of them.

Supreme Court! Stay Out Of My Insurance!

       There are times I wish I could say I told you so and there are times when I can say it. This is a time when I can't remember if I told you so, but I definitely thought we were making a mistake. I'm speaking of the affordable Care Act more commonly known as Obamacare. And they truly are the same thing.
       The problem comes in since the SCOTUS has once again has agreed to try to figure out how they can defeat this law. That and some unfortunate findings that insurance companies are placing unconscionably high deductibles in the healthcare.gov marketplaces. The premiums are low, but if you get sick, you may find that the deductibles are so high, you may not be able to afford the care.
        So, now the "I told you so, or not" part. Not having a single payer option is responsible for such games as are being played by for profit insurance companies. With no law to protect consumers but laws to make it costly not to have insurance, that option is sorely missed. Of course a single payer option wouldn't stop SCOTUS from trying valiantly to kill this national health insurance so we can go back to ???? What? Nothing as far as I can see.
       On the other hand, maybe the single payer option would have eliminated the argument over religious entities having to pay for it. But I'm quite sure the partnership between the Republican party and the insurance industry would have found a way to bring it to the Supreme Court.
       What's interesting to consider though, is how much health insurance might be costing us without the ACA and how many people would remain without insurance. See, when you hear talk about how bad the ACA is for America, just remember that the old system was the costliest in the industrialized world with the poorest outcomes. Single payer options would have made it just that much better.

Let's Not Overspend.

       Have you decided who to vote for next November? Do you think we should spend more money on our military? If that's what you think, maybe you should consider the story about a gas station our military built in Afghanistan. It was in a rural province in that country. It was decided that a fuel station was needed. Gasoline wasn't readily available so they decided to use natural gas.
       Well, America has always tried to help the populace in the countries in which we fought. Unfortunately this story illustrates that we've not always been as helpful as we could be. The first thing they realized was that there were no cars in the province that could run on natural gas, so they converted 70 cars at a cost of $5000-$6000 each.
       There was another problem with this fuel station. The estimated cost to build it had been $300,000 to $500,000. Unfortunately the actual cost came to $43 million. Now I've heard of cost overruns, but this is a bit much. Why it doesn't even have a convenience market in it. $43 million, for a gas station, in the desert of Afghanistan, that can only serve 70 vehicles. This is not the kind of investment most conservative businessmen would consider. In fact no accountant or economist would ever recommend such an investment.
       It didn't stop our military. They were able to convert the idea of a half million dollar gas station into a $43 million boondoggle. So now let me ask you: Are these the folks you would want to increase their share of the U.S. budget? Wouldn't it make more sense to put accountants in charge of purchasing and building stuff? And leave the fighting to the folks who don't mind overkill? I think you should vote for sanity.

Just Like Acid Rain.

       Have you ever heard of acid rain? It was back about 25 to 30 years ago when acid rain was destroying forests, lakes and streams in northeastern United States and eastern Canada. It finally took the government to force the coal and oil industries to stop pumping sulfur oxide and carbon monoxide into the air. The oil and coal industries fought the controls, but they worked.
       Acid rain is pretty much a thing of the past in America. So why is it that the oil and coal industries have been so successful at fighting the science of climate change and our contributions to it? They've managed to get many conservatives, especially conservative politicians to agree with them. They've got people believing it's a hoax in spite of the overwhelming evidence offered by the worlds climatologists and scientists of the warming of the planet caused mainly by human activity.
       I think the reason is that everybody could see the results of acid rain in the dying forests of the northeast along with the dead lakes and streams. But Global warming isn't so obvious. More storms and unusual weather patterns don't look like global warming. After all, it still gets cold in the winter, right? But not as cold around the world. Just because it isn't hot where you are, doesn't mean the world isn't getting warmer, causing severe weather and oceans warming and species disappearing. You need to wake up while you can still smell roses.

All Oil Ain't The Same

       Well, President Obama's refusal of the Keystone XL pipeline is a good start, but there's more to be done. There is still huge amounts of Tar Sands Oil being shipped into the U.S. by rail. Proponents of the KXL are right about the shipments by rail of the TSO being unsafe. They used the argument to push for the pipeline, but that doesn't change the fact that the numerous accidental spills are a problem.
       The thing is, though, the spills are not the only problem with TSO. Tar Sands Oil is perhaps the dirtiest form of energy in existence. By the time it's fully refined to the point of being useful, you've amassed huge amounts of waste in the form of coke. Not the kind you can drink, but the kind that is so noxious that it can't be burned in the U.S. any more.
       So with this stuff coming into America and refined here, that means that we're stuck with that coke. We've got to figure out how to get rid of it without it polluting our air and water and earth. Any way you slice it that means millions and probably billions to get rid of it. And maybe never actually be able to get rid of it.
       I've suggested, in the past, that we send it back to Canada, but that might be unfair to Canada. Perhaps the best way and the surest way would be to require the refiners pay to have it removed from the U.S. and the storage sites cleaned up. And require that an amount in excess of the actual costs of said cleanups be paid in advance. I'll bet you'd see a quick stop of railcars full of Tar Sands Oil coming into America. That's because the oil companies and refiners know full well the tremendous costs involved with such cleanup, and they wouldn't be interested in such an undertaking. So if they're not, why should we?

We Failed The Test.

        There's something I don't quite understand. It just doesn't  make sense. If guns make us safer, then how is it that we keep hearing about more and more gun violence? More people are getting killed, more innocent people are getting killed by guns. But of course guns don't kill people, people kill people, so okay, more innocent people are getting killed by people using guns.
       The point is, more guns isn't making us safer, more guns are endangering us more and more. So if it was a social experiment, then more guns is a dismal failure. And if more guns has been a failure, then it stands to reason that fewer guns just might be a success. There's a better than even chance that fewer guns well save a lot of people's lives.
       Of course the next thing you'll hear is that I want to take all your guns away from you. NOT TRUE! I assure you I don't have room for all your guns. But it wouldn't hurt if fewer guns were so readily available to folks who shouldn't have them. Of course no rule or law will eliminate all danger. It's silly to suggest that's what we're saying. We'd just like to tone things down some. Make it harder for people who want to kill other people to get a gun. That's all we're saying. Then we can see how that does. Given time, I'm convinced it'll help. It surely wouldn't hurt.
       Just remember, the constitution won't allow anyone to take all your guns. So quit acting like somebody is trying to sneak into your armory to take all your protection away. If you're a law abiding citizen, keep your guns. Just help us to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them in the first place. That's not unreasonable, is it?

What Democracy?

       Here's the question you have to ask yourself; Do you really get to enjoy the free speech guaranteed to you in the Constitution? No, it's not a trick question. Based on the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizen's United case, free speech and money are equal. Therefore very wealthy corporations and individuals can buy all the speech they want, to the point of drowning out yours and my speech.
       Look at it this way,  if you decided to run for office, say county commissioner, and my company didn't like it, and assuming the company had the money, It could spend enough money to flood all the media in your county, radio, TV, newspapers, signs, you name it, to the point that you couldn't be heard. What would your chances of getting elected be?
       Why? Because Corporations are people according to the Supreme Court, and they are allowed to speak with money. All the money they want to spend and it's their free speech. So unless you can match them dollar for dollar you're sunk, unless you get their blessing.
       Now how would you go about getting their blessings? Well, unless you're willing to do their bidding, do as they tell you to do, you're not likely to get their blessings. Ya see, there's only one reason for a big corporation or wealthy individual to spend all that money. And there's the rub. As an elected official, you have a responsibility to the people of your jurisdiction
       So, to whom do you owe your allegiance? The money or the people who pulled the lever? That's the real question. How would you answer that? That'll tell whether we live in a Democracy or plutocracy.

Tea Party - Freedom Caucus. Same-O, Same-O.

       Have you ever heard of the Land and Water Conservation Fund? No? Well how about the Appalachian Trail or the Flight 93 Memorial in Pennsylvania where the plane went down on 9-11, 2001? Well as it turns out that Land & Water Conservation Fund helped to purchase lands for those two and other locations in every state and nearly every single county in America.  And has continued to help fund them.
       And guess what? Not one single dime of taxpayer money has ever been used to do it. Pretty hard to believe isn't it. Well it's true. The money for this fund comes from offshore oil and gas leases and the like. Upps, sorry. That's not quite true. The money for this fund used to come from those sources. But since October 1, 2015, that money is no longer available to the fund. You may ask why, in fact I hope you ask why.
       The reason is that, in spite of overwhelming support in Congress from both Democrats and Republicans, one man, one Congressman, the Chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah refuses to allow a vote to come to the floor to reauthorize it. But he does have a really good reason for refusing to allow a vote. He wants all that lease money to go back to the oil and gas companies. I think he feels these multi-billion dollar Fortune 500 companies are just poor folks in need of a handout.
       The New York Times Op-ed on this deal was written by Timothy Egan. The thing is, you don't live very far from some piece of trail or monument or scenic view or other place and I'd be willing to bet you've taken advantage of one or more of these places, but because of this single Freedom Caucus member of Congress, you might not have that opportunity to do it again.
       The last time this L&WCF fund had to be reauthorized was 25 years ago and it sailed through without complaint. It would now too, well except for Congressman Bishop and maybe a few other Freedom Caucus members. They used to be called Tea Partiers, but I think they felt they got a bad reputation. Small wonder. How long will it be before they have to change their title again?

The Keystone XL Pipeline Question.

       Ya know what it is that I don't like about the Keystone XL pipeline? It's not the jobs it might create, or the oil it will ship to America, although it is the dirtiest oil in the world, and it's not that I dislike Canada. In fact I kinda like Canada. And it's not that I don't like oil companies making all that profit off it, although it'd be nice if they actually started paying taxes on those profits.
       No, my problem is all the coke and other poisons that are removed from that tar sands oil in the refining process that's gonna get left here in America. It's what are we gonna do about all that stuff we're gonna have to handle at some point after Canada and the oil companies and refineries and ship tanker owners have made their killings and left us with all the mess.
       Ya see, I think that we're gonna get stuck with the costs of cleaning up that environmental nightmare and nobody's gonna want to help us. We taxpayers are gonna get the shaft and everybody that made huge profits off this ugly, dirty, pollutant tar sands oil are gonna laugh all the way to the bank and you and I are gonna get stuck with the tab on the cleanup.
       So here's my suggestion. The refineries and oil companies and Canada pay to have all that waste and coke and poison shipped back to Canada at their expense as it's generated. Oh, and they should pay in advance, none of this "on credit" bologna. And if there should be any spill of leakage from the pipeline, those same characters will have to pay for all the cleanup and losses incurred, on the spot. It's not that I wouldn't trust them not to pay, I just wouldn't trust them to pay. That should end any discussion on the Keystone XL pipeline decision.

Taxes That Are Fair.

       Here's a way to end the discussion on taxes that's sure to please 90% of the people in America. I saw the tax plan in a publication today, called The Daily Kos. The idea is that people should pay taxes based on the amount of wealth they have. So if the top 10% of the people own 73% of the wealth, they should pay 73% of the taxes. And since the bottom 40% of the people own about .2% of the wealth they should pay about .2% of the taxes.
       By the way, the figures used are from 2007, so I'm sure the percentages of wealth are skewed even more in favor of the wealthy by now. But it comers down something like this. If you make less than $20,000 a year your taxes would be about $400 per year or less. But if you make $1,000,000 or more your taxes would be about $730,000. That would leave you $270,000 a year to live on.
       Now let's see a show of hands, who  can live on an annual income of $19,600 per year? Hmm, not too many could do that. Okay, how about an annual income of $270,000?  Well, it looks like most people could do that.
       Of course the wealthy would surely complain bitterly. They'd prefer a flat tax. That way if the tax was 10%, that $1,000,000 income would pay $100,000 in taxes and leave them with $900,000 to live on. Now that's a life style anyone could enjoy. But let's look at that $20,000 income. After taking 10% away it would leave only $18,000 to live on. Who could live on that?
       My question is; which tax system is more fair to more people? Oh that's a silly question. The top 10% of the population will tell you that the 10% plan is fairest. And it is. To them. But for 90% of the people it's very unfair.

It's A Conundrum.

       Rep John Boehner learned the hard way. Rep. Kevin McCarthy found out you don't even have to be speaker to get a bunch of people mad at you. Now even Rep. Paul Ryan doesn't want the job. And it doesn't look like they've got anyone who can get the 218 votes necessary to be Speaker of the House. Why is that so hard? The Republicans have way more than that in the House.
       The problem for the Republicans is that there's a sizable minority of Republicans who don't want the government to work. That's why they ran for office. To make it impossible for the government to work. So whoever wants to lead the House of Representatives and also wants to govern, gets these folks mad and they won't agree to anything. It's the Tea Party, but now they call themselves the Freedom Caucus. I guess they want to be free to screw up the works.
       Just to give you an idea, the Republicans formed a special Select Committee on Benghazi. and they've spent millions on the committee. Along comes Rep Kevin McCarthy who admits on TV that the committee has been successful because they've managed to bring down Hillary Clinton's poll numbers. Ya see, they're not interested in governing, they want to beat Hillary. And they want to do it by using your money.
       So ya see? If you're a Republican Congressman, the last thing you want is to be elected Speaker of the House. Because the minute you try to do your job, they're all gonna hate you and want you out. Congress has been called dysfunctional. And for good reason. With a small majority and a large minority, the Republicans don't even want to work with Democrats. But they want to work with each other even less. What's a country to do?

What Planet?

       I was pleased to see, in the news recently, that NASA is showing renewed and serious interest in Mars. Having found there to be running salt water on that neighbor, it only makes sense that we visit the red planet. After all, we have plenty of salt water here on earth with which to practice.  
       And after all, having solved all of the problems on our home world as well as all of the disagreements between it's various inhabitants, it's high time that we look to another planet whose problems we might, in our experienced problem solving manner, begin to work our magic on.
       If there's one thing America is exceptional at it's solving other peoples problems. We may not do so well with our own disagreements, but when it comes to OPP (Other People's Problems) we have long felt we had the best solutions and the willingness to enforce our opinions.
       This will stand us in good stead in the event we come across any small green men on that red planet. If they turn out to be adversaries, we can teach them the basics in good bipartisanship and if they be a peaceful lot, well, we can change that too.
       My hope is that we put into practice our ability to agree on matters of great and minor import in determining the best route to take to get there, utilizing all of the best science at our disposal including any political considerations required to pander to those of corporate donors and base voting blocks. Bear in mind that, because we have two parties, there should be two distinctly different routes to reach the red planet and I recommend we use both.

Redistribution Ain't All That Bad.

       Has it occurred to anyone that some Conservatives are against the idea of redistribution of wealth between citizens of America, but are mre than happy to accept the redistribution of wealth between the states of America? Let that sink in for a minute while you try to understand where this redistribution is taking place.
       First let's look at the inequality of wealth and opportunity that currently exists between the wealthiest Americans and the 90% of us who continue to struggle. The top 10% of Americans hold 76% of all the wealth in America. Now make no mistake, I'm all in favor of the opportunity to succeed and become wealthy. That's the American dream. But once you've made it, shouldn't there be a point where you level off in order to give someone else that same opportunity?
       But let's get back to the idea of redistribution of wealth between the states. Some states' citizens pay far more taxes than other states. For instance, California and New York have a much greater concentration of wealthy taxpayers than states like Nebraska, Louisiana, Idaho, and Alabama. Sooooo, so the federal government distributes much of the tax income it receives back to the states based on needs and other criteria I don't even understand.
       But the upshot is that the states like Nebraska, Louisiana, Idaho, and Alabama receive more funding than states like California and New York because there's a much larger concentration of poor and lower middle class in the poorer states. Now if that isn't a redistribution of wealth, I'd like to know what is.
       Oh, and I'm not suggesting that we stop funding to the poorer states, I'm just suggesting that higher taxes on the wealthy would fund badly needed infrastructure improvements that would create good paying jobs for those who could use the help and would actually help the wealthy corporate owners as well.

Who's Side Are You On?

    It's beginning to look more and more like Syria is President Obama's Benghazi for Hillary Clinton. It's not so much what he's done wrong, it's more about what he, and she, appears to not have done right. That is to say, if you can't be 100% right and successful, the opposition is going to have you for lunch for not doing all you could have and should have done.
       Now that's not to say that the opposition is all wrong, nor is it to say the opposition is all right. By that I mean that the opposition can't form a super non-partisan committee to investigate something and then claim to have been successful in that investigation by bringing down her poll numbers. You weaken the claim that this super committee was formed to find the truth of the Benghazi misfortune.
       Of course we have to remember that all of politics is about getting the upper hand against the other party at any expense to the taxpayer. If you can spend any amount of taxpayer money to show your opponent spent taxpayer money unwisely or failed to spend taxpayer money expeditiously, then you gain that upper hand you covet.
       You almost need a scorecard to keep track of who has the upper hand during this particular news hour or that particular political talk show. And of course it depends on which news or talk show you happen to be watching at any given time period. And then there's the polls. Who's ahead in the polls depends entirely on whose polls you read and believe.
       A quick and easy method to reach your comfort level is to watch and read the media that most agrees with your comfort level. Republicans and Democrats both have their own media outlets with slanted reporting to choose from. For independent minded voters you have a choice of one or the other or both. A word of caution here, if you intend to watch both sides equally, you leave yourself open to the belief that you are viewing two distinctly different worlds.
       I hope this answers all your questions on how your taxes are spent.

Sneaky Tricks Call For Firm Actions.

       A couple of items in the news in the past few days point out a problem this country has with corporations and the very wealthy. I speak of Volkswagen and it's decision to cheat on emissions testing technology and the hedge fund manager who bought the rights to a critical drug that sells for $13.50 a pill and then raised the price to $750.00 per pill. Because he could.
       My cousin said something I have to agree with. He said it's just "more proof corporations won't look out for the public if given the chance to." Just what chance have we given them anyway? Well we gave corporations the chance to be classified as people, but they don't want to treat other people as they would be treated. We gave hedge fund managers a terrific tax break called "carried interest", saving them millions per year. but that doesn't seem to be enough for them. They want to cheat too, by placing seriously ill people in a position of not being able to afford the drug that can save them.
       The sad thing is, corporations just don't really care about people and neither do extremely wealthy people. Of course there are exceptions, but those folks who do care about their fellow man prove it by agreeing they've got it too good and are willing to share. So what's my point?
       My point is that since these corporations and hedge fund managers have shown they don't deserve the special benefits we've bestowed upon them. It's time to take those special benefits away. It's time to put some of them in jail for what are clearly cases of criminality.
       Unconscionable actions call for conscious action. These folks and corporations will never change their actions until they are forced to by example. If you speed down the street at twice the speed limit and the cops just wave you on, you're never gonna slow down. But if you start getting speeding tickets, your gonna modify your schedule to allow for earlier departures.

What Goes Around, Comes Around.

       A terrific Indian doctor told me a story today that was very informative. It seems that some years ago a man who spoke no English, walked into the British embassy in his city in India and asked the gentleman behind the desk for a visa to go to England. The Brit became angry and threw the passport across the desk at the man, shouting "you can't speak a word of English, how do you expect to go to England?"
       Of course the man didn't understand any of this and so he turned to the woman standing behind him and asked what the Brit had said. She explained what the official had said. The Indian man said "Please tell him that 200 years ago the British came here to India. They spoke not a word of our language, not even a single letter, yet they made out okay. Why would he think I cannot do likewise?" She did as the man asked and told the official. The Brit sheepishly retrieved the passport and stamped it approved.
       The story got me to thinking about the first English speaking immigrants who came to America. They spoke no native languages, yet they seem to have made out well. So why is it that so many Americans now get so upset and angry at immigrants wanting to come to America for basically the same reasons as the first Europeans, but can't speak our language? What's so different?
       Oh, that's right, they aren't coming here to steal our lands and kill us. They're coming here to share in the American dream. But that doesn't explain why so many people are so bitter about their coming here. It does seem a bit hypocritical though, doesn't it?
      

What Makes A President?

       Just how much of an advantage is being a successful business person when it comes to leading America? If a candidate for President has shown to be a very successful corporate leader, it means they know how to make decisions under pressure, that's for sure. A corporate leader looks at financial reports and may decide it's necessary to cut the workforce by 10%, or eliminate company funded healthcare or pensions or lower wages or any combination of the above.
       That's what a corporate leader must do, because profitability is what business is all about. Everything a company does is geared to the bottom line. It has to be. What happens to the effected employees may weigh heavily on the CEO, but business is business is business.
       On the other hand being President of a country, America, requires that he or she must be more concerned with the well being of the citizens than anything else. At least that's the way it's supposed to work. Of course if the country is in a sound financial position, it's easier to take care of all the citizens than if it's deeply in debt, but regardless, the responsibility remains with the President toward all the citizens.
       Ya see? That's why I can't understand fiscal conservatives. The need to eliminate debt, while important and good, does not trump the need to care for all the citizens. There is that suggestion that balancing the books will then allow America to better serve it's citizens, that's true. What I can't wrap my head around is the question of what to do for citizens in crisis in the meantime? Do we just throw them away? A corporation doesn't have to worry about folks who lose their jobs and income. That's society's problem. But the country, ah the country, that is society. Those folks are the responsibility of the government, the country.
       The whole idea of a country like America is the idea of taking care to protect each member of it's society, it's population. Protect them from enemies, crime, and loss of opportunity to survive. If you eliminate or reduce supportive systems like food stamps or medical care in order to repair our financial house, you defeat the whole purpose of existing as a country. It's not easy, but we need someone who understands the needs of the people and is willing to fight to protect them.

Pity The Poor CEO.

       I was just looking at a chart that shows the ratio of worker pay to CEO pay in America. In 1982 the ratio was $1: 42, in 1992 it jumped to $1: 201, 2002 it was 1:281 and in 2012 it was 1:354. $354 for every $1 an unskilled worker made in the same company. Can you imagine that? Suppose you were an unskilled worker and you made $10 per hour. So in a forty hour week you make $400. But the CEO of that company makes $14,160 per week.
       $14,160 per week? Who makes that kind of money? Well, probably not the CEO of a small ten employee company, but the larger corporations, that's the kind of wages they're paying their CEOs. Of course it's not all in weekly paychecks, no, most of it comes in the form of stock options and other tax benefit ways so as to reduce their tax exposure. That's why they don't pay nearly as high a percentage of their income in taxes as you or I. You may pay as high as 38% of your total income while they may pay maybe about 15% of theirs, or nothing at all.
       That's how we get income inequality. It's not bad enough they pay less than half in taxes that you pay, but they make 354 times as much as you. And that only comes to $636,320 per year for the CEO. But there are a bunch who are raking in multi-million dollars plus per year. I don't even want to guess what those ratios are.
       Now don't get me wrong, a CEO has a lot more pressure to get things right. Being a CEO can't be easy. And if they don't do a good job, they're likely to get fired and that means a golden parachute worth millions more. No, being a CEO of a major corporation is no picnic, no matter what you may think. But don't feel too bad for them, after all, they're making somewhat more than you. And they get to keep a much larger chunk of theirs.

Are You Related To A Corporation?

       I'd like to tell you about a very distant relative of mine by the name of General Electric, or as we in the family call him, Gen. Gen is something of an extraordinary person for a distant relative. I say that because most, if not all of my close relatives vote regularly and pay taxes every year and at the standard rate for their income group. Not so with cousin, twice removed, Gen and all his friends.
       Ya see, Gen isn't allowed to vote and it's certainly not because of his age, he just never got the right to vote. And usually he doesn't pay taxes, in fact he quite often gets a refund from the government that can amount to nearly 75% of his net income. He has his own business in which he employs thousands upon thousands of employees, and nearly all of them pay taxes.
       The thing is Gen is a corporation. Now almost any person can incorporate themselves, but with Gen, he actually is a corporation. He's not a living breathing human person, he's a Supreme Court appointed person. Corporations are like that, ya know. Now I'm sure there was some obscure reason for making the claim that corporations are people, probably for tax purposes. But think about it. Corporations seem to get the rights of actual people without any of the disadvantages of real people.
       You never heard of a corporation being rushed to the hospital for an attack of appendicitis, did you? No, and you never heard of a corporation like General Electric going out for diner either. Gen's CEO probably goes out quite often and on the corporate's plastic to boot. Something else Gen can do that the rest of us can't. He can call up just about any member of Congress or even the President and ask for a sit down, and get it, to discuss some piece of legislation he likes or dislikes. And the thing is, he's more than likely to get what he wants because he spends a whole bunch of money on elections and campaigning.
       And there's the rub. Corporations get to write legislation and bring extreme pressure on Congress to do their bidding, unlike you or I who have a hard time getting to speak to a staffer. So if some piece of legislation is gonna harm you, forget about getting it defeated if it will help a corporation in the slightest way. Maybe something should be done about that.

I Finally Get It.

       I finally get it now. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. After all this time I finally get it. It's true. It's like, well it's like spaghetti. Spaghetti doesn't make you fat, people who eat too much spaghetti make you fat. So to keep from getting fat, you eat less spaghetti. Simple solution, just abstain from eating so much. Go on a diet.
       So if that spaghetti diet can work then why can't we go on a gun diet? Of course for any diet to work for a whole society, everyone who eats spaghetti has to cut back. The same should then be true for a gun diet. The whole of society has to cut back on guns for this diet to work. That means fewer gun purchases and fewer shots being fired. Buy less ammunition. And some need to abstain altogether. Folks who are addicted to spaghetti will have to abstain, and some gun people will also have to abstain.
       My vote is to have the NRA abstain. They seem to be addicted to guns. For everyone. So for this gun diet to work, the NRA is going to have to abstain from guns for every last person on earth before we get down to the last persons on earth. I propose for these addicts to shooting, that we limit the shooting to a few days a year. For those who seem to be addicted to killing, we form an addicted list and not sell them guns or allow them to possess guns.
       Let's face it, we've become a nation of gun lovers who aren't afraid to tote them thar guns all over towns and cities and diners and churches and movies in the hopes of getting a shot off at some real or imagined bad guy. Maybe we should use the money we would ordinarily spend on guns and bullets and all that on paying for more cops who are trained to protect us. Just like spaghetti addicts could spend their pasta money on salad greens.
        Just a thought.

Whose Fault Is The V.A.?

       Boy oh boy, did you see the reports out about the V.A. and how over 300,000 applicants died before they could be processed into the system? How over 800,000 applicants are waiting to be processed? That's unbelievable, it's unconscionable. How could the V.A. be so irresponsible? The V.A. was formed for the express purpose of serving veterans, especially those in need of medical services. How could that many veterans in need of medical attention not get processed into the system and begin receiving the medical care they need?
       Ya know what? Whoever is responsible for this backlog should be punished by the courts and receive sever prison sentences. There's just one problem with that idea. If we did that, there would be no one left in Congress to pass any laws. That's right, ya see, starting back about 20 years ago, Congress began to cut funding or not increase funding, in order to keep even with inflation, for the V.A.. Then all of a sudden we got into two wars.
       And unlike previous wars, instead of many, many soldiers getting killed, our military doctors began saving those lives. Wonderful, but it meant that many, many more injured veterans were now in need of medical care. But guess what Congress didn't do? They didn't increase the funding for the V.A. I guess Congress thought that if we could save all those lives, we could take care of them.
       The problem is the doctors saving those lives were in the military, but once the lives are saved, they discharge them. That's when the V.A., which already had it's hands full, got swamped with all those extra veterans but no new money to take care of them. Try this sometime. Put ten gallons of gas in your car and drive until you run out of gas. Then put another ten gallons in and continue driving for twice the distance. Doesn't work? The V.A. can't do twice the work with the same funding either.

Kick Her Out At Our Own Risk.

       Whatta you think about the accusations against A.G. Kathleen Kane? If true, I think she has no right to be the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. That's the beauty of our democracy. We have the tools to remove her from office. Unlike some of our most noted adversaries, we remove those who refuse to obey the law. Those are the rights associated with a democracy.
       But what about the responsibilities of a democracy? In America, you are considered innocent until proven guilty. And that is a very good thing. It's a rule not present in those noted adversaries. That being said, it seems premature to demand the ouster of Ms. Kane from office just yet. Shouldn't we wait until she's found guilty, assuming she will be?
       I know, it makes us look bad to have such a high ranking elected official fall under such accusations, but how bad would it look if we kicked her out only to find out she's not guilty. What if it really is a case of political vendetta against her instead of the other way around? Without taking sides, I'd like to point out that neither side of the political spectrum would be above such dastardly demonizing.
       The point is, it could just as easily be as Ms. Kane has suggested, than as her detractors suggest. So, shouldn't we let the courts sort it out first before we decide who to kick out of office? At this point, it does sound like somebody's head should be on the platter, but not until it's determined just whose head that is. An example does need to be made, but if we're going to decide a case like this before there is a fair hearing, then what do we have courts for anyway?
       Slippery slopes are great for skiing, but not so great for climbing.  It's easy, sort of, to slide down a slope, but climbing out of a mistake is a lot harder. Let's not make any such mistake just yet. Let's show everyone that we're smart enough to allow the system to work.
      

Pro-Birth.

       Did you happen to watch the two Republican debates on Thursday? I know, I know, it's way too early to bother wasting time on such things, but it did point out one item that they all agreed on. Well actually there were several. Hate anything Obama, hate anything Clinton. There was that other one. You know, the one about the Pro Birth thing.
       If there's one thing that isn't Obamaish or Clintonesque, it's the Anti-Choice movement. the Pro-Birth movement. Oh I know, they like to call it the Pro-Life movement, but as has been pointed out, you can't call yourself Pro-Life if your only concern is that those babies get born.
      The thing is, though, if you tend to forget about those babies once they're born, if you don't demand funding for the programs that look after the health, nutrition and education, as well as affordable housing and a host of other necessities for those babies, then you really aren't Pro-Life-After Birth, are you now.
       It's a fine thing to want to protect an unborn child. After all that child can't protect itself. But seeing that the child has a chance to be born isn't even half the job. If the child is part of an affluent family, they're in good hands. But if they happen to draw a poor single mother struggling to stay afloat by herself, don't you really have to see that that infant and later, the young child and teen has the helping hands to prepare him or her for a fruitful life as an adult?
       That's the rest of the job of being Pro-Life. And if you're not prepared to do those things, then do you really have the right to call yourself Pro-Life? If not, then at least be honest. Call yourself Pro-Birth and be done with it.

Deadly Weapons

       The Washington Post reports that 558 people have been shot dead by police in America so far this year. That's an average of almost 80 people a month. Almost every one was in possession of a deadly weapon when they were shot, according to police reports. Everything from a stick, to knives but mostly guns to even a sword.
       Who threatens a cop with a sword today, or a stick? Now some have been nationally publicized, like Abdulazeez in Tennessee over the marine recruiting station shootings, but most are more locally reported. These numbers seem way out of whack. And it's not just minorities being singled out. There's plenty of whites and blacks and some Hispanics. It seems to be non biased.
       But why so many? Reading some of the reports, can't help but bring you to the point that some cops must be trigger happy and more importantly, far too many unstable people are in possession of firearms. The police seem not to have the respect due them and maybe with cause in too many cases.
I'm not convinced that a lot of police have the proper respect due the citizens they're charged with serving. Maybe I'm way off base. but I don't think so.
       Now the police I know of, here in my little town seem respectful, but even them, I don't know how they would treat someone not local. What's going on in America? Is respect just a quaint custom of the past? Nice sounding but not practical or deserving? When did we change? Has politics changed us? I know that politicians are far from respectful of their opponents, but that's nothing new. Has their disrespect for one another deteriorated to the point of bitterness not previously seen? Historians say no.
       No, I think that politicians have resorted to lying about their opponents so publicly because of 24/7 news cycles that they feel the need to one up their own comments. As for disrespect, I think it's disrespect for the citizenry that's the cause. And the support for "guns across America", that's the root cause.

What Minimum Wage?

       There's been so much talk about raising the minimum wage to so many different amounts that it's hard to keep score. Then there are the arguments for and against those raises. It'll stifle business growth. People need to be paid a living wage. Most minimum wage earners are teens living at home. Most minimum wage earners are single parent adults.
       I'll bet you can find counter claims for every argument put forward. But is doubling the current rate going a bit too far? Maybe so, maybe not. Let's remember just how long it's been since it was last raised. I've got a suggestion that might solve two problems at the same time.
       Why not tie the federal minimum wage to the Congressional wage increases. Members of the United States Congress receive increases automatically, they do not vote on them. That was a semi-good idea. They can't vote themselves a raise. But if they can't even vote themselves a raise, why should they be able to vote for or against raises for the bottom rung of workers in America. Every time there's a raise for your Senator or Congressional Representative, an equal percentage raise in the minimum wage would take place as well.
       That would eliminate all the fuss over why poor people should get raises. Or it might raise a flag on how much our representation in Congress is getting for so little they do for us. Now I don't mean to suggest that these fine legislators aren't worth all they make, or even that they should make more. But if they're worth more, shouldn't the people who serve them in stores and eateries and everywhere else, be worth more as well? The same should hold true for states. A raise for one is good for all.
       Maybe then we could get on with even more pressing issues for our Congress to work on. I know it would be another stake in the heart for our legislators to lose control over yet another facet of power, but the need to streamline our government is important too.

Who's Protecting Your Savings?

       Glass-Stiegel vs. Dodd-Frank. What's the big deal? The big deal is that we wouldn't have needed the one if we'd left the other alone. At or near the end of the Great Depression, the Glass-Stiegel laws were put in place to protect our economy from big banks who weren't interested in anything but bigger and bigger returns on the buck.
       But over the next six decades the banking industry and Wall Street convinced Congress that they had learned the hard lessons and were fully capable of controlling their businesses without big brother looking over their shoulders. So the farmer unlocked the hen house and put the fox in charge of  protecting his chickens.
       Then something unexpected happened. The farmer was forced into the feather business. Now five years ago, the Dodd-Frank bill was passed to pick up the pieces of the Glass Stiegel act that Wall Street and the Banking industry convinced our Congress to replace. Not a perfect answer to the problems brought on by the Great Recession but at least a start.
       So here are the questions; How long will they remain in effect before the financial markets convince Congress they're adult enough to look after their own housekeeping and what will the next financial meltdown cost us? You can be fairly certain that when the time comes both the financial markets and Congress will assure us that we're fully protected.
       The final set of questions are; what will the next bill do to protect us and how long will it remain in effect? You're probably familiar with the old adage that making the same mistake over and over won't change the outcome, right? But which outcome? The one where we fix the problem or the one where we allow the fix to be repealed?

The Lone Knifeman.

       A lone gunman has killed four Marines and wounded several people in Chattanooga, Tennessee. It's getting so a week doesn't go by without some gunman killing a bunch of people. At least that's the impression we get from the news media. Here a gunman, there a gunman, everywhere a gun-gun-gunman. to here it you'd think the only people who are killing people are other people with guns. Not so. There are many ways to kill people.
       Look, I realize it's easier to kill somebody with a gun than almost any other way, but you have to understand, the gun lobby doesn't like to hear it stated that way. It makes it sound like the only effective way to kill people is with a gun. And that flies in the face of the NRA's "guns don't kill people" mantra.
       Why is it you never hear a headline that shouts out "A lone knifeman has killed 27 people and is under arrest after having received a knife wound?" Of course, knives don't kill people either. But that's an argument for another post. The important point to keep in mind is that guns have yet to be robotized to where they can operate independently from the people pointing them. On the other hand, no other weapon can work independently from it's operator either.
       The fact that guns seem to be the weapon of choice is all to often overlooked. Could bows and arrows replace guns as number one on the HIT parade? Ehhh, still not as convenient as a gun. No, the best weapon to choose, if you want to get the job done, is the gun.
       The point I'm working toward is that since we can't eliminate the individual in advance of a killing spree, the next best thing would be to eliminate the weapon he or she is likely to choose. And therein lies the problem. If there's one thing we've come to understand, it's that no gun can ever be banned because the NRA won't stand for it. We could eliminate the entire human population, but not one single gun.

The Great Intellectual Fight.

       They want you to know that they do not support smoking. They support the protection of  intellectual property. The "they" being the United States Chamber of Commerce. The U.S.  Chamber should not be confused with your local Chamber of Commerce. The National Chamber supports American companies who do, or want to do, business worldwide.
       Well it seems the National Chamber has taken offense at the New York times article of July 1 that states the American Chamber travels the world fighting curbs on smoking. Now do you see the difference? They're not in favor of smoking, they're just not comfortable with any country fighting against it's citizens smoking habits. the AC of C just wants tobacco manufacturers to be left alone.
       See, if the Tobacco people are left alone, you can count on them doing the right thing. In which case the American Chamber will stop picking on those governments who want their people to stop smoking. Don't you see? The Chamber wants everyone to stop smoking, they just don't want any government to say so. It's all about intellectual property, not about smoking.
       Let me try to explain. If the intellectual property of a tobacco company convinces you to smoke, that's one thing, because the tobacco company and the Chamber both want you to stop smoking, but if the government suggests you shouldn't smoke, that's interfering with those intellectual property rights. And that's what the Chamber is all upset about.
       Maybe the U.S. Chamber of Commerce should be less concerned about intellectual property rights if those rights are detrimental to people's lives, and a little more interested in people's lives. Tobacco is one of those industries that, if successful, will eliminate all of it's customers. Just remember, the Chamber is concerned with business, not people.

Can You Feel It Too?

       There have been several items of consternation lately that I've noticed, in particular. The National Chamber of Commerce has been leading a fight internationally against any form of tobacco smoking legislation. Our Supreme court has voted that it's more important to allow coal-fired energy generation plants to kill people with mercury and a number of other carcinogenic and toxic pollutants than to make them pay to eliminate those pollutants.
       And these as well as others are made possible by a force in Washington that is primarily located on 'K' Street. That is to say, lobbyists. Did you know that there are presently over 400 former legislators who are now lobbying Congress? And that doesn't count family members of former and present legislators, or their former staffers. Did you know that former legislators still have certain privileges like access to Congressional cafeterias, etc, that allow them to mingle at will?
       They claim that in the past you earned a lot of money then ran for office. Now you run for office to make a lot of money afterward. A year or two ago I listened to a Congressman ask "Do you really think I would sell my integrity and position in Congress for money?" Ya know, I really do think most of them are actually doing just that. The influence that 'Dark Money' has on our government is like a stranglehold.
       It wouldn't be such a horrible thing, this influence peddling, if everybody had an equal opportunity to influence our representatives. The problem is that influence is only available to the very rich. If you can't afford to buy government, you have no business complaining about it. Heck, even the vote is purchased. It's done by buying a media outlet and converting it's news reporting into a partisan rumor mill selling propaganda.
       All that rumbling being heard around the country is not mini-earthquakes, it's our founding fathers rolling over in their graves.

Dark Money.

       I'm just reading an editorial in the New York times about so called 'Dark Money' in politics. Remember the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United? Well in their decision the Court expressed their hope that "public disclosure would deter corruption." A noble concept, but hardly a deterrent. Especially when current members of Congress depend so heavily on that funding.
       An amendment to a spending bill will block the Securities and Exchange Commission from requiring disclosure, another amendment would stop the IRS from reining in the "Social welfare" organizations by requiring disclosure. In the Senate, between 2010 and 2014, $226 million in dark money was raised, most of it going to majority Republicans. $226 million. Even if it was evenly divided among the 100 Senators, that's $2,260,000 per Senator. And nobody, except the Senators, know who gave that money. Wouldn't you like to know who owns your Senators?
       Now, I understand the desire of these politicians to keep those donations quiet. After all, nobody in political life wants the public to think they're beholding to anyone other than the voters, but if you get well over $2 million from somebody, don't you think you'd want to help that donor any way you can? And if nobody else knows about it, doesn't that make it easier to just vote in favor of that donor? I mean, nobody can complain. Nobody knows you're doing it.
       The thing is, the only ones who can easily change the way things are done is Congress and Congress is where all this Dark Money is going, to both parties, but mostly to the majority party. And since everybody in Congress is getting a piece of the pie, who's gonna vote to change that? There are only two other choices that I can see. A constitutional amendment, which would be extremely difficult, or the Supreme court would have to hand down a decision requiring it. Of course that would require that a case be brought against it.
      

It's Campaign Time Again

       Well! Finally! At last the time has come. We're blessed with the decision to run for the presidency by THE Donald Trump. I don't know if you realize what that truly means. What it means is that there is an opening for me to take another stab at running. My Super Pack, P.I.M.P is still intact. And yes, that's right, it still means Politician In My Pocket. I found my platform in the cellar and it's still usable, with a little work and replacing one plank that has some water damage.
       My slogan will be "I'm just as good, or bad, as the rest of them." The main difference between me and the rest of the presidential hopefuls is that I'm new at this and therefore don't know about all the dirty tricks and lies like the others. It's not so much that they lie a lot, and some are so rich they won't need to embezzle anything, not that I'm rich, but I just can't figure out how to do it and get away with it. I'd be too scared to try.
       Many contenders feel that if something is good for them, it must be good for everybody. But when I say that, it's probably true, unlike my esteemed opponents. Now as to building walls and getting Mexico to pay for them, well I just don't know. If they're gonna pay for it, they might just demand to design them too. Could be too many doorways.
And speaking of walls, shouldn't we build a wall around Texas? I'll bet the rest of the country would gladly donate the necessary funds to built it even higher. Maybe while we're at it, we could start spending money based on where it comes from. Like most mid-western and southern states contribute less, they should get less. I think that's my missing plank. Remember, a vote for me is a vote for me.

That's Right. $10,860,000.

       What if a wealthy couple were tragically killed in an automobile accident? If their estate totals $10,860,001, their heirs will have to pay a 40% estate tax on just $1, for a total tax of $0.40. That's because the current tax excludes $10,860,000 for couples or $5,430,000 for single persons. Now isn't that a horribly punishing state of affairs? Ya know what's an even more punishing affair? Some members of Congress are trying to eliminate the estate tax altogether.
       What's so unfair about the estate tax that some folks think it must be eliminated? The claim seems to be that the taxes on this income have already been paid, by the ones who died. To tax it again would be double taxation. Come on, the tax wasn't paid by the heirs, but by their parents. And in many cases, if you checked their tax returns, they probably didn't pay anything at all on that money. And anyway, everybody pays tax on their income and then pays taxes on that money again in sales taxes and a whole host of other taxes.
       The thing is, America needs more funding, not less. And with the degree of economic inequality in this country, why would we feel the need to create more inequality? Nobody really believes in the trickle down theory anymore, well, except for a few politicians and the very wealthy one tenth of one percent of the population.
        If anything. we need to increase the tax by lowering the amount from $10,860,000 to maybe $5,000,000. and increase the tax from 40% to 50%. It's time for these one percenters to start paying some taxes. After WWII the tax on the highest earners was upwards of 90%. Nobody cried in their beer of manhattans and moved out. They just worked harder.

Ahhh! The Poor Gas Industry.

       Did you happen to see it this morning, did ya? I'm talking about the gas industry's commercial about how unfair it would be to tax, no I should say, increase taxes on the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania. It will drive the industry out of the state, lose thousands of jobs for Pennsylvania and increase the costs of natural gas for everyone. I'm surprised it didn't mention the only result of real consequence, that the sky would fall.
       Did you know that Pennsylvania is the only state in America, that has commercially viable and recoverable natural gas, that does not have a tax on the amount of gas recovered. We do have a flat tax per well, but that means that they can recover millions of dollars from that well but only the $10,000 one time tax on the well. So if the company makes $10,000,000 off that well, they will have paid one tenth of one percent in taxes on it.
       So now the question is; what about those lost jobs they mention? Here's the deal, they already paid for the leasing of the land, they already have the wells and pipelines, they already have the drilling rigs here, the trained workers here. Do you really think they're gonna just pick up and go elsewhere?
       Where could they go? If every other state already has those same taxes, why would they abandon what they already have? Just to spite us? Come on. These people are in business to make money, not spite people. The gas is in the ground, They can't take it away unless they pay the tax.
       Now I don't begrudge the gas industry of trying to stop the state government from taxing them. Heck, who wouldn't like to stop the government from taxing them? I'd love to be able to put an ad on TV to get the state to end the sales tax and wage tax and property taxes and not have an income tax, but how do you do that and have roads and police protection and schools and everything else we depend on? So it's okay for them to complain, just don't let them convince you.

Middle East Strategy.

Well, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter almost blew it when he found fault with the Iraqi army for it's lack of courage and competence in the defense of yet another city giving it up to ISIS without a fight. Vice President Joe Biden had to quickly assure Iraqi's leadership our government didn't mean it and to prove it, we had to send them some anti-tank weaponry. Actually it was a close call. Our overall strategy for the whole of the Middle East was nearly laid bare for all to see. That's true. Our strategy, worked out over time and with the aid of our allies as well as Russia, was nearly shown to ISIS and every other faction and country in the Middle East. In a newly leaked secret document made available to this reporter, the whole plan for the future of the world was nearly compromised. The plan, as nearly as I'm able to report to you is that we are providing enough weapons directly to countries like Egypt, Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and at least ten others and indirectly to groups like ISIS, while Russia is providing weapons to Syria, well maybe not anymore, ummm, maybe not, and Iran, ummm, maybe not anymore, for the express purpose of overloading the entire Middle East with weapons so as to capsize it entirely and allowing it to sink into the Indian ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. So you can see how dangerous this lapse of security nearly was. Why, if the Middle Eastern countries and groups had found it out they could easily have dumped all their weapons in the ocean thereby filling those bodies of water to overflowing, ummm, maybe not. Greater care must be taken in the future to assure that no such misspeak will happen again. Perhaps Congress could undertake to make sure of such security, ummm, maybe not.

EX-IM.

       Have you ever heard of the Ex-Im bank? It's full name is the Export-Import Bank of the United States. It's job is to help American companies who export products by either making loans to the companies or guaranteeing loans for the companies. But they only do it if or when private banking won't do it. It's a way of helping companies compete internationally.
       Well anyway, there has been an effort for some time to end the bank by not reauthorizing it. Right now, the leadership in both houses are against the Ex-Im bank. They don't think it's right for the government to be involved in any banking of this type. Now they could defund the bank, well except that the bank actually makes a profit for the government so that it really doesn't require any funding from the government. It adds funding to the government.
       Meanwhile dozens of other countries have the same or similar entities that do the same thing, help their country's businesses win contacts for exporting their products. So if America ends it's help, all those other countries will leap at the chance to beat out American companies. Especially China. What's a Congress to do? Now there's a question for ya.
       Congressional leadership still adheres to the idea that government can't create jobs. Well, even if you believe that, by eliminating the Ex-Im Bank, government will almost assuredly lose jobs. That and of course it will absolutely lose the income of the Ex-Im Bank.

Yes, We've Learned Our Lesson.

       Do you remember way back when Wall Street Banks helped provide Americans with the deepest Recession since the Great Depression? Remember how after an extended period a number of banks were determined to be too big to fail? And do you remember when these TBTF banks were fined and made to promise not to do anything like that again? And do you remember how those banks assured us they had learned their lesson and shouldn't be forced to obey stricter rules?
       Well they found a way to stick it to us again. The IMF, International Monetary Fund, has found these TBTF Wall Street banks involved in manipulating the values of a number of national currencies in trades. Now the average person says, "so what?" And to the average person, it just doesn't sound like it makes a difference in their day to day experience.
       But higher up the food chain it makes a difference to multi-national corporations and traders, even retirement funds. These Wall Street racketeers are skimming off the top. Think they're not involved in criminal activities? Hey, most of them have pleaded guilty to criminal activities charges and are paying fines almost as much as the profits they made on these deals last year alone.
       Regulators have now included more strict rules, but the banks have negotiated some loopholes in the new regulations to allow them to continue to, to do what? My guess is to allow them to continue business as usual. Another point of interest is that nobody has been charged with any crimes. Do you find that interesting? I find it a business as usual.
       Can you imagine if you pulled a stunt like that? The IRS, the Trade Commission, IMF and about a dozen other agencies would scoop you up and haul you off to Gitmo or some similar place. There you would remain while your family would be stripped of every dollar you ever earned, all you furniture, home, car, even your old shoes you use for gardening. Then you'd be released in some place like Bangladesh never to be heard from again until your grandson tries on a new pair of sneaks to find a message from you that says "Help, I'm being held against my will."

The Flat Tax

       Well, they're back to talking about the FLAT TAX idea. It's nothing new, it's been around for several decades, maybe longer. The idea is that everybody is taxed at the same rate, rich and poor. Sounds fair, right? Like heck it is. If it was fair, would you really hear the rich pushing the idea so hard? The same percentage of your paycheck for everybody isn't so fine for the poor, or even the middle class. It's a stinker of the first magnitude.
        Let's use 10% tax for the sake of argument. Suppose you make $25,000 a year. Your tax bill would be $2500. That's a pretty good hit. You may have to put off replacing that old clunker you're driving. Now suppose you make $250,000. You may have to cancel plans for that skiing trip to the Alps, but you'll still have $225,000 to live on. Now what if you make $2,500,000 a year. Your tax bill would be $250,000. What would you have to give up? Not much, not at two and a half million a year.
       Ya see? Ya understand why it's not really a fair system of taxation? Oh for the rich, it's a great solution.  They get to save tons of money that they could then spend on, on what? Job creation? Are you kidding? The only jobs that would create is more pool-boys and lawn care workers. And with all the money rich corporations and wealthy people spend on politicians, you have to know there'd be some big loopholes so they could keep ever more of their money.
       Simplifying the tax code is definitely a must-do operation. There are far too many loopholes that allow far too many folks to not have to pay their fair share. And when I say fair share, I mean that Americans should pay according to their ability to pay. To do otherwise only broadens the gulf between the rich and the poor. Look, we need people to be rich. The more the merrier. What we don't need is more poor.

Professional Politicians Or Citizen Leaders?

       Gail Collins' op-ed in the NY Times today got me to thinking about something I've long thought to be our best cure for government, Term Limits. Our forefathers liked citizen leaders in government rather than professional politicians, but, as Gail pointed out, they all picked professional leaders. Still, they did all limit, or were limited, to short terms.
       I still believe that term limits are one of our best answers. There is the claim that Congressmen with limited terms would not be able to have clear understandings of complex issues. That's true, but then Congressmen with lengthy tours in office don't now understand most of the complex issues before them any more than many, many intelligent people in society. For most of the legislation that comes before our legislators, the staffs of these Congressmen are the ones who pour over it and then explain, briefly, to the Congressmen.
       So I guess, if you can follow the explanations of your staff and make a clear guess as to how to vote, almost anyone could do as well as our current crop. Perhaps even better since they wouldn't be forced to spend so much time trying to please their donor bases. And if you can't understand, sufficiently that staffer, fire him or her and hire a better one.
       The point I always come back to, is the time lost to courting donors and the obligations, real or imagined, to those same donors in order to insure reelection. That lost time would go far in allowing a better understanding of legislation, and without the need to please donors, a more fair and balanced decision might be forthcoming.
       So, while a professional politician may not be best for our country and government, the experience gained in lower level leadership positions in all facets of government will provide the needed insight to smoothly run our government. At least as well as is now the case.