Congress has a Constitutional responsibility to determine and fund the country’s budget. This responsibility was assigned to them specifically because they were thought to most directly represent the people and the people’s interests in the government. Clearly they have done a stellar job in regard. And as we are all witness to, they continue to conduct themselves with the high level of effectiveness that has brought the country to its current state of economic vitality and stability, its well rated public regard and appreciation, and its effective and efficiently managed government bureaucracy. In other words, Congress is proceeding in the same inept, disorganized, partisan driven, and moronic manner that the American people have come to value from the best and brightest.
The budget battle lines are drawn along new contending fronts that divide the old established guard from the new insurgents that have erupted with the tectonic shifts that have introduced new instabilities wrought by the Tea Party. Injecting these new players has substantially improved the ability of Congress to serve the people’s interests notably. It has been generations since we have seen politicians that are as skilled and adept at finding the compromises that enable the Government to fulfill its Constitutional duties. Of course there are a few members of Congress aligned on some particular high-ground of their own making, who are unable to participate in open debate that exchanges ideas and informs both their peers and public alike.
These different groups of like-minded elected sages are often confused by subtle concepts like “compromise”. It appears that the concept of finding a workable agreement that benefits each disparate group is either not understood or defined as losing which is a non-negotiable and unacceptable condition. Their lack of knowledge and appreciation of the significance and central role that being able to compromise had to the creation of our nation, its founding laws, and the advancement of our democratic system is in stark contrast to their ability to prevent progress.
Unfortunately for the country, there are enough of these small groups that in aggregate they represent sufficient numbers to oppose any effort by anyone else to insure, provide, promote and secure our public and private interests.
What we get in exchange for appointing them to the halls of power is partisan bickering about how much to cut from the budget, where the cuts are allowed to come from and where they are not, and the inclusion of social agendas into a budget process because if you can’t get people to accept your point of view let’s be totalitarian about it. It is so inspiring to see a group of people who value only their own views as our founding fathers would have advised them to do.
The budget issue is not just an issue of cutting or spending. In fact, these are not the issue or problems at all. Surely someone in Congress is smart enough to see where the problems are, and could help lead the Congress to a solution that will establish Justice for everyone, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Instead of deluding not just themselves, but through their actions or more appropriately their inactions and ineptitude missing the moment that America so disparately needs.
Why is knowledge and understanding so unrepresented in Congress, and undesired by the voter?
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Ryan The Republican – Another Comic? You Wish.
We can all relax now. The 7th term Paul Ryan (R-Rep. from Wisconsin) has seen the way to fix the health care system. Well, not really fix the system, but to get rid of the unsustainable Medicare program. Ryan proposes that the Government limit Medicare to people who are now 55 and older, and to create a new system that will provide subsidizes to future retirees who will select from private companies’ insurance plans. Not government vouchers, which Ryan the Republican knows is an unacceptable concept/term; but government subsidizes for insurance premiums. Because we all know that a voucher is a designated amount of money collected from our taxes, whereas a subsidy is a designated amount of money from our …? Well, anyway a subsidy which will solve our Medicare problem.
Ryan’s plan solves the Medicare problem because after about 40 or 50 years, the Medicare problem will be uhh! ... dead. And because Medicare is over, there is no government funding problem and no Medicare entitlement program. I am not sure Ryan has thought about it in detail yet, but there will be a new Government program and bureaucracy for administering the Ryan Economic Administration and Management Entitlement Department (REAMED) to collect the taxes required for the vouchers (sorry, subsidies), to maintain records of payments by individual, determine eligibility and allocation of payment amounts to individual retirees, and to engage in all the other governmental, legislative, bureaucratic, and budgetary activities that are necessary to have a government program, particularly an entitlement program. So that is one way the Ryan’s plan is different than Medicare.
But surely when we examine his plan in greater detail, we will see that there are many ways that it will reduce health care costs for the American public. For example, instead of using the leverage that the Government has under Medicare with health care providers, it will rely upon the insurance companies to not really care about the cost of services rendered. Fortunately, the additional cost that private insurers will impose on the health care industry segment, the providers will spontaneously and wit a self-sacrificing spirit reduce their costs. This is not to even mention the additional costs for insurance and health care that will be funneled into political contributions to support even more legislative efforts to reduce any leverage that a tax payer would have against the health care industry.
I also suspect that unlike Medicare, which collects taxes from current wage earners and spends these funds immediately for those retirees needing payouts to cover their incurred health care expenditures. The new Ryan plan would collect taxes for a number of years and then after you retire return those funds back to you. Oops! Who pays for the Medicare costs incurred during this transition period? Oh, yes. You do. Those funds collected will I suspect be spent and then Ryan’s plan will be spending it’s incoming taxes on the out-going subsidies (vouchers) just like Medicare.
Al least we won’t have the same issues with the current system. Ryan’s plan doesn’t involve creating the dreaded ‘death panels’ the Republicans’ terrorize those ill-equipped to relate to reality. His plan employs two paths simultaneously. First, those who can’t afford a private plan can just expire, the self-directed death panel so to speak. Second, the pre-existing private health insurance companies’ claims review/approval boards, the corporate death panels who are eager to kill grandma to insure a good bottom line, will execute their profit-motivated approaches as they do today.
There are going to be many similar superior differences just like those mentioned above that will make the Ryan Plan clearly different from the Medicare system. I am overjoyed with the prospects of such a wondrous plan. Fortunately or unfortunately, I am already too old to have such governmental largess granted to me.
What does annoy me is that Rep. Ryan, just as ineptly as any Democrat, does not understand the problem. He has the answer though, a feat that cannot be matched by the best minds in any other field or area of life. What a remarkable individual he must be to be able to solve a problem without a clue as to what the problem itself actually is. It never amazes me to see politicians take an important issue and turn it into a political platform without any notion of what they are doing or what its consequences are. The short-view of the small minded to address the complexity of a problem that has eluded his peers for generations, and which cannot seek a solution that would be more profitable for the private sector, more effective for the medically in need, and far cheaper for the American people.
Ryan’s plan solves the Medicare problem because after about 40 or 50 years, the Medicare problem will be uhh! ... dead. And because Medicare is over, there is no government funding problem and no Medicare entitlement program. I am not sure Ryan has thought about it in detail yet, but there will be a new Government program and bureaucracy for administering the Ryan Economic Administration and Management Entitlement Department (REAMED) to collect the taxes required for the vouchers (sorry, subsidies), to maintain records of payments by individual, determine eligibility and allocation of payment amounts to individual retirees, and to engage in all the other governmental, legislative, bureaucratic, and budgetary activities that are necessary to have a government program, particularly an entitlement program. So that is one way the Ryan’s plan is different than Medicare.
But surely when we examine his plan in greater detail, we will see that there are many ways that it will reduce health care costs for the American public. For example, instead of using the leverage that the Government has under Medicare with health care providers, it will rely upon the insurance companies to not really care about the cost of services rendered. Fortunately, the additional cost that private insurers will impose on the health care industry segment, the providers will spontaneously and wit a self-sacrificing spirit reduce their costs. This is not to even mention the additional costs for insurance and health care that will be funneled into political contributions to support even more legislative efforts to reduce any leverage that a tax payer would have against the health care industry.
I also suspect that unlike Medicare, which collects taxes from current wage earners and spends these funds immediately for those retirees needing payouts to cover their incurred health care expenditures. The new Ryan plan would collect taxes for a number of years and then after you retire return those funds back to you. Oops! Who pays for the Medicare costs incurred during this transition period? Oh, yes. You do. Those funds collected will I suspect be spent and then Ryan’s plan will be spending it’s incoming taxes on the out-going subsidies (vouchers) just like Medicare.
Al least we won’t have the same issues with the current system. Ryan’s plan doesn’t involve creating the dreaded ‘death panels’ the Republicans’ terrorize those ill-equipped to relate to reality. His plan employs two paths simultaneously. First, those who can’t afford a private plan can just expire, the self-directed death panel so to speak. Second, the pre-existing private health insurance companies’ claims review/approval boards, the corporate death panels who are eager to kill grandma to insure a good bottom line, will execute their profit-motivated approaches as they do today.
There are going to be many similar superior differences just like those mentioned above that will make the Ryan Plan clearly different from the Medicare system. I am overjoyed with the prospects of such a wondrous plan. Fortunately or unfortunately, I am already too old to have such governmental largess granted to me.
What does annoy me is that Rep. Ryan, just as ineptly as any Democrat, does not understand the problem. He has the answer though, a feat that cannot be matched by the best minds in any other field or area of life. What a remarkable individual he must be to be able to solve a problem without a clue as to what the problem itself actually is. It never amazes me to see politicians take an important issue and turn it into a political platform without any notion of what they are doing or what its consequences are. The short-view of the small minded to address the complexity of a problem that has eluded his peers for generations, and which cannot seek a solution that would be more profitable for the private sector, more effective for the medically in need, and far cheaper for the American people.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Supreme Logic: Don't Put Them In Charge of the Budget
The Supreme Court ruled today that a tax credit to school tuition organizations does not impact a tax payer and thus does not warrant giving the tax payer a standing with the court for bringing a case. The court's decision says that allowing a tax credit to a religious school does not constitute government endorsement of a religion, and does not violate the Constitutional proscription against the establishment of religion. This ruling does allow religious groups to direct money to their particular group and to receive a dollar for dollar deduction in their tax obligation. And this in no way is harmful, detrimental nor an imposition upon other tax payers (according to the Court, it appears).
Now I am not particularly bothered by people donating money to an educational organization, especially if it is limited to rational amounts, by rational I would see $500 to $1,000 dollars as reasonable upper limits. And yes, I am sure that most of the people who take advantage of this tax credit are getting an off-set on their tuition costs with the same said school tuition organizations for their respective children. Yes, it is a form of governmental support of religious organizations, and by many standards that is a violation of the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court over the last half century or so. That some of our strict original interpretation-ists justices are able to perform the mental gymnastics required to score a perfect landing on this decision, well that is just another illustration of the wonders that the human mind is capable of when it wants to justify its actions.
My issue with the justices is that their logic is flawed, and worse it is so obviously flawed. Oh, not on a legal basis explicitly (but there is the mental pivoting that they have to do there), but on the reality basis. I guess that it is possible that Supreme Court justices don’t have to abide by the physical laws of reality, but you would think they would not want to render a judgment that so easily exposes their lack of intelligence and common reasoning.
Let’s suppose that we take the justices’ decision and do the good-ole what-if analysis. You know, let’s see where it leads us and see if you think the justices are floating free of reality and un-tethered to logic.
The justices claim that a tax credit by one tax payer for something like a tuition donation does no harm to another tax payer. Note: they did not claim that the harm it did is minor or inconsequential; but that it had no import to the other tax payer. Thus they have no reason to be admitted to appeal to the government/courts to redress the harm.
Now let’s remove the limit of the donation; something the justices did not indicate was of consequence and thus we are free to modify without effect (their ruling would still apply). The donating tax payer determines that they will owe $10,000 in tax and will thus donate $10,000 to the school tuition organization. The donating tax payer will thus owe $0 in tax. Nothing!
But the other tax payers in the state (or country if we went national), would have to make up for that ‘missing’ state income. Now I know that $10,000 averaged over a large number of tax payers would not have a huge impact on any single individual, but it is a real impact since it is other than zero. It’s not Nothing!
Wait! There are other individuals who avail themselves of the school tuition organization tax-credit. So there is not one person but perhaps many. What if there were 10,000 donating tax payers. All of whom pay Nothing in taxes to the state/nation. That’s $100M dollars!! Even to a Supreme Court justice, I suspect that this is starting to sound like real-money. And if we turn to the other tax payers who have to cover the check then they may actually be impacted in some noticeable way, noticeable even to a Supreme Court justice.
Now to drive it home just a little more, let’s take all the tax-payers of a state except one. And let’s make the one, say the Supreme Court justice him/herself. Surely the justice would find if reasonable and rational for the entire tax burden of their state (or of the nation for that matter) to fall entirely upon their wallet. In fact, I think we need to tell Congress that we have a solution to their problem. We can solve the national budget problem, and everyone (except Supreme Court justices) will be fine. We just put the entire tax burden upon them. It can’t be illegal because they would have no standing for a law suit.
God, I hope no one in Congress reads this! They are just about bright enough to think this is a good idea. We already know that the justices think it is (except for the dissenters).
I think the blog at http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=2&subcatid=7&threadid=5281305#5281305 might have been useful here.
Now I am not particularly bothered by people donating money to an educational organization, especially if it is limited to rational amounts, by rational I would see $500 to $1,000 dollars as reasonable upper limits. And yes, I am sure that most of the people who take advantage of this tax credit are getting an off-set on their tuition costs with the same said school tuition organizations for their respective children. Yes, it is a form of governmental support of religious organizations, and by many standards that is a violation of the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court over the last half century or so. That some of our strict original interpretation-ists justices are able to perform the mental gymnastics required to score a perfect landing on this decision, well that is just another illustration of the wonders that the human mind is capable of when it wants to justify its actions.
My issue with the justices is that their logic is flawed, and worse it is so obviously flawed. Oh, not on a legal basis explicitly (but there is the mental pivoting that they have to do there), but on the reality basis. I guess that it is possible that Supreme Court justices don’t have to abide by the physical laws of reality, but you would think they would not want to render a judgment that so easily exposes their lack of intelligence and common reasoning.
Let’s suppose that we take the justices’ decision and do the good-ole what-if analysis. You know, let’s see where it leads us and see if you think the justices are floating free of reality and un-tethered to logic.
The justices claim that a tax credit by one tax payer for something like a tuition donation does no harm to another tax payer. Note: they did not claim that the harm it did is minor or inconsequential; but that it had no import to the other tax payer. Thus they have no reason to be admitted to appeal to the government/courts to redress the harm.
Now let’s remove the limit of the donation; something the justices did not indicate was of consequence and thus we are free to modify without effect (their ruling would still apply). The donating tax payer determines that they will owe $10,000 in tax and will thus donate $10,000 to the school tuition organization. The donating tax payer will thus owe $0 in tax. Nothing!
But the other tax payers in the state (or country if we went national), would have to make up for that ‘missing’ state income. Now I know that $10,000 averaged over a large number of tax payers would not have a huge impact on any single individual, but it is a real impact since it is other than zero. It’s not Nothing!
Wait! There are other individuals who avail themselves of the school tuition organization tax-credit. So there is not one person but perhaps many. What if there were 10,000 donating tax payers. All of whom pay Nothing in taxes to the state/nation. That’s $100M dollars!! Even to a Supreme Court justice, I suspect that this is starting to sound like real-money. And if we turn to the other tax payers who have to cover the check then they may actually be impacted in some noticeable way, noticeable even to a Supreme Court justice.
Now to drive it home just a little more, let’s take all the tax-payers of a state except one. And let’s make the one, say the Supreme Court justice him/herself. Surely the justice would find if reasonable and rational for the entire tax burden of their state (or of the nation for that matter) to fall entirely upon their wallet. In fact, I think we need to tell Congress that we have a solution to their problem. We can solve the national budget problem, and everyone (except Supreme Court justices) will be fine. We just put the entire tax burden upon them. It can’t be illegal because they would have no standing for a law suit.
God, I hope no one in Congress reads this! They are just about bright enough to think this is a good idea. We already know that the justices think it is (except for the dissenters).
I think the blog at http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=2&subcatid=7&threadid=5281305#5281305 might have been useful here.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Sub-preme Court-ing: an Exercise in Ignorance
Given the intense and exhaustive (and exhausting) scrutiny Supreme Court justices receive before and during their confirmation hearings, I always want to believe that the country is fortunately getting individuals who regardless of political bent are some pretty high caliber intellects, at least in the legal arena. And while I don’t always think they have rendered the best decision on those cases that I pay any attention to, I usually feel they have made reasonable, rational and realistic judgments and decisions of those cases.
So I am just a tad anxious about the media’s reports on and political/policy wonks’ interpretations of statements made by various justices in the oral arguments presented in the Wal-Mart sex-discrimination class-action case. The quoted questions asked and comments made in response to answers would indicate that the justices are in the deep-end of the pool on this case. I think they are apparently over their heads because to apply their vast knowledge and insight into the law and the applicable Constitutional areas that would inform their deliberation and decision, the justices must also be competently conversant in and comprehending of the science and mathematics that would provide a critical aspect of the case and for serving as a basis for reaching an informed decision.
This case may rely more critically upon an understanding of the scientific analysis of the situation than directly upon the applicable law or the Constitution. And from the questions, it may be that in this case that the justices are ill-equipped to appreciate their own deficiencies. That the plaintiffs’ and the defendant’s legal teams may be equally in the dark or in even darker regions of the intellectual universe, doesn’t provide the justices with guides who can navigate the justices through the esoteric jungle that they must traverse. The competency with which the justices are able to understand the context of the case is just as important to the specific issue that the Supreme Court is focused on at this time, which is whether it is reasonable for a class-action case of over a million women to justifiably be applied in a discrimination claim.
This case may well become a case-study for future legal studies in how an abundance of understand and skill in the law proves impotent and ineffective in understanding and resolving the dispute which rests first and foremost on data, its interpretation and its comprehension. Oddly, both legal teams will probably use data and an interpretation of it; but they are unlikely to comprehend it or to recognize their short-fall of understanding. In the end, the justices will retire to adjudicate the case based on their individual understands and biases, and upon the information presented whether meaningful or not. And from this murky and infrequently visited domain of scientific understanding, the justices will render their decision. Based on that decision, the country will follow a legal precedence that will direct the path that individual freedoms with respect to corporate power will have travel for years to come.
We cannot expect the justices to be perfect in each and every case; not the least because that would be impossible given the large groups of people who support one side or the other of the opposing positions in the cases themselves. But can we as citizens feel comfortable that American justice is becoming increasingly vulnerable to decisions that are made by a Supreme Court that is second to none in their expertise in jurisprudence, but who may be excessively ignorant about the true facts of the case that they judge?
I don’t know if there is a way to avoid this inherent vulnerability; but I think we should seek a way to provide a modern day ‘checks and balances’ solution to these situations. I am not proposing a diminishing of the power or authority of the Supreme Court, but rather that it might be prudent for the Supreme Court to have access to advisory resources that are responsible for independent and impartial analysis and interpretation of technical, scientific and analytic information presented in cases brought before them.
The best chance for justice depends upon both knowing the facts and on understanding them. Without either, no decision can be depended upon to serve the interests of the nation nor to protect our freedoms.
So I am just a tad anxious about the media’s reports on and political/policy wonks’ interpretations of statements made by various justices in the oral arguments presented in the Wal-Mart sex-discrimination class-action case. The quoted questions asked and comments made in response to answers would indicate that the justices are in the deep-end of the pool on this case. I think they are apparently over their heads because to apply their vast knowledge and insight into the law and the applicable Constitutional areas that would inform their deliberation and decision, the justices must also be competently conversant in and comprehending of the science and mathematics that would provide a critical aspect of the case and for serving as a basis for reaching an informed decision.
This case may rely more critically upon an understanding of the scientific analysis of the situation than directly upon the applicable law or the Constitution. And from the questions, it may be that in this case that the justices are ill-equipped to appreciate their own deficiencies. That the plaintiffs’ and the defendant’s legal teams may be equally in the dark or in even darker regions of the intellectual universe, doesn’t provide the justices with guides who can navigate the justices through the esoteric jungle that they must traverse. The competency with which the justices are able to understand the context of the case is just as important to the specific issue that the Supreme Court is focused on at this time, which is whether it is reasonable for a class-action case of over a million women to justifiably be applied in a discrimination claim.
This case may well become a case-study for future legal studies in how an abundance of understand and skill in the law proves impotent and ineffective in understanding and resolving the dispute which rests first and foremost on data, its interpretation and its comprehension. Oddly, both legal teams will probably use data and an interpretation of it; but they are unlikely to comprehend it or to recognize their short-fall of understanding. In the end, the justices will retire to adjudicate the case based on their individual understands and biases, and upon the information presented whether meaningful or not. And from this murky and infrequently visited domain of scientific understanding, the justices will render their decision. Based on that decision, the country will follow a legal precedence that will direct the path that individual freedoms with respect to corporate power will have travel for years to come.
We cannot expect the justices to be perfect in each and every case; not the least because that would be impossible given the large groups of people who support one side or the other of the opposing positions in the cases themselves. But can we as citizens feel comfortable that American justice is becoming increasingly vulnerable to decisions that are made by a Supreme Court that is second to none in their expertise in jurisprudence, but who may be excessively ignorant about the true facts of the case that they judge?
I don’t know if there is a way to avoid this inherent vulnerability; but I think we should seek a way to provide a modern day ‘checks and balances’ solution to these situations. I am not proposing a diminishing of the power or authority of the Supreme Court, but rather that it might be prudent for the Supreme Court to have access to advisory resources that are responsible for independent and impartial analysis and interpretation of technical, scientific and analytic information presented in cases brought before them.
The best chance for justice depends upon both knowing the facts and on understanding them. Without either, no decision can be depended upon to serve the interests of the nation nor to protect our freedoms.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
GE’s Motto – “Imagination At Work”: Not Eligible for Congress
The public ire over GE’s non-tax bill illustrates a much too prevalent example of the American public’s understanding of reality. They get their hackles up about some issue and go charging off half-cocked to battle the injustice or situation that they believe is just down-right un-American. Fortunately, the public is encouraged by the news media which reports on events by providing just the facts (well, in many cases the facts) and not worrying about any assessment or explanation of the event and what brought it about. So we have the outrage and demands for action without any comprehension of what produced the flammable conditions that a simple fact ignited into a media-relations firestorm for GE.
Now what exactly is a large portion of the public foaming about? These hyper-active attention deficit disordered individuals are incensed that a large international American corporation will not pay any taxes in 2011 on their 2010 $14.2 billion of profit. Some of them may feel abused because they have to pay taxes on a lot less money than GE made; assuming that they are not in the approximately 40% of US tax-payers who do not pay federal income taxes. [The term tax-payer here clearly is a grouping that only indicates a possibility not an actual fact.]
Based on this non-payment by GE, there are public calls for investigations and for the removal of GE’s CEO from the chairmanship of the President’s Jobs Creation advisory panel. But what has GE or it’s CEO done that is wrong or illegal? Unless some new facts, not presently in evidence, are brought to light neither GE nor its management has done anything illegal nor acted in any way that is not in accordance with the law. In fact, GE was operating just as Congress had intended. It was not GE who wrote the tax code. It was not GE who determined what was a fair and balanced approach to applying the tax code to corporations. It was Congress.
Congress creates the federal laws and rules for taxing everyone and everything in America. They develop the policies and programs that help adjust and tune the tax code so that we encourage investments that will benefit the pubic, the economy and the nation; that will encourage job creation; and that will insure that the tax-burden is fairly borne by all.
So shouldn’t we be irate and ‘mad as hell’ at Congress? Isn’t this just another example of how Congress will take any task and achieve a complete state of snafu? But not to fear, Congress is diligently at work to cut the budget and have their flash-light like intensity semi-focused on that endeavor. We can all rest in comfort that Congress will provide us with a national budget that will meet all the standard criteria to reach fubar status.
We have Senators and Representatives who are absolutely sure that the only problem is that the maximum corporate tax rate is too high, and if we just lower it that all will be well with the world. What a shame that Congress nor the public hasn’t connected the tax code to Congress encouraging corporations to move jobs overseas, to Congress promoting corporations stashing profits in other nations, and to Congress undermining the overall US economy. Great job Congress! Keep up the good work at the budget cutting; I wouldn’t want you to spend any time or effort on fixing your errors that have brought the nation to its sorry state.
I guess the adage about fools is not only applicable to their rhetoric but also to their ability to serve the public. Not only is it better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak and confirm it; but it is better to pass no laws and be considered incompetent then to pass laws and prove it.
Now what exactly is a large portion of the public foaming about? These hyper-active attention deficit disordered individuals are incensed that a large international American corporation will not pay any taxes in 2011 on their 2010 $14.2 billion of profit. Some of them may feel abused because they have to pay taxes on a lot less money than GE made; assuming that they are not in the approximately 40% of US tax-payers who do not pay federal income taxes. [The term tax-payer here clearly is a grouping that only indicates a possibility not an actual fact.]
Based on this non-payment by GE, there are public calls for investigations and for the removal of GE’s CEO from the chairmanship of the President’s Jobs Creation advisory panel. But what has GE or it’s CEO done that is wrong or illegal? Unless some new facts, not presently in evidence, are brought to light neither GE nor its management has done anything illegal nor acted in any way that is not in accordance with the law. In fact, GE was operating just as Congress had intended. It was not GE who wrote the tax code. It was not GE who determined what was a fair and balanced approach to applying the tax code to corporations. It was Congress.
Congress creates the federal laws and rules for taxing everyone and everything in America. They develop the policies and programs that help adjust and tune the tax code so that we encourage investments that will benefit the pubic, the economy and the nation; that will encourage job creation; and that will insure that the tax-burden is fairly borne by all.
So shouldn’t we be irate and ‘mad as hell’ at Congress? Isn’t this just another example of how Congress will take any task and achieve a complete state of snafu? But not to fear, Congress is diligently at work to cut the budget and have their flash-light like intensity semi-focused on that endeavor. We can all rest in comfort that Congress will provide us with a national budget that will meet all the standard criteria to reach fubar status.
We have Senators and Representatives who are absolutely sure that the only problem is that the maximum corporate tax rate is too high, and if we just lower it that all will be well with the world. What a shame that Congress nor the public hasn’t connected the tax code to Congress encouraging corporations to move jobs overseas, to Congress promoting corporations stashing profits in other nations, and to Congress undermining the overall US economy. Great job Congress! Keep up the good work at the budget cutting; I wouldn’t want you to spend any time or effort on fixing your errors that have brought the nation to its sorry state.
I guess the adage about fools is not only applicable to their rhetoric but also to their ability to serve the public. Not only is it better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak and confirm it; but it is better to pass no laws and be considered incompetent then to pass laws and prove it.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
What Does It Profit a Congress to Make Law, If It Loses Our Economy?
Congress, it appears, has struggled to solve a problem. Alright I know, when has Congress ever solved a problem, as opposed to just causing them? But the real question is: how is it possible that a body comprised of individuals that include a mix of backgrounds with roughly 40% in law and 40% in business and they cannot come to grips with a legislative approach that will incent businesses to create jobs in America and that incents them to avoid overtly stashing corporate profits overseas. Now I know it would be odd to expect experienced lawyers and business-persons to have any expertise for such problems. Who would expect Congress to be able to apply any talent to crafting such legislation, nor to understanding the ramifications of allowing our tax code to either promote the out-sourcing of jobs internationally or to enable corporations to squirrel profits in overseas accounts, or both? So here we are as usual left the lame, inept and ill-conceived efforts we have come to depend upon from our Congressional representatives.
I presume someone in the Department of Treasury, maybe even someone from the IRS, has attempted to explain to Congress that efforts to make it more attractive to create jobs in the US and to have corporations treat profits originating from American as taxable under the US code rather than to foreign nations have spectacularly failed. It’s even possible that some members of Congress could have figured out that campaign funds received from their corporate contributors along with said contributors’ sage advice and counsel regarding tax law might have consequences that it would be important even essential to understand. But even if they did understand the consequences, why would they care? Their vision has a horizon that only goes as far as the contribution check which either blocks everything else from view or which demands their total intellectual capacity.
Consider the recent news item concerning GE’s 2010 corporate tax responsibility, all $0.00 of it. While GE may have made $14.2B in profits, not income, PROFITS; they don’t owe any income tax to the federal coffers. Just like you and I, GE can use the tax code to contribute a fair and reasonable share of their profits to support our nation. And Congress has been the instrument that created the means by which GE and other corporations (and you and I, of course) have been able to achieve this burden relieving accounting. How wonderful and helpful of Congress, to enact the laws that so obviously benefit our economy and nation.
And we don’t have to only look at Congress’ tax-relief gift to corporations to see the far-reaching efforts that Congress undertakes in America’s best interests. In addition, Congress has encouraged these same corporations to create jobs, not of course in the US, but in foreign countries and economies. Not intentionally I would suspect, but isn’t that a rather pitiful excuse for Congress to fall back on when they also managed the out-sourcing of American jobs and did so when it was a perfectly predictable and expectable outcome? But not to worry, Congress is on the job! In these times of economic chaos and disaster, Congress is focusing on cutting the federal budget because the country is living beyond its means. If they apply their standard skills and competencies in this endeavor, and they will, we can all rest uncomfortable in the knowledge that Congress will succeed yet again in wrecking havoc upon us.
Not only will not addressing the tax code problems that endanger our freedom and existence, but failing to act will continue to erode America’s business climate. You have to wonder how it is possible that Congress cannot see how to use this opportunity to reduce our deficit and debt, expand our economy, grow domestic jobs, and revitalize American industry. Well, wonder no longer; they’re Congress.
I presume someone in the Department of Treasury, maybe even someone from the IRS, has attempted to explain to Congress that efforts to make it more attractive to create jobs in the US and to have corporations treat profits originating from American as taxable under the US code rather than to foreign nations have spectacularly failed. It’s even possible that some members of Congress could have figured out that campaign funds received from their corporate contributors along with said contributors’ sage advice and counsel regarding tax law might have consequences that it would be important even essential to understand. But even if they did understand the consequences, why would they care? Their vision has a horizon that only goes as far as the contribution check which either blocks everything else from view or which demands their total intellectual capacity.
Consider the recent news item concerning GE’s 2010 corporate tax responsibility, all $0.00 of it. While GE may have made $14.2B in profits, not income, PROFITS; they don’t owe any income tax to the federal coffers. Just like you and I, GE can use the tax code to contribute a fair and reasonable share of their profits to support our nation. And Congress has been the instrument that created the means by which GE and other corporations (and you and I, of course) have been able to achieve this burden relieving accounting. How wonderful and helpful of Congress, to enact the laws that so obviously benefit our economy and nation.
And we don’t have to only look at Congress’ tax-relief gift to corporations to see the far-reaching efforts that Congress undertakes in America’s best interests. In addition, Congress has encouraged these same corporations to create jobs, not of course in the US, but in foreign countries and economies. Not intentionally I would suspect, but isn’t that a rather pitiful excuse for Congress to fall back on when they also managed the out-sourcing of American jobs and did so when it was a perfectly predictable and expectable outcome? But not to worry, Congress is on the job! In these times of economic chaos and disaster, Congress is focusing on cutting the federal budget because the country is living beyond its means. If they apply their standard skills and competencies in this endeavor, and they will, we can all rest uncomfortable in the knowledge that Congress will succeed yet again in wrecking havoc upon us.
Not only will not addressing the tax code problems that endanger our freedom and existence, but failing to act will continue to erode America’s business climate. You have to wonder how it is possible that Congress cannot see how to use this opportunity to reduce our deficit and debt, expand our economy, grow domestic jobs, and revitalize American industry. Well, wonder no longer; they’re Congress.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Representative Congress: Elected According to Their Constituents’ Intelligence?
Perhaps the poor state of America education can be understood in the context of a “cause and effect” relationship. Most things in the world and in life can be understood in such a context. The actual difficult is finding the factor or factors that are actually involved in those relationships, not in understanding how the process plays out once the factors are recognized. And it is not surprising that after the process is identified and explained that everyone will tell you that they always knew the relationships and that it is obvious to the most casual observer. So how do we link the cause and effect between elected politicians and the American education system? Nothing could be so simple!
Our own assessment and the assessment of other leading industrial nations, is that Americans are falling behind in educational achievements. The scientific, technical, industrial and economic consequences from the ever increasing drop of our ranked position amongst our peers is talked about by persons of every ilk; and is pitched in terms of America falling behind competitively. Our leaders tell us that we must improve our educational system or we will lose our America dream, our future and our freedom.
And we talk about who to blame, because it cannot be ourselves. We all want the best education for our children, not the worst. So we blame the teachers, school systems, school boards, school administrators, the Department of Education (state or federal), and some even blame Congress. There are sides that say we spend too little, some say too much. We blame the poor, the rich, the children, and the parents. But all the blaming doesn’t explain anything. There is no cause-effect that makes this understandable. The forces at the core of our failing are not categories of people. Rather the causes are those elusive factors that push or pull the educational process in one direction or another, the actions that move the pea from one cup to another, and the rewards and punishments that induce one type of behavior over another.
What then does this have to do with Congress? Let’s consider the following ‘cause’ and consider its ‘effect’. If the public that elects each and every congressional representative is, well let’s say: not overly informed and knowledgeable, then the politician doesn’t have to worry about an informed constituency. Politicians don’t have to even be marginally smart. They just need to be able to understand what pushes the buttons of their constituents. Not what is a meaningful or important issue that impinges upon the lives and well-being of the voters; but only what will grab their attention and stimulate their reaction of going with the flow. It’s easier for the politician if they don’t have to know facts, to be able to talk knowledgeably about a topic, or to be able to comprehend or assess information required to understand a problem.
If the general public is unable to recognize that the politician is an idiot, a buffoon, or a self-serving con-artist then the politician can avoid having any substance or any gravitas when it comes to being a qualified representative leader.
So political success would motivate politicians to seek and undertake actions that prevent quality and efficiency in our educational process. The larger portion of the population that is competent to choose qualified leaders the worse it is for them. Continue to apply the principle of degrading education from year to year and politician to politician and you get an electorate that is well suited for selecting the type of Congressional representatives we seem to persistently wind up with.
Now I don’t say that this is the only factor influencing the quality of education in the US, but can you deny that it is an important factor? I guess that would depend upon the effectiveness of the education that you received from the system, now wouldn’t it?
Our own assessment and the assessment of other leading industrial nations, is that Americans are falling behind in educational achievements. The scientific, technical, industrial and economic consequences from the ever increasing drop of our ranked position amongst our peers is talked about by persons of every ilk; and is pitched in terms of America falling behind competitively. Our leaders tell us that we must improve our educational system or we will lose our America dream, our future and our freedom.
And we talk about who to blame, because it cannot be ourselves. We all want the best education for our children, not the worst. So we blame the teachers, school systems, school boards, school administrators, the Department of Education (state or federal), and some even blame Congress. There are sides that say we spend too little, some say too much. We blame the poor, the rich, the children, and the parents. But all the blaming doesn’t explain anything. There is no cause-effect that makes this understandable. The forces at the core of our failing are not categories of people. Rather the causes are those elusive factors that push or pull the educational process in one direction or another, the actions that move the pea from one cup to another, and the rewards and punishments that induce one type of behavior over another.
What then does this have to do with Congress? Let’s consider the following ‘cause’ and consider its ‘effect’. If the public that elects each and every congressional representative is, well let’s say: not overly informed and knowledgeable, then the politician doesn’t have to worry about an informed constituency. Politicians don’t have to even be marginally smart. They just need to be able to understand what pushes the buttons of their constituents. Not what is a meaningful or important issue that impinges upon the lives and well-being of the voters; but only what will grab their attention and stimulate their reaction of going with the flow. It’s easier for the politician if they don’t have to know facts, to be able to talk knowledgeably about a topic, or to be able to comprehend or assess information required to understand a problem.
If the general public is unable to recognize that the politician is an idiot, a buffoon, or a self-serving con-artist then the politician can avoid having any substance or any gravitas when it comes to being a qualified representative leader.
So political success would motivate politicians to seek and undertake actions that prevent quality and efficiency in our educational process. The larger portion of the population that is competent to choose qualified leaders the worse it is for them. Continue to apply the principle of degrading education from year to year and politician to politician and you get an electorate that is well suited for selecting the type of Congressional representatives we seem to persistently wind up with.
Now I don’t say that this is the only factor influencing the quality of education in the US, but can you deny that it is an important factor? I guess that would depend upon the effectiveness of the education that you received from the system, now wouldn’t it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)