The Thing With Global Warming Is!

When it comes to global warming, there seems to be some folks who agree we humans are partly to blame, we're contributors. Nearly all climatologists and scientists are in this group. Then there's a part of Americans who agree global warming is taking place but don't believe humans have anything to do with it. Then there's the last group, who don't believe global warming exists at all. This last group mostly also believe the world is about 6000 years old and therefore there has never been ice ages or a land bridge between Alaska and Asia. All of this is fact. The thing is, for the first two groups, we have a problem brewing. Now throughout our history as a nation, in fact throughout humanity's history, we have always worked to mitigate the effects of natural disasters. Until recently there was little humans could do to stop or reverse disasters. All we could do is fortify ourselves against it. Cold winters meant building warm homes. Flooding meant building on higher ground, and so on. But now we know that pollution at least exacerbates the problem. Well, guess what? We have the means to curtail most of the pollution we create. Hey good for us. Now we can cut it out and maybe save the world as we know it, right? In fact, by now we're well on our way to doing just that, right? Well actually, no. Now to be fair most of the countries in the world are working on it. But several of the largest countries aren't. And a few countries say that unless these biggest countries do it, they won't. So how come America won't? How come we're one of those biggest roadblocks? Well see, that third group? The group that doesn't believe in global warming at all? Well right now, they seem to hold the power in Washington. Even though they don't hold a majority anywhere. They've got everyone else buffaloed. Ya now, even kids know it makes sense to help stave off a bad thing if you have the ability to do so. Or at least try.

Campaigning 101.

There's an elementary school in Maryland that has some unusual rules for it's class elections. Unusual as in no promises you can't keep, no more than six posters, no give-a-ways like candy and such, you can't mention your opponent's name, no tee shirts with your name on them. You can't make statements that aren't true. Or you get kicked out of the race? You do get to give a speech over the schools P.A. system, but no buttons with your name on them. Do you notice any similarities between this school's campaigning policies and our national and state political systems? You don't? You don't suppose that's because there really aren't any, do you? I mean, hey, let's face it, what would our election campaign system be like if our politicians had to follow rule like this? Just what kind of campaign would we have, anyway? A goodie two shoes operation? Why, people might actually know what our candidates mean. There'd be no way to cheat and lie or you'd get kicked out of the campaign and your name taken off the ballet? That would seem un-American to me, how about you? Let me ask you, wouldn't you miss all those political ads if there was a limit on spending on campaigns? See, without all those campaign commercials, how would we know which lies favored our guy and which lies favored the other guy? It's the lies that make it all worth while. How would you know who to vote for, if it weren't for all the lies. No, all this truth telling may be okay for elementary age children, but for us, we well informed adults  aching for these insidious tidbits on the character flaws of our candidates, the lies are the foundation of our country's electoral system. It's a bedrock necessity. We lie about each other and we like it that way.

I'll Stimulate You, You Stimulate Me.

Remember that $787 billion Stimulus package from back in 2009? You know, the one that so many people claim was a colossal waste? Well, according to the Congressional Budget office, which is non-partisan and widely respected, the stimulus was a big success and added approximately  3.3 million jobs to the economy. And 80% of all economists agree. Only 4% of economists disagree. Now I'd say that's quite a margin. So if it was such a great fix-all, how come we still have unemployment of over 8%? Do you suppose our "Great Recession" was worse than everybody thought it was? I mean if it was just a bump in the road like we've experienced over the years every so often, that many jobs would have brought our unemployment below normal averages, right? Well, maybe our Great Recession was bigger than we thought. And maybe recessions this big don't go away quickly. Hey, maybe the Stimulus wasn't big enough after all, as many economists believe, though not all. Maybe it should have been bigger and lasted longer There's something else I've noticed. When enough people are discouraged, things almost always get worse. It's sort of like "you get what you ask for." Maybe we really do need a roads and bridges stimulus package to help bring our infrastructure up to grade and employ another million or so workers. It would increase the debt, but ya know the best way to reduce the debt? Cut waste and get more people back to work and paying taxes. Ya know what a bad way to cut debt is? Put more people on unemployment.

Talk About Government Waste.

Well the GSA, that is the General Services Administration, is back in the limelight. You remember it was the GSA that held the big Los Vegas party? Well now questionable bonuses and outlandish travel expenses have them back under scrutiny. After all, it is the taxpayers' money and Congress wants to know if they're soaking the, said taxpayers, again. Congress? The folks in Congress think people in government are spending too much money on themselves? When is Congress going to decide they're spending too much on themselves? Now, the GSA has Congress to poke into it's spending habits, to investigate and question their habits. Question is, who gets to poke into the individual spending habits of Congress? What about their travel expenses? What about all the other ways they figure out how to feather their nests? Earmarks are a whole other subject. I'm talking about junkets and prepping for positions in consulting and lobbying after they leave office. Now if a congressman leaves office or gets beat out of office, do they need to work, ever again? Maybe some do, but should they be allowed to have anything to do with government, ever again? Except maybe run for office again. Many of these folks treat Congress as though it were an apprenticeship for positions at Lobbying firms. If they want to get on the speaking circuit, that's fine, but let's not make it into a permanent gravy train. That's what their pension is for. And it's not an inconsequential pension. What with medical, dental, and who knows what else. That would be the one drawback for the public if we went to term limits. Can you imagine the tab for all those extra Congressman and Senators? If you want to talk about government waste, start with congress.

I Thought Everybody Paid School Taxes.

I was treated, today, in the local paper, with a letter to the editor that pointed out just how little people understand about economics and life in general. In this letter, the writer lamented about the high property taxes people have to pay. Why, some people have no children in  school, yet they must pay school taxes. It's so unfair. Then the writer lighted on another travesty of justice. Why not make renters pay school taxes, the writer wanted to know? Apparently it never entered the writers mind that renters do pay their share of school taxes, even if they don't have kids in school. Raise your hand if you think landlords don't calculate the property taxes into the rent they charge. But what about those folks who don't have kids and still have to pay school taxes? They pay school taxes to help pay for the schooling of the kids now. Back when they had kids, other folks without kids, helped to pay for your kids. What about those whose kids went to private schools? Why do their parents have to pay for public schools? Because educating everyone is the law and because it helps our entire economy. Because your children were privileged, doesn't excuse you, any more than renters are excused, from paying the school taxes. America needs to have all it's children educated. It was decided long ago that schools would be paid for by the communities they serve. If you want to change that, we could have the state or federal governments pay for the schools, but then your income taxes would go up. That and the state or federal governments would run the school instead of your local school board. There's always an easy answer  to every problem. It's just that the answer, generally, is not to your liking. And more often than not, isn't the solution to the problem anyway.

Why Doesn't He Pay Taxes?

When's the last time you heard somebody complain about the fact that nearly half of all Americans pay no taxes? Well it's a fact that nearly half of Americans pay no Federal Income Taxes. It's a lie that they pay no taxes. They pay payroll taxes if the work,. they pay sales taxes, excise taxes on gas and electric and heating. But that's not what folks complain about. They complain that half of Americans pay no Federal Income Tax. How come? Why is it that these folks don't pay any taxes? Ya know why? Because they don't earn enough to pay taxes. They don't earn enough to get out of poverty. So if you're mad about these folks not paying their fair share, you should be mad that they don't earn a living wage. They don't earn their fair share. How come? Because job creators earning millions per year don't pay many of their employees enough to live on, to put food on the table and pay taxes too. Now any multi-millionaire will tell you that if they paid their workers enough to qualify to pay taxes, then the job creators wouldn't be able to make multi-millions per year, or if they still did, then they couldn't compete. It comes down to a choice between the Job Fillers or the Job Creators. Since all these people still aren't paying taxes, you'd have to conclude that the Job Creators won the day. So if the Job Creators are unwilling to pay the Job Fillers a living wage, isn't that class warfare? I mean it seems to me that a Job Filler should be allowed the dignity to live their lives without wondering how they will pay for their next meal. And if that means that the Job Creators will only make nine tenths of a million per year, then so be it.

You Can Trust The FEC. To Get It Wrong.

You know what I think of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United. Now here's some examples of why I think it was the worst mistake the Court has ever made. Aside from the fact that Super PACs from the Republican Party alone, are spending more on attack ads in 2012 than both party's Pacs and both candidates did in 2008, they don't have to announce who gave them the money. And that doesn't even account for the Democrat Super PACs. I've also mentioned groups like the Chamber of Commerce  doing "back door" conversions to avoid additional rules that would require them to give up the names of donors of the nearly $100 million they want to spend on attack ads. The 'Center To Protect Patient Rights' operates out of a Post Office Box # 72465 and has given $55 million  in 2010 for attack ads. It's believed most of the money came from the Koch brothers. Big Oil magnets from the Midwest. But they spent the money in over a dozen states. Mostly not in the Midwest. Now of course we can count on the FEC to protect us from bad players, right? Absolutely not. A federal judge had to overrule the  FEC in at least one case when the FEC came out against disclosure of donor names. Hey, even the Supreme Court got that part right. Now the American Future Fund, another attack group, has asked the FEC if they can mention the "Administration" and would that mean they weren't targeting anyone in particular. If they say the Administration did this or that, they wouldn't actually be talking about Obama, right? As if anyone would be confused about who they were talking about. The FEC (Federal Election Board) hasn't ruled on that. If they say it's okay, I suppose Obama supporters could then properly say that the "Man From Bain" did this or that and they could rightfully claim they weren't necessarily talking about Romney. How dumb is this? How dumb is the FEC? I guess we'll have to wait and see.