Who's Protecting Your Savings?

       Glass-Stiegel vs. Dodd-Frank. What's the big deal? The big deal is that we wouldn't have needed the one if we'd left the other alone. At or near the end of the Great Depression, the Glass-Stiegel laws were put in place to protect our economy from big banks who weren't interested in anything but bigger and bigger returns on the buck.
       But over the next six decades the banking industry and Wall Street convinced Congress that they had learned the hard lessons and were fully capable of controlling their businesses without big brother looking over their shoulders. So the farmer unlocked the hen house and put the fox in charge of  protecting his chickens.
       Then something unexpected happened. The farmer was forced into the feather business. Now five years ago, the Dodd-Frank bill was passed to pick up the pieces of the Glass Stiegel act that Wall Street and the Banking industry convinced our Congress to replace. Not a perfect answer to the problems brought on by the Great Recession but at least a start.
       So here are the questions; How long will they remain in effect before the financial markets convince Congress they're adult enough to look after their own housekeeping and what will the next financial meltdown cost us? You can be fairly certain that when the time comes both the financial markets and Congress will assure us that we're fully protected.
       The final set of questions are; what will the next bill do to protect us and how long will it remain in effect? You're probably familiar with the old adage that making the same mistake over and over won't change the outcome, right? But which outcome? The one where we fix the problem or the one where we allow the fix to be repealed?

The Lone Knifeman.

       A lone gunman has killed four Marines and wounded several people in Chattanooga, Tennessee. It's getting so a week doesn't go by without some gunman killing a bunch of people. At least that's the impression we get from the news media. Here a gunman, there a gunman, everywhere a gun-gun-gunman. to here it you'd think the only people who are killing people are other people with guns. Not so. There are many ways to kill people.
       Look, I realize it's easier to kill somebody with a gun than almost any other way, but you have to understand, the gun lobby doesn't like to hear it stated that way. It makes it sound like the only effective way to kill people is with a gun. And that flies in the face of the NRA's "guns don't kill people" mantra.
       Why is it you never hear a headline that shouts out "A lone knifeman has killed 27 people and is under arrest after having received a knife wound?" Of course, knives don't kill people either. But that's an argument for another post. The important point to keep in mind is that guns have yet to be robotized to where they can operate independently from the people pointing them. On the other hand, no other weapon can work independently from it's operator either.
       The fact that guns seem to be the weapon of choice is all to often overlooked. Could bows and arrows replace guns as number one on the HIT parade? Ehhh, still not as convenient as a gun. No, the best weapon to choose, if you want to get the job done, is the gun.
       The point I'm working toward is that since we can't eliminate the individual in advance of a killing spree, the next best thing would be to eliminate the weapon he or she is likely to choose. And therein lies the problem. If there's one thing we've come to understand, it's that no gun can ever be banned because the NRA won't stand for it. We could eliminate the entire human population, but not one single gun.

The Great Intellectual Fight.

       They want you to know that they do not support smoking. They support the protection of  intellectual property. The "they" being the United States Chamber of Commerce. The U.S.  Chamber should not be confused with your local Chamber of Commerce. The National Chamber supports American companies who do, or want to do, business worldwide.
       Well it seems the National Chamber has taken offense at the New York times article of July 1 that states the American Chamber travels the world fighting curbs on smoking. Now do you see the difference? They're not in favor of smoking, they're just not comfortable with any country fighting against it's citizens smoking habits. the AC of C just wants tobacco manufacturers to be left alone.
       See, if the Tobacco people are left alone, you can count on them doing the right thing. In which case the American Chamber will stop picking on those governments who want their people to stop smoking. Don't you see? The Chamber wants everyone to stop smoking, they just don't want any government to say so. It's all about intellectual property, not about smoking.
       Let me try to explain. If the intellectual property of a tobacco company convinces you to smoke, that's one thing, because the tobacco company and the Chamber both want you to stop smoking, but if the government suggests you shouldn't smoke, that's interfering with those intellectual property rights. And that's what the Chamber is all upset about.
       Maybe the U.S. Chamber of Commerce should be less concerned about intellectual property rights if those rights are detrimental to people's lives, and a little more interested in people's lives. Tobacco is one of those industries that, if successful, will eliminate all of it's customers. Just remember, the Chamber is concerned with business, not people.

Can You Feel It Too?

       There have been several items of consternation lately that I've noticed, in particular. The National Chamber of Commerce has been leading a fight internationally against any form of tobacco smoking legislation. Our Supreme court has voted that it's more important to allow coal-fired energy generation plants to kill people with mercury and a number of other carcinogenic and toxic pollutants than to make them pay to eliminate those pollutants.
       And these as well as others are made possible by a force in Washington that is primarily located on 'K' Street. That is to say, lobbyists. Did you know that there are presently over 400 former legislators who are now lobbying Congress? And that doesn't count family members of former and present legislators, or their former staffers. Did you know that former legislators still have certain privileges like access to Congressional cafeterias, etc, that allow them to mingle at will?
       They claim that in the past you earned a lot of money then ran for office. Now you run for office to make a lot of money afterward. A year or two ago I listened to a Congressman ask "Do you really think I would sell my integrity and position in Congress for money?" Ya know, I really do think most of them are actually doing just that. The influence that 'Dark Money' has on our government is like a stranglehold.
       It wouldn't be such a horrible thing, this influence peddling, if everybody had an equal opportunity to influence our representatives. The problem is that influence is only available to the very rich. If you can't afford to buy government, you have no business complaining about it. Heck, even the vote is purchased. It's done by buying a media outlet and converting it's news reporting into a partisan rumor mill selling propaganda.
       All that rumbling being heard around the country is not mini-earthquakes, it's our founding fathers rolling over in their graves.

Dark Money.

       I'm just reading an editorial in the New York times about so called 'Dark Money' in politics. Remember the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United? Well in their decision the Court expressed their hope that "public disclosure would deter corruption." A noble concept, but hardly a deterrent. Especially when current members of Congress depend so heavily on that funding.
       An amendment to a spending bill will block the Securities and Exchange Commission from requiring disclosure, another amendment would stop the IRS from reining in the "Social welfare" organizations by requiring disclosure. In the Senate, between 2010 and 2014, $226 million in dark money was raised, most of it going to majority Republicans. $226 million. Even if it was evenly divided among the 100 Senators, that's $2,260,000 per Senator. And nobody, except the Senators, know who gave that money. Wouldn't you like to know who owns your Senators?
       Now, I understand the desire of these politicians to keep those donations quiet. After all, nobody in political life wants the public to think they're beholding to anyone other than the voters, but if you get well over $2 million from somebody, don't you think you'd want to help that donor any way you can? And if nobody else knows about it, doesn't that make it easier to just vote in favor of that donor? I mean, nobody can complain. Nobody knows you're doing it.
       The thing is, the only ones who can easily change the way things are done is Congress and Congress is where all this Dark Money is going, to both parties, but mostly to the majority party. And since everybody in Congress is getting a piece of the pie, who's gonna vote to change that? There are only two other choices that I can see. A constitutional amendment, which would be extremely difficult, or the Supreme court would have to hand down a decision requiring it. Of course that would require that a case be brought against it.
      

It's Campaign Time Again

       Well! Finally! At last the time has come. We're blessed with the decision to run for the presidency by THE Donald Trump. I don't know if you realize what that truly means. What it means is that there is an opening for me to take another stab at running. My Super Pack, P.I.M.P is still intact. And yes, that's right, it still means Politician In My Pocket. I found my platform in the cellar and it's still usable, with a little work and replacing one plank that has some water damage.
       My slogan will be "I'm just as good, or bad, as the rest of them." The main difference between me and the rest of the presidential hopefuls is that I'm new at this and therefore don't know about all the dirty tricks and lies like the others. It's not so much that they lie a lot, and some are so rich they won't need to embezzle anything, not that I'm rich, but I just can't figure out how to do it and get away with it. I'd be too scared to try.
       Many contenders feel that if something is good for them, it must be good for everybody. But when I say that, it's probably true, unlike my esteemed opponents. Now as to building walls and getting Mexico to pay for them, well I just don't know. If they're gonna pay for it, they might just demand to design them too. Could be too many doorways.
And speaking of walls, shouldn't we build a wall around Texas? I'll bet the rest of the country would gladly donate the necessary funds to built it even higher. Maybe while we're at it, we could start spending money based on where it comes from. Like most mid-western and southern states contribute less, they should get less. I think that's my missing plank. Remember, a vote for me is a vote for me.

That's Right. $10,860,000.

       What if a wealthy couple were tragically killed in an automobile accident? If their estate totals $10,860,001, their heirs will have to pay a 40% estate tax on just $1, for a total tax of $0.40. That's because the current tax excludes $10,860,000 for couples or $5,430,000 for single persons. Now isn't that a horribly punishing state of affairs? Ya know what's an even more punishing affair? Some members of Congress are trying to eliminate the estate tax altogether.
       What's so unfair about the estate tax that some folks think it must be eliminated? The claim seems to be that the taxes on this income have already been paid, by the ones who died. To tax it again would be double taxation. Come on, the tax wasn't paid by the heirs, but by their parents. And in many cases, if you checked their tax returns, they probably didn't pay anything at all on that money. And anyway, everybody pays tax on their income and then pays taxes on that money again in sales taxes and a whole host of other taxes.
       The thing is, America needs more funding, not less. And with the degree of economic inequality in this country, why would we feel the need to create more inequality? Nobody really believes in the trickle down theory anymore, well, except for a few politicians and the very wealthy one tenth of one percent of the population.
        If anything. we need to increase the tax by lowering the amount from $10,860,000 to maybe $5,000,000. and increase the tax from 40% to 50%. It's time for these one percenters to start paying some taxes. After WWII the tax on the highest earners was upwards of 90%. Nobody cried in their beer of manhattans and moved out. They just worked harder.