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.