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.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Friday, October 23, 2015
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?
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?
Sunday, October 11, 2015
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.
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.
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.
Friday, October 9, 2015
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?
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?
Monday, October 5, 2015
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.
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.
Saturday, October 3, 2015
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.
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.
Thursday, October 1, 2015
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)