A Case For The Check.

       On the anniversary of the Newtown massacre it's time to remember the background check that doesn't happen. The undone background check that allows any criminal or mentally incompetent to step up to the vendor and put his money down and buy any conceivable firearm with any size or capacity magazine and any amount of ammunition and immediately walk out with that weapon and go anywhere and either resell it to another criminal or use it himself to kill as many people he wants in as short a time as possible.
       Now this criminal can't go into any gun shop or store that sells guns and purchase those guns without a background check. Anyone who goes into that gun shop or store is in no way harmed unless he is a criminal. No honest hunter, sport shooter or gun owner has ever been harmed by a background check.
       It has been said that criminals will get guns, no mater whether or not there are background checks. And at least in the short term, that is true. But as guns become less and less available, those incidents of gun violence will inevitably become fewer and fewer through attrition. And still no legitimate buyer will be harmed by a background check.
       So why is it that the NRA is so vehemently oppose background checks? Background checks that they used to support? The answer is simply that the support the NRA receives from  gun manufacturers has increased to the point that the vast majority of all their income comes from those manufacturers. And, the more guns manufacturers sell, the more their profits soar. These gun manufacturers don't want anything to slow those sales. Even the fear they suggest increases their sales.
       So I guess, if you are a strong supporter of gun manufacturers and don't care about people, then continue to oppose any kind of gun legislation. But if you support hunters or sport shooters or gun owners and you do care about people, then you need to support at least background checks.

Scandals, Blanks And Lips.

       Have you heard of this California Representative Darrill Issa? He's the chair of the House committee investigating the three, so called, sandals that would bring down the Obama Administration. First there was the Benghazi tragedy, which Issa and all other conservatives accused Obama, Hillary Clinton and every other progressive in the world of wrongdoing. Turns out that the problem was mainly one of CIA talking points and unfortunate under funding.
       Then there was the IRS scandal in which a section of the IRS was targeting certain conservative groups when they applied for tax exempt status. Issa again rode to the rescue by accusing Obama's staffer-in-charge of news conferences, of being a "paid liar" and for which Issa needs to apologize. It turns out that it wasn't the White House at all, but a conservative Republican manager of that office who started the targeting. It also turns out that the groups targeted actually were involved in activities that made them ineligible for tax exempt status.
       Finally there was the case of the whistle blower or did he just leak NSA secrets that endangered peoples lives, and the FOX News reporter who should have known better. But that has turned out to be a non-starter against President Obama as well.
       The thing is, all of these scandals were not scandals at all. Well, except for the scandalous fact that they took attention away from the real problems facing Americans. And Mr Issa? He's still the man who shoots from the lip. What are the chances that he'll ever apologize to anyone for his mouth and what comes from it?
There are reasons for Congress to do in-depth investigations. But there are never reasons for shooting from the lip. At least not until you have something besides blanks in your brain.

Why Are We At Cyber War?

       Well President Obama and Chinese leader Xi Jinping are done with two days of "informal" talks, says the New York Times today. They couldn't agree on cyberespionage though. Are you surprised at that? We know China is already waging cyberwar on us and we're waging counterespionage on them. Now you may ask why it is that they're waging this all out war on us and we're not waging it right back on them.
       You may ask, but that doesn't mean the government is gonna tell you the answer. Here's what I think. I think that they're cyber attacking us to get our secret information, but there's no point in cyber attacking them because the only information we'd get is our own information right back. See, China hasn't figured out how to do very much except steal secret info about almost everything and then hire interpreters so they can print it out in Chinese or Mandarin.
        So why do you suppose China's Xi Jinping isn't willing to talk about ending cyber-attacks? I'll tell ya why. It's because China has everything to gain from cyber-attacks and nothing to lose. It simply isn't in their best interests to give up such a lucrative enterprise. Now if there was a reason why cyber-attacks were harmful to China, then Xi Jinping would be banging on our door demanding an end to such dreadful goings ons. They wouldn't be able to wait. They'd be accusing us of stalling.
       The real question is why haven't we come up with a way to make cyber-attacks a bad deal for China? If China got stung by a bee every time it put its fingers in the cookie jar, China would soon enough stop putting its fingers in our cookie jar. Then our cookies would be safe. And our secrets too.
       I don't think the secret to stopping them is to keep whining about it, Our best approach is to find a way to sting them every time they try to get our secrets. Something that makes their efforts backfire. They sure wouldn't like it, but it's better to have them unhappy than to have us unhappy. At least it would be better for us. And after all, isn't that what the whining is all about?
     

Government Subsidies Rarely Work Well.

       I suppose you've heard of the Farm Subsidy bill. Congress is working on passage of the bill that's good for five years and totals just short of $1 trillion dollars. That's twelve zeros after that 1. One of the provisions in the bill is for more efficient irrigation equipment to conserve water which is in short supply and has been since before 1966 when it was first included in the Farm Bill.
       So it's free money for farmers to buy better watering equipment. And it works. It must work, because farmers are now planting more acreage and planting more water demanding plants. So the bill that provided the means to conserve water through better, more efficient equipment has caused farmers to use more water than ever before on more land than ever before.
       Well Senator Udall of New Mexico and Rep Blumenauer of Oregon tried to put some changes through the bill, but so far the Senate has passed the bill without those changes and prospects don't look good for the House version either. Which means things will not change. More land will be planted, thirstier plants will be grown and the water tables in the Midwest will fall lower.
       In case you don't know it, for the rest of the country, we'll soon be subsidizing water pipelines to send them more water so they can grow more crops on more land to use up more water. Our water. And knowing the way our government works, that means that you folks up in Maine will be sending your water to Arizona. Folks in Georgia will see their water head to Oregon. Let's hope there isn't a water collision somewhere in Kansas. Not that Kansas wouldn't be pleased to get the water that spills out, but their water is coming from Alaska. California will be shipping theirs in from Hawaii by way of container ships through the Suez Canal.
       Wouldn't it make better sense to help the folks back East to do a little more farming so the folks out in the Midwest can do a little less? It wouldn't take a pipeline to send some more tractors East. That way the Mid-westerners could save more water and the Easterners could keep more of its own water.

How Much Is Education Worth?

       Hey! Did you know that President Obama has suggested a 94 cents per pack of cigarettes tax to be used to fund pre-school for poor children and to make universal pre-school available for every 4 year old child in America? What's not to like about that? Okay, if you like to smoke cigarettes it would mean an increase in your cost of lighting up.
       But ya know what? That might be just the thing to convince you not to light up at all. After all, while smoking is an enjoyable habit, and I speak from experience, it can and usually does harm your health, and I'm still speaking from experience. But if you still refuse to quit, then that's your choice. It's my choice though, and I hope most folks will agree, your paying an extra 94 cents per pack so our children and grandchildren can get a better education, is a really good choice. And it's a great way to use that 94 cents.
       Now I know that some folks are against any kind of tax, even if it doesn't directly affect them. You've made your point on the subject many times. It's just that not raising taxes is one thing. But cutting education so that they can cut taxes on the rich, makes no sense. The rich just don't need more help. They already have all the help they need. They already get more tax relief than the poor or middle class combined. But when we cut education, we cut the future of our children.
       Is cutting the future of our children a good idea? Will it make future generations happier if they lose out on opportunities because of those cuts to education? Here's the difference; Rich kids won't lose out on opportunities because their children attend exclusive private schools. Upper middle class will even select schools with better funding. It's just the poor and lower middle class whose children will suffer the consequences. If that's okay with you then stop complaining about so many people being on welfare.

America, Iraq, China. What a Crew.

       If you're one of the folks that considered the Iraqi war to be a necessary evil and a potential for access to a major source of oil for America, I've got some bad news for ya. If you're one of those folks who thought we only went to war in Iraq for it's oil, it doesn't matter any more. If you thought we were saving Iraqi's from a cruel dictator, they don't care. If you're someone who thinks the Iraqis owe us for setting them free, you're gonna be disappointed in the news today. But there is an upside too, of sorts.
       An article in the New York Times this morning tells the real story. U.S. oil giant Exon Mobile is getting beaten out by China's oil companies in Iraq. The reason for this turn of events is because they're willing to pay whatever Iraq wants and under whatever terms Iraq wishes to impose. Western oil companies complain about strict terms and low profit margins, but China doesn't care.
       Why are the Chinese so accommodating while America's and other western companies are such whiners? Western companies have stockholders they need to keep happy with big profits. Chinese companies are owned by the state. All they care about is enough oil for energy to keep its industries and population happy. These Chinese companies don't need to make any profit at all. For China, whatever it takes to make Iraq happy, is okay with them.
       Iraq doesn't feel any responsibility to repay America for causing a war in which hundreds of thousands of its people died and for which instability is a nearly daily occurrence. On the other hand, the financial gains from selling to the Chinese and China's willingness to play by Iraq's rules could go a long way to easing the sectarian strife by keeping more Iraqi citizens employed. Getting a regular paycheck keeps a lot more people happy than a revolution or austerity does. America might want to consider this fact when it comes to austerity.

Fair Taxes Are Fair.

       Have you paid much attention to corporate taxes? I suppose unless you're a corporation, you haven't. The point is some corporations pay the somewhat high 39% or close to it. But other companies pay no tax at all or nearly none. That's not a fair arrangement. Not to Americans and certainly not to companies paying the full boat. But then, that's the case with a lot of our tax code.
       Now there's a newer idea that's beginning to get listeners. It's a tax on the profits of products and services on the corporation that generates those products or services in the jurisdiction of final sale. In other words, if Apple builds a new I-phone, it wouldn't matter where it was built or who holds the patent, it would only matter where it was sold. So if Apple or GE or any other company sells $9 billion and makes $5 billion in profit in America, they pay taxes on $5 billion. If they sell $20 billion to the rest of the world, the rest of the world can tax it any way they want.
       This would include any company from anywhere in the world. So if a Chinese company sells cheap electronics here or Bangladesh sells cheap shirts here, they have to pay the same taxes on profits here on those items sold here as our own companies. The advantages are several. First, there would be no reason to hold profits offshore in tax sheltered locations. By taxing the profits on all product sold here, by all companies, the tax rate could be lowered considerably. There would no longer be tax advantages for manufacturing items to be imported to America. Foreign manufacturers would no longer get a break that American companies do not.
       It may not be a perfect idea and given our Congress's track record, a simple law just might wind up being hundreds of pages long and remain just as confusing as our current tax code. But at least we'd be leveling the playing field for our own manufacturers.