TPP What?

       Here's something I've heard mentioned many times, but never really knew what was good or bad about the Trans Pacific Partnership, or TPP, trade pact. But it turns out that it's been 'fast tracked'. By that I mean Congress would have to hold up or down votes on it. And that might be a good idea except for the fact that nobody outside the negotiators will know what's in this trade pact bill.
       What's even more surprising is that the President and a majority of Republicans and even quite a few Democrats are favoring the bill. But as I said in the previous paragraph, they don't know what the bill says, what we have to give away to get in on the action. Some small tidbits have leaked out and the odor isn't so great. Like for instance, if a foreign company has a beef with America for some law, they can sue America in an international tribunal made up of corporate lawyers. And if the company wins their case, it can't be appealed in American courts, or anywhere else for that matter. But America, and the taxpayers, will have to pay the settlement.
       This is just an example of the foul smell coming from this trade pact bill. Who knows what else is in the bill? That doesn't seem to bother President Obama or the Republican and Democratic members of Congress. Ya know what this sounds like? It sounds like the multi-national corporations wrote this bill. Or at least their lobbyists did.
       That's the problem with our government. Lobbyists have too much power. Lobbyists actually write a good portion of our laws for the Congressmen and Senators. And of course our legislators love to have them do it. Why? Because it gives them more time to raise funds from the lobbyists and corporations for campaigns and besides they have no idea what should be in such laws. When it comes to what should be in the language of these laws, you can bet the lobbyists do know. And it will all favor the corporations they represent. As for you and me? Wellll. Lets just say that you and me don't donate enough money, to campaigns, to matter. And you can thank our Supreme Court's decision in the Citizen's United case for that.

Boehner's Faux Pas. Or Is It Fox Paw?

       I've been thinking about the invitation to Benjamin Netanyahu to come and speak to our Congress. Especially right before Israel's elections. Hey, he could very possibly lose this election. Which has to be the main reason for coming over here to speak to our Congress. Well, that and the fact that he would prefer us to go to war with Iran instead of working out some sort of treaty that would allow us to keep closer track of them and require them to get rid of their ability to build atomic bombs.
       I suppose we should look at his history on middle-east war. In 2002 he suggested that war with Iraq would create "enormous positive reverberations" in the middle-east. Well, it did create enormous reverberations in the middle-east, but I'm not sure you could call them positive. He seems to be convinced that having America go to war with another middle-eastern country would be a good thing and preferable to a peaceful "diplomatic solution."
       Now in spite of Mr. Netanyahu's aversion to negotiations and diplomatic solutions, perhaps the answer to his appearance in our Congress would be, not to dis-invite him, but to invite his main opponent in the upcoming elections to also come over here and to speak to our Congress. After all, if we're to have a foreign country tell us what to do, then shouldn't we make every effort to be certain the directions we take are those of the foreign country as a whole?
        Is Mr. Netanyahu's position the majority opinion in Israel? In spite of Speaker John Boehner's assurances, we won't know the answer to that question until a couple of weeks after he speaks. Another question arising from this fiasco is, will Speaker Boehner be invited to speak to the Knesset? Will he be able to assure them our government will do as it is told by Israel? Well, let's invite the other candidate to speak. Then we'll have an answer, or not.

Well Trickle My Funnybone.

       Well, here's good news. According to an article in the Daily Kos, February 11, yesterday, the 1 percenters made their last payment to Social Security for the year. That's right. By Feb. 11, 2015, they've paid in their full share to Social Security. Wantta know why? Because there's a cap of  $118,500 in taxable income. So if you make more than that amount, you don't have to pay anything on the excess amount.
       Now, of the 1% of the population who make more than $118,500 per year, what percentage of those 1 percenters fit into that category? Trick question. The answer is 100 % of the 1%ers fit into that category. And when I say 100% make more than that capped amount, I'm talking way more than that capped amount.
       So why did this subject come up? Because House and Senate Majority party leaders haves explained that the Social Security Disability Insurance Trust Fund is running out of money. But instead of Social Security transferring funds, as they've done 11 times in the past, the current wish is for these folks who receive on average $1200 a month to pay for food, rent and the like, they should go hungry, because after all, the 1%er certainly shouldn't have to pay taxes on ALL their income, right?
       After all, what's the point of being rich if you can't keep all your income? Ya know, if you start taxing the rich, they'll never be able to create jobs anymore. Just like back in the 50s and 60s and 70s when they were taxed as high as 90%. Back then they didn't create any jobs for decades. Oh. No. Wait. They created tens millions of jobs back then. But how in the world could they have created jobs if they were being taxed more that the middle class instead of less?
       IT MUST HAVE BEEN A MIRACLE! There's now other explanation. Why after all, didn't President Reagan explain that in order for the world to be a better place, we had to give to the rich so it could trickle down to the rest of us? And didn't it trickle down to us? Well, something did trickle down to us. But it wasn't what we'd hoped for, expected, been promised.

Rich Or Poor?

       WOW! There's a really important Op-ed in the New York Times this morning by Mark Bittman titled 'What is the Purpose of Society'. the question is; does society need to work for business and industry or for people? Which is more important, a good business climate or things like universal rights to food, clothing, shelter and healthcare?
       Now some would say the first is what counts most and the second is an example of Socialism. But our country was at it's best in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s when the middle class was at it's strongest. That's when the rich were taxed as much as 90% compared to now when they're taxed much, much lower. We also saw Medicare come into being. Strong financial controls were put in place like the Glass Stiegel act which protected our economy for so many years.
       During that [socialistic time] our economy grew dramatically, and the rich became richer, but the middle class grew much larger and the poor got the help they needed. The GI bill educated millions, lifting them into that middle class.
       In current times where taxes are lower for all, by a wide margin, we constantly hear about paving the way for corporations to be enriched in order to create jobs. But the rich have grown unbelievably richer and the middle class is fast disappearing. And the protection of the financial industries are all but gone, which caused the Great Recession. And it could happen again because of the puny protections that exist at the behest of Corporate America.
       So what's the point of this rant? I think, as does Mr. Bittman, that we, society, need (s) to decide what the end goal should be for America. Should society serve Corporate interests or the interests of the people. If it's Corporate interests, then we're on the road now. If it's the people that society should serve, then we need to make changes. Sooner is better than later.

My First Ever Retraction.

       I need to point out a mistake and retract it. In the post prior to today's about Ground Hog Day, I mistakenly stated that Punxsutawney Phil bit a speaker. Actually it was another lesser known woodchuck that did the biting. Please excuse my blunder. After all, all groundhogs and woodchucks look alike, don't they?
Snowbeard

Setting New Records.

       Ya gotta give em credit. They never give up. Even after 56 times of voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act, more affectionately called Obamacare, they're still at it. Now, even though the Republican party holds majorities in both houses of Congress, nobody in Congress actually believes this can become law. That's because even if both houses passed the bill, there's no way that Obama would refuse to veto it. At least with any language the President and Congress would accept.
       So why do they continue to try? Because it's all about playing to an extreme base. They're looking for those votes. They continue to vote to dismantle Obamacare even if it can't become law, they've provided hope where there is no hope. It doesn't matter if they're wasting the government's time, it doesn't matter if they don't believe in the bill, what they believe in is an ultra conservative minority of votes to get them reelected over and over again. They vote for themselves.
       That's the part that I find insulting. They don't mind making fools out of all Americans so long as it helps gets themselves reelected. Is that the kind of leadership we need in this country? Do anything, even if it hurts America or Americans? It would be different if these yahoos were voting to do something that might get them defeated in the next election, but I can assure you that simply won't happen. Nobody's gonna take a chance that might cost them their job.
       But what's so special about being a Congressman or Senator? Do these folks smell sweeter or stand taller once elected? In their minds they do. After all, to be one of these hallowed orators is to obtain unimaginable power to make and spend money. By that I mean, make money for themselves and to spend other peoples money. It's hard to respect con men.

It's That Time Of Year.

       Hey, did ya hear? Punxsutawney Phil claimed there would be six more weeks of winter. Six weeks of winter left? On the one hand I'm sick of it, but on the other hand, six weeks takes us until mid March. I'd be satisfied if warm weather showed up in the middle of March, wouldn't you? According to Live Science website, he's usually correct somewhere in America, but not often in Punxsutawney, Pa.
       The ceremonies held each February one, are somewhat silly, but also somewhat fun. This year was especially interesting when the visiting dignitary was speaking. The handler held old Phil up to his ear, presumably to whisper the prognostication. The woodchuck leaned forward and bit the speaker. Everybody jumped and the speaker seemed to be finished with his speech for a moment or four. He rubbed his ear (cheek) while old Phil was removed from view.
       I suppose even a woodchuck gets irritable at times. Perhaps he felt the man had said enough. He was a mayor of some municipality in Pennsylvania, which means he's a rather minor politician and as such I can see why Phil may have gotten tired of hearing yet another vote seeker. Too bad it wasn't a more prominent politician. Now I wouldn't want anyone to be harmed by a rodent, not even a nationally prominent politician, but a wake up call for these folks is certainly called for.
       Ya know, politicians are a bit like preachers. Speeches, like sermons come in two distinct forms. There are the wake-up type that have real and important messages, well delivered. Then there's the lullaby type. Of course a good lullaby is welcome when you need a short snooze. Like old Phil, politicians are only right a small portion of the time. Therefore we should count on accuracy from either, only on rare occasions.

Budget Time?

       Well, President Obama has done it now. He's really in for it. He's gone and made Corporate America mad at him. He's no longer their friend. No, wait, he never was their friend. No that's not quite true. He's been Corporate America's friend for a long time, but they haven't been his friend. Corporate America has disliked him in spite of the fact that they've done quite well, financially, for the past few years because of his efforts, but they haven't been appreciative, according to an article in the National Memo today.
       Okay, whatever, but why is he now less of a friend to C.A.? Well, because of his proposed new budget. See, the President has proposed that we tax all those corporate assets (money) being held offshore. Now, the reason corporations are holding all that money, in the trillions, outside of America is to avoid our taxes. But now Obama is suggesting we tax it anyway. You can imagine how well that idea has been greeted in boardrooms across America.
       Not only that, but he's suggesting we stop allowing hedge fund managers from getting special lower tax rates because, well because they're hedge fund managers.  And no more loophole for corporate jets, to name just a few. So what's he plan to do with this new income? Infrastructure, free community college for 9 million and a host of additional needs. Even military funding increases.
       So what does the Congress think of the plan? Well, of course they haven't read it yet, but that hasn't stopped them from claiming it's DOA. Actually there's a lot to it that has been proposed by conservatives in the past, and they also agree that infrastructure and the military need more attention. They just don't want the rich to pay for it. They'd prefer that the poor pay for it. Hmm, that and tax cuts for the rich.
       The whole idea of the President putting this budget out there just might be to set a baseline for negotiating instead of letting Congress try to put a starter budget together. That could take years. Because, although the House might do one quickly, the Senate probably still won't agree.