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.

The FEC, Designed To Fail.

       The F.E.C., the Federal Election Commission, was set up 40 years ago after the corruption of Watergate, by Congress. The FEC is made up of three Democrats and three Republicans. Can you guess how functional the FEC is? It's even more dysfunctional than Congress itself, and apparently it was designed to be that way, according to a story in the New York Times today.
       Democrats on the Commission see numerous violations of campaign law, but Republicans see no problem. They say that no action is better than overly aggressive steps that could chill political speech. There is complete deadlock of this Commission set up to see that we get fair and honest elections. But in 2016, because the FEC is unable to take any action, candidates from both parties seem to think they can do as they please with virtually no danger of being found guilty of any infraction. Ya know what? They're right.
       This is mostly caused by the Citizen's United decision of the Supreme Court. We can expect to see ten billion dollars spent on the 2016 campaign. When people like the Koch brothers intend to spend $889 million on the campaign, just how would you have any say? And of course the Koch's aren't alone, deep pockets from both parties will be spending, not to determine the outcome so much as to buy influence from Congress and the Presidency.
       If you were running for Congress and somebody gave you a suitcase full of money, or more likely a set of suitcases, after the election, wouldn't you feel obliged to listen favorably to that friend's wishes? Of course you would. After all, you'll be wanting another set of suitcases for the next campaign. You might even use the emptied suitcases to pack clothes for one junket or another, right?
       So if Congress intended for the FEC to be nonfunctioning, then doesn't it stand to reason that Congress wanted a wide open, shoot-um-up, wild west election process? A no holds barred, fight to the finish culture, right? But how does that help the citizenry? I can see how it helps politicians and deep pocketed donors, but how does it help you or me? I hope you don't think you'll get better representation.