Back To The Court.

       I still don't understand the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case. They said that allowing corporations, unions and millionaires to spend unlimited amounts in elections won't affect elections or cause any unfair influence, real or imagined, so long as legislators require openness. Legislators? Require openness? Let me see. What are the chances that politicians will be willing to out their donor lists?
       If a politician is running for office and a donor says "I'll give you ten million, but I don't want anyone to know", what politician would you suggest would refuse such an offer? Oh yeah? Well what if that donor said "then sorry, I'll just have to give it to your opponent." What then? Then take the example of a donor who says it's okay to let people know who I am, but when you get elected... If you get elected and that donor shows up at your celebration party, who thinks he's not gonna have a sheet of paper with his wish list on it?
       Let me put it another way. Who thinks that any donor giving millions to a campaign isn't going to expect some consideration? Doesn't that sound like the Supreme Court was just ever so slightly naive? But Thomas Edsell, in an editorial in the New York Times today, suggests that another problem created by that decision is that the political parties will cede influence to individuals. Unwillingly, but cede never-the-less .
       Now I'm no fan of political parties, but I'd be even less of a fan of billionaires selecting candidates for high office. If you want to talk about abuse of power and influence peddling, just try that idea for a few election cycles. They already have supported the most radical candidates of this years crop. How did you think former Senator Rick Santorum and former speaker Newt Gingrich managed to compete? Just four billionaires very nearly upset the primary season this year, Shelden Adelson, Harold Simmons, Foster Friess and William Dore, nearly blew up the election this year.If these four were to put their heads together, it's fairly certain they could own an election. Especially if you threw in the Koch brothers.
       Now you may feel that the person they selected would be fine with you, but what does that do to democracy? And what if the next time around, you didn't like their candidate? What then?

Inaccurate Predictions Are Illegal.

       Whatever you do, don't let any state legislatures, anywhere in the country, hear about the latest court ruling in Italy. It seems a judge there has found seven scientists guilty of not knowing what would happen in the future. Before the April 2009 earthquake in L'Aquila in central Italy, in which 309 people died, theses scientists had predicted, based on sound science, that there would be no quake. So now they're guilty of manslaughter.
       Can you imagine a state like Florida and all the others that have stand your ground laws, hearing about this? It might turn out to be a case of standing your ground and the stander dies. And then the one who didn't predict it gets a prison sentence. In Italy, scientists are already quitting their jobs with the government over this ruling.  Here in America I can see police getting in trouble every day. By not predicting the local bank would get robbed today, the cops get a ten year stretch in the local state prison. Or how about not predicting that someone would die in a shootout with a dangerous criminal? The criminal is dead, but the cops get life.
       The possibilities for change are limitless. I'll bet that thoughtful state legislatures across the country could find ways to get nearly anyone. What's that you say, you were in a fender-bender? Don't you think you should have known it would have happened? Even if you were in the store at the time? You should have known not to park in that preferred slot at the far end of the parking lot. Doctor you predicted my husband might live as long as two more days but he just died. You are guilty of manslaughter. My lawyer assured me I could win this case against an intruder even though I invited him in and then shot him in the back, with witnesses. So my lawyer will be my cellmate. Well, okay, maybe this one is fair.
       The point to all this is that our legislators, at least on the state level, are all too willing to think up stupid things and then enact them into law. Come to think of it so is our Congress. But don't quote me on this. It is not a prediction.

Voter Fraud? What Voter Fraud?

       Republican elected state legislatures around the country have been enacting Voter ID laws to stem the growth of voter fraud. But when put to the question, nobody has been able to show more than one or two cases of actual voter fraud in history. In fact, in Pennsylvania, the leader of that state's legislature stated the purpose was to allow Romney to win the election. Now comes news of a Republican related firm specializing in voter registration, holding contracts with more than a dozen state Republican parties and the national Republican committee. The news is not good news for the Republican party.
       Strategic Allied Consulting owned by Nathan Sproul, stands accused by a number of states of registering dead people and falsifying voter registrations plus destroying and or discarding voter registrations, among other charges. Mr Sproul is a long time activist in the Party and is former head of the Arizona Republican party.
       It would appear that the only fraud taking place in America, pertaining to voting, has to do with one company attempting to defraud states of fair elections. By the way, that also means that the company is attempting to defrauding the American people of a fair election.
       Has anyone heard where any state has begun to pass any laws about such practices? It looks like a number of states intend to be very strict about stopping a non-existent form of voter fraud, but had hired a company to approach the fraud issue from a different perspective.
       Now, I'm quite sure that the states in question didn't hire Mr. Sproul for the express purpose of fixing any elections, but it does seem strange that those states worry about a non-issue more than they do about real live crime. To be fair, Florida and Virginia have charges pending while Colorado and Nevada are investigating allegations of wrong doing.
       So a word to the wise poll workers; if Abe Lincoln or George Washington show up at your polling place, you might want to check their registration carefully. And if Benedict Arnold shows up or Charles Manson, you might want to make a 911 call.

Pro Life Or Pro Rape?

       This election year has brought us what can only be described as some rather strange information from some even stranger individuals. What's worse is many of these strange individuals are running for Congress. I could say that one is running for President. I say strange for him because he seems to be for or against whatever anyone wants at any given moment. Another is a gambling tycoon with too much money for his own good.
       But the really strange people have chosen to run for Congress. A couple are in the House and running for the Senate. There are five individuals who I would classify as completely without mental capacity. One talks about legitimate rape victims being able to magically stop pregnancies. Obviously illegitimate rape victims do not have this power.
       But he is not alone in being pro life to the point of being willing to put everything on the line to stand up and, in their dazed condition, explain that either women who get raped are easy to rape, or that God wanted it that way.
       To these men we can attribute the newest demographic within the borders of America. It's a demographic that these men have recognized and now place their hopes of election to high office with. Yes folks, this is a demographic that Democratic and most Republican candidates have missed entirely. How else to explain the lack of attention to this portion of the electorate?
       Now I know the suspense to know what this demographic truly is must be mounting. At this point, please take two pencils, one in each hand, and give me a drum roll. Ladies and gentlemen, the name of this newly recognized demographic is PRPL or Pro Rape/Pro lifers. I can foresee elections of the future when candidates will show xxx rated films to attract members of this demographic. So let's have three cheers for these pioneer candidates.
     

Capital Gains.

       Ya know what rich folks biggest worry is? Its that somebody will come along and figure out that capital gains should be taxed the same as labor income. Now lots of folks, some who aren't even 1% ers have a little capital gains income, but the really wealthy have lots or even most or all of their income as capital gains.
So the argument they use against higher taxes on themselves is that this is money they already paid taxes on.                           How dumb. And to think we all buy that argument.
       But see, it isn't the money they already paid taxes on that should now be taxed. Its the income from that money. Look, if I dig a ditch and get paid to do it, I pay taxes on that income. But I can't then say that since I paid taxes on that work once, I should never have to pay taxes on any income from my work again. You pay taxes on the income from your work every time you work. And if your money does the work for you instead of your back or your brain, then you should pay the same tax on the money income as the labor income.
       I wish I knew who it was that decided that their money is more important than my back. Since when is labor less valuable than money? Just wait till your toilet doesn't work. Then we'll see which is more valuable. Or how about when you get hungry and the farmer says, "sorry, but my produce is no longer available because my back is sore"? Then we'll see which is more valuable, your money or his back pain.
       Just imagine if the situation was reversed. If income from investments were taxed higher than income from work, don't you think there'd be a great uproar by the wealthy? Rich folk get a lot of perks that just aren't available to most of the rest of us except for special occasions like vacation trips or the like. But this lower tax rate is one time, and one perk, the wealthy just don't deserve.  

What's The Deal With Gas?

       Has anybody wondered what the heck is going on with natural gas drilling? Here's what I think, and it has the advantage of being true. But first a little history. Here in Pennsylvania, when they first started signing up leases, the offers were for around $27.50 per acre and folks were told they better sign up quick or there'd be no offers at all. Then things dried up for a while.
       Then came the offers of $2,700 per acre signing bonuses and if they dried up, they were never coming back. Then they dried up for a while and then offers came for up to $5,750 per acre. Then they dried up again for a while. Now I don't think they'll come back a whole lot higher than that $5,750 per acre, but anything is possible, I guess.
       The reason things keep drying up is for several important developments. One is that companies run out of funding temporarily and have to get additional investors. Another reason is that they wind up with much more land than they can develop quickly or add pipelines to get the gas out. But the biggest reason is that gas prices fluctuate.
       See, if the price of gas drops, it becomes less inviting to invest in gas exploration. On the other hand, if the price goes up, there's more interest in investing in leasing. Same is true for drilling. But once the well is drilled and the gas is being piped out, then it flows no matter what the price. Then the trick is to find new customers to buy it.
       That's when coal fired generation plants will find it a better alternative than trying to make clean coal. That's because clean coal is an oxymoron. Coal is dirty, is dirty, is dirty. Gas is a pollutant too, but nothing like coal. So natural gas is a real blessing and for many, a real boon.
       But for many others, natural gas is a real big headache. That's because it brings problems. Problems like polluted water wells, roads and highways ruined because of rough hard traffic and too much of that. And drillers who are none too careful with their workmanship. Not all, mind you, but a few bad apples, oh you know.

Ever Hear Of Job-Laundering?

       We all know that money-laundering is against the law, as it should be. But what about job-laundering? Now you may not have heard of the term job-laundering, but its where a company or individual takes a company that's viable as is, and sends those jobs offshore. His company makes more profit because labor is cheaper in places like China or Bangladesh. Enough so to even offset shipping.
       But then, he doesn't pay taxes on those profits because the company is making those profits in another country and, presumably, paying taxes there. Or, he keeps those profits in an offshore account so he doesn't pay taxes on it. Sometimes, even if he's supposed to.
       Then you have companies who begin to specialize in helping other companies to do the same thing. Now you can call it anything you want, but it's job-laundering. Some people think unemployment is all about the Great Recession, but most of the problem is that jobs have left and gone overseas or have just become obsolete through mechanization or robotics.
       But when somebody claims they can get those jobs back, in most cases that just can't happen. Even if a company should decide to return to America, it's most likely because they see ways to do the job with fewer jobs. But here's the problem with job-laundering and promising to bring jobs back; when you launder those jobs, chances are they're never coming back and when you promise to magically bring the jobs back, you cause people to think it can be done with no effort on their part. The unfortunate thing is that jobs can come back, but our workers are going to have to be better educated to do those jobs and that's gonna take more effort, especially for older workers and more educational years for young people. K-12 just doesn't cut it any more and this country needs, at least K-14. Assuming we'd like to continue to be a world leader.