TPP……TOO PECULIARLY (BI)PARTISAN

President Barack Obama has been touting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and its companion Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TATIP). These are potential trade agreements, the former being negotiated with 11 other nations bordering the Pacific Ocean and the latter with Europe.

There have been accusations that the negotiations are secretive and that entering such pacts, no matter the assertions by the Administration, will result in the loss of American jobs. In that regard it is claimed to be similar as to what the effects were of the North American Free Trade Agreement, better known as the notorious NAFTA passed during Bill Clinton’s tenure that itself was highly praised in advance for its benefits for American workers and highly cursed since by the thousands, if not millions, of American workers who lost jobs as a result.

Obama has encountered resistance to TPP within his own Democratic Party, most notably from Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Currently there is Congressional legislation pending granting Trade Promotional Authority to the President, the power to cut trade deals and expedite their passage through Congress without amendments or procedural hurdles.

And Republicans are leading the way.

Now these are the same Republicans who have opposed just about any legislation favored by Obama, or any executive action, or any thought speech or motion by Obama down to whether he installs the new roll of toilet paper so it rolls over rather than under.

Affordable Care Act? It got no Republican votes even though its basic premise was first developed by Republicans.

Cap and Trade? Nothing has really been done to enact legislation that would allow companies to, in effect, trade for credits to allow more carbon dioxide emissions. But again this principle first emerged under a Republican. George H.W. Bush was President and cap and trade been cited as a market approach to reducing pollution. Senator John McCain was even the main sponsor of such a bill in both 2003 and 2005. Since Obama took office you’d think he had decided to confiscate the first born of every American family and sell them into sexual slavery from the Republican reaction if the topic was even broached.

Immigration reform? George W. Bush tried to get legislation passed and many Republicans favored passing some measures, though the details drew varying levels of support. Now, it seems, that any efforts by Obama to get some degree of reform is such anathema to Republicans that many are willing to self-deport as a symbolic gesture against reform.

And then there is the ongoing case of Iran and its intentions…or not…to build a nuclear weapon. The Obama administration, together with five other nations, has concluded a framework of an agreement with Iran that would prevent such a weapon from being constructed. Finalization of such pact is pending as the details are committed to the legal niceties.

This would appear to be a good thing, keeping an atomic bomb away from what is considered a rogue state. And I recognize that Iran could break the pact, though its actions will be closely monitored. But, then again, Japan could renounce our World War II Treaty with them, re-arm, and flood the U.S. market with autos and electronics, including those fascinating toilets (with the toilet paper coming off over the top, of course.

But first 47 Republican Senators sent an open letter to Iran’s leadership stating their outright opposition to ANY agreement and their intention to thwart Obama at every turn. Some have even voiced a desire for war against Iran in preference to even the most stringently enforceable treaty possible.

So, just why would Republicans all of a sudden fall all over themselves to work with President Obama on the TPA for both the TPP and TATIP? By god they’ve been willing to work with Democrats to get them to agree in the Senate in order to have enough votes to ensure passage.

In the past few years we have witnessed no cooperation between the two parties in Congess unless the American public was going to get screwed.

Senate Democrats may have maintained unity to prevent the fast tracking sought by Obama,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/12/senate-democrats-trade-promotion-authority_n_7267600.html

But the mere fact that Republicabns are siding with President Obama on this issue should be sufficient to raise suspicion if not simply reject the TPA out of hand.

The old saying is Politics makes strange bedfellows, commonly atributed to American writer and essayist and friend of Mark Twain, Charles Dudley Warner, though it may have derived from Shakespeare’s The Tempest.

Obama and Senate Republicans make for strange bedfellows indeed.

Anyone have pictures?

BUSH VS CLINTON—2016

I just had a thought. At least it’s not as dangerous as most of my impulses.

While reading an article about Bill Clinton’s possible role in Hillary’s campaign, and having seen a headline where former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley stated that we need to get rid of the Clinton—Bush mindset, I was inspired. (Also expired and perspired but that’s for later)

Let us have a Clinton vs Bush contest in 2016, but Bill against Dubya, not Hillary against Jeb.

There’s no Constitutional problem with a third term for either because, as the Teabaggers have been telling us for several years, the Constitution has been taken away, just like school prayer, everybody’s guns, and their freedom to worship  the two or three time divorced Conservative heroes of their choice.

You ask, “how is this a good idea?” And I pretend I am on a Sunday morning network political talk show and reply, “How is it not?”

Don’t ask again, I’m moving on with my own talking points. (I am a HUGE fan of Meet The Press)

How in the world could one not appreciate another Presidential campaign involving these men, but for the first time, facing off directly.

The contrasts are clear. It would be as if Sandy Koufax were to come out of retirement to pitch to a similarly unretired Willie Mays. Their records are clear, if not written in stone…or, as in the case of Koufax and Mays…written in BaseballReference.com.

One easy comparison would be to say one sucked and the other one was sucked. But that would be crude and lowdown and I refuse to go there.

Another easy comparison is that one finally brought the federal budget back into balance with a surplus four years running as he left office while the other immediately brought yearly deficits back to life.

One used his powers as Commander-in Chief (CINC) to deploy troops with a loss of approximately one hundred as a result. The other used his powers as Commander-in-Chief to deploy troops who suffered deadly losses of over 6000.

One saw the creation of nearly 23 million private sector jobs during his tenure and the other saw the creation of fewer than 2 million private sector jobs during his.

But I’m taking myself far too seriously here. What I am really concerned about is entertainment value.

Just imagine the delight the media will take in bloviating about draft dodging vs AWOL, about “not inhaling” vs drunken, cocaine fueled escapades.

Post-Presidency fund raising from foreign despots vs Post-Presidency crappy artwork.

Avoiding your Vice-President because you never got along anyhow vs avoiding  your Vice-President because you refuse to hang out with known criminals.

But there is one main reason Bill, rather than Hillary Clinton should run. We probably will not hear the word Benghazi more than 6453 times in attack ads if Bill runs while the number would be infinite if Hillary did.

On the Bush side running George instead of brother Jeb means the deepest desires of their mother, Barbara,  to not have another Bush in the Oval Office will be satisfied.

And I kind of like the old gal.

VOTE UMOC IN 2016

 

Yes, I am running for President in 2016. There is no one better prepared than I. As demonstrated in this space for the past four years I am knowledgeable about everything. Furthermore I not only have the knowledge concerning all the important issues, I also have the solutions for them.

Bah on Hillary and Elizabeth and Joe.

Bah on Ted and Rand and Michele and Rick and Jeb.

A pox on all their houses.

My obvious wisdom is flavored with wit, amalgamated with compassion, annealed with life experience, and fortified through enduring the slings and arrows of outrageous comments by trolls.

Yet, my chief qualification is unarguable. My name is neither Clinton nor Bush.

Whatever proficiencies are possessed by potential candidates of those names they are tempered by the realization that we have already lived through regimes commanded by relatives of blood or marriage and we need to avoid the possibility of being forced to relive those years.

Now admittedly there are some negatives that my opponents and political enemies (including Fox News by default) will undoubtedly emphasize.

Dinesh D’Souza accused Barack Obama of being an”anti-colonialist”. I wear that label proudly. I share that view with men such as Jefferson, Franklin, Monroe, Adams, and some dude named Washington (no, not the character from Welcome Back Kotter). Sadly none of these men are willing to assist me in defending that view. Dammit, they all died on me!

I do have something in common with conservatives that should garner some support from the right. I very much believe in self-sufficiency and prefer the government have little or no role in people’s economic lives. So all those welfare queens can pretty much count on no longer feeding at the public trough. Take that Exxon and hedge fund managers and Halliburton and Israeli Military Industries, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

I must be careful. Laying out too much of my precise plan of action too far ahead of time can be deleterious to one’s campaign. Suffice it to say every proposal I will put on the table will help bring the federal budget into balance, make the world safe for democracy, enable all Americans to live the dream, and eliminate nasty corns, calluses, bunions, and sore feet. (Uh, sorry, that last part comes from an old commercial.)

To avoid controversy the only percentages I cite will relate to MLB won-loss records.

Since I will defend Social Security with my dying breath I will eschew the Presidential pay of $400,000 a year and live off my benefits. I have no wife or minor children whom I can dispatch around the world at taxpayer expense. I don’t golf. I’ll end the silly practice of bringing championship sports teams to the White House. The members of the college teams could better spend their time in class. The members of the professional teams are paid more than the President. Why the hell should I have them as guests? They should be hosting at THEIR mansions.

In the meantime I better get cracking on organizing my campaign.

Any volunteers?

 

 

 

THE WAR ON POVERTY HAS BECOME THE WAR ON THE POOR

“The same guys who can deny others everything are famous for refusing themselves nothing”

Leigh Hunt

Recently we observed the 50th anniversary of when President Lyndon B. Johnson announced measures to be taken to mount a war on poverty. Contrary to popular opinion these measures were not limited to providing pure handouts to shiftless blacks and lazy scumbag poor white trash. Indeed aside from common notions of poverty aid, Johnson’s plans were much more comprehensive and included provisions and programs to not only provide direct payments but which were designed to move to eliminate or at least lessen the causes of poverty entailing health, education and other social programs that benefited entire groups rather than individuals.

Such widely accepted programs as Medicare and Medicaid and federal aid to education were large parts of the entire package as was the establishment of the Food Stamp program, now called SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

Despite some criticisms from both liberal and conservative factions, the actions instituted did decrease poverty levels significantly in the first ten years, according to the prevailing metrics of the time. The poverty rate fell from 17.4% when the initiatives began to 11.1% in 1973, when the rate leveled off.

A good overview of the War on Poverty (not an official name) and related topics can be found here.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty

Also contrary to popular opinion the War on Poverty has continued to be successful, perhaps not so much in reducing the poverty rate itself to miniscule levels but to prevent more people from falling into that defined status.

In observation of this anniversary the New York Times (NYT) offers an analysis of the present state of poverty in America with information gleaned from various sources. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-war-on-poverty-at-50/?_r=1

However, the writer refuses to frame the analysis in terms of winning versus losing.

So, collecting all of these facts, the answer to the question posed above is that it’s the wrong question, in that its inherent win/loss framing precludes a nuanced analysis of the play between many disparate factors.

The momentum to fight the WOP (War on Poverty) lessened considerably after 1973 and ground to a comparative halt in the past thirty years.

President Ronald Reagan notoriously virtually dismissed the entire WOP with his characterizations of the recipients of largesse as leeches looking to game the system at great cost to our country. The epitome of his scorn was the so-called Welfare Queen, traipsing in furs and driving Cadillacs while collecting thousands upon thousands of dollars in funds ideally directed to the neediest of our citizens.

While there was actually some truth to the alleged fraudulent schemes of of his main target, one Linda Taylor, legend has grown over the years that this woman was a myth created out of whole cloth and Reagan’s dementia fed imagination. But there really was such a woman who was convicted of welfare fraud but whose crimes, cons and scams were far more egregious than those petty misdemeanors, possibly even including murder.

(For an examination of Linda Taylor’s actual life—much undocumented—read the fascinating tale presented here. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html)

Unfortunately the image of “Welfare Queen has been iterated and replicated many times over since Reagan’s tenure though he assuredly was not the first person of any stripe or prominent leader to make that erroneous generalization.

Of course the notion that the WOP is an utter failure simply feeds that stereotype and lends  support to arguments propagated by conservatives to seriously slash these social safety net programs because…well…they don’t work anyways.

Senator Marco Rubio has taken up the failure mantra but liberal Michael Tomasky, building on the NYT article, observes that

What’s wrong with thinking is that we have not, of course, been fighting any kind of serious war on poverty for five decades. We fought it with truly adequate funding for about one decade. Less, even. Then the backlash started, and by 1981, Ronald Reagan’s government was fighting a war on the war on poverty. The fate of many anti-poverty programs has ebbed and flowed ever since. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/06/marco-rubio-is-wrong-the-war-on-poverty-worked.html

Arguably  Exhibit 1 of the decrease in willingness to attack poverty is the welfare “reform” enacted in 1996, that drastically altered eligibility requirements for  the primary cash payments to the poor. Morphing from Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) the number of families receiving such aid has dropped from about 12.3 million in the throes of the AFDC system to about an average of just under 4.5 million families receiving TANF.

With those reforms came a work requirement and a lifetime limit on benefits.

I do not maintain that these and the other changes did not have logic and a factual basis behind them. Just about any government program, social or otherwise, demands frequent reevaluation and revision to remain effective. I do note, however, that the poverty rate during the intervening years is substantially the same as it was prior to “reform”. That leads to a conclusion that there remains a crying need for assistance on the previously broader scale, even if some revisions assured that only the truly needy received aid and that fraud was minimized.

Indeed there are so many variables at play here that result in our poorest citizens as a class losing pretty much any hope of truly living the American dream——you know, the dream that has individuals living in spacious houses,  replete with granite counter tops and stainless steel appliances, with cars that are more than “beaters”, designer clothes on themselves and their children, and having said children obtain a good education in our public schools and going on to the college or vocational school of their choice so they can achieve these same goals.

But it ain’t so, Joe.

Our economic system is supposedly based on free enterprise and free markets, though many conservatives insist on portraying government as one big clogging influence that drags down our economics and taxes the “job creators” to death.

This canard is repeated over and over when it can be demonstrated that the government gives far more to these “business titans” than it asks in return. Not only that but income and wealth inequality in the United States has reached epic proportions, far exceeding that of the “Gilded  Age”

I have written on that particular aspect previously such as here.  https://umoc193.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/wealth-redistribution-its-already-a-reality/

The video linked to here is a real eye-opener that provides facts about what people believe the ideal income distribution should be (surprise, it’s not everybody gets the same) what people believe our income distribution is, and further facts revealing that the situation is far worse than many Americans commonly think.      http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2?c=wa1

Now is this growing inequality the fault of the “failed” WOP? Absolutely not. I have already mentioned the changes and reductions of help that have characterized the past forty years under Presidents of both parties. Indeed, what seems to be clear is that due to political expediency, philosophical adjustments, and a penchant for favoring guns over butter, we have reached the point where the average person finds it extremely difficult to move up the scale.

If only we had fought the war on poverty with the same fervor, unity of purpose and seemingly limitless expenditure of dollars that we have in attacking hapless nations we would have achieved far greater inroads against poverty.

But not only has the will to fight to end poverty been lost, today we find nefarious forces at work which are thoroughly hostile to the poor. (And since the middle class has been so ravaged I include them as the targets of the oppressors).

A quick glance through any news source finds the poor and middle class under attack as never before. They are being assailed for the lack of contents in their wallets while questioning their character. In other words, blame the victim.

Public school teachers, always underpaid in comparison to others of similar education, are now derisively attacked for the shortcomings of our public education system most especially if they have the gall to be union members.

Other public servants are barraged with allegations of greed, laziness and ineptitude, again more so if they are unionized. In Wisconsin and elsewhere their collective bargaining rights have been unilaterally removed. That is, except for police and firefighters. Ironically the most common instances of overreach of public servants are rooted in law enforcement. Certainly the offending parties are relatively few but annually they cost their cities and counties millions upon millions of dollars for illegal arrests, unjustified beatings and shooting, and outright corruption.

Unions and their members in general apparently are solely responsible for the near total demise of the auto industry recently and the steel industry before that. At least that is what you are fed every day by cowardly politicos and craven business moguls.

The image of the welfare queen has not faded but now is supplemented by the anger generated by the mere notion that someone on food stamps can actually buy soft drinks with them. Oh, the nerve!

One of the most successful public programs in history, Social Security, is beset by unthinking budget cutters wanting to curtail or reduce benefits or install new cost of living (COLA) formulas to hold future increases in benefits down. Of course, save for the short-lived SS tax reduction, not one cent from general revenues has ever been put into the SS Trust Fund nor has any benefit for retirees been paid out of general revenues. Also, of course, the current COLA formula already has prevented any increase in two out of the past five years.

I personally have seen my fixed living costs go up more than any increase in benefits I have received, meaning I have less disposable income than I did five years ago.

The evils of “Obamacare” are so horrific that Republicans want to eliminate it though its basic tenets were their original creation. The refusal of the governors in over twenty states (I believe all Republican controlled) to expand their Medicaid rolls under the Affordable Care Act and non-participation in the insurance exchanges will prevent millions from having coverage who live in poverty as well as making it more challenging for their citizens  to procure insurance on their own.

People making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year resent any move to increase the minimum wage to around $10/hour which would enable that earner to pocket $20,000 a year. This is so even with the fact that the current minimum wage is less in real dollars than what that figure was forty years ago.

Somehow these brilliant business folks are completely immune to and ignorant of the reality that putting more money into the hands of the less well off means it will be spent often generating more income for the rich while upping demand for jobs. Then they complain that President Obama isn’t creating enough jobs while out of the other side of their mouths comes the mantra that government does not create jobs, the “job creators” do. That’s them, naturally. So why in the hell have they not created more jobs while they and their business experience record earnings levels?

Every advantage is given to the rich. Their corporations face too high a tax rate, they moan, while paying no taxes at all. They bitch and kvetch about paying welfare mothers while they sit back and collect farm subsidies. (75% of those go to corporations, not family farms.) Some sit in their New York City penthouses and search their mail for their next subsidy payment while their Wyoming hunting camp doesn’t plant the crops that never would be planted in the first place.

While rich guys get billions in subsidies the poor are the targets of overzealous legislators convinced that they are all druggies and need to be tested before receiving benefits.

The unthinking Congress creatures and Fox news hacks decry the present movement to increase the minimum wage, futilely exclaiming that such an action will destroy the fragile economy when history proves otherwise. And, Dr. Watson, it is elementary that more money in the hands of those inclined or necessitated to spend nearly every cent they receive will increase demand for the very goods and services allegedly purveyed by the 1%.

Mitt Romney’s famous declaration that 47% of Americans pay no taxes and therefore must be totally disregarded drew much attention in the 2012 Presidential campaign. His unconscionable contempt for many of the same folks who are more naturally inclined to support conservative causes and ideals…you know, older people, military retirees and the like…may as well have been a major part of his standard stump speech. he never backed down from those remarks and, if you recall the recording, those vile words were spewed from his mouth almost in glee.

We have billionaires expressing the bizarre belief that any criticism of the rich is the equivalent of the Nazi degradation of the Jews and that a rich man’s “holocaust” is imminent. But we’ve recently learned that the 85 richest people in the world have wealth equal to the poorest 3.5 BILLION PEOPLE on this earth. So any extermination should be swift and not drain too many resources.

Of course that entire idea is preposterous and I can offer nothing but sarcasm for this idiocy.

The Affordable Care Act has been under assault from the date of its passage. As I cited earlier much of the resistance to it is an overt way to stick it to the poor or at least would have such an effect as an underlying consequence.

Poor students in one Salt Lake City school had their lunches taken away because their parents were not fully paid up. How thoroughly embarrassing for the kids thought it does seem that those who received totally subsidized lunches were not affected. But elsewhere there have been calls to eliminate any free lunches and substitute a work requirement for the kiddies to “earn ” their way.

I can detail so many examples of the way our lawmakers want to punish the poor for merely being poor, with the support of far too many factions in our society, most disgustingly some “Christian” groups.  But I believe these odious proposals are not only Unchristian but also Unmuslim and Unjewish and probably Unzoroastrian.

Let me say here I do not condemn those who are rich for merely being rich.

I do condemn those who are rich who possess the mistaken assumption that all beneath them are dirt.These reverse Robin Hoods desire to take from the poor so that the troughs of the rich can become ever more bloated with lucre.

I do condemn those who are rich for limning the poor as poor in character, not only in financial resources.

I do condemn those who are rich for their desire to have it all, not just most of it, to bleed every dollar from every transaction to line their own pockets.

I do condemn the rich who portray themselves as victims and under siege. They know very well that farcical that is.

I never advocate violence and mayhem as a solution to a problem, but the sentiments of this song are difficult to ignore and repress.

“Eat The Rich”

Well I woke up this morning
On the wrong side of the bed
And how I got to thinkin’
About all those things you said
About ordinary people
And how they make you sick
And if callin’ names kicks back on you
Then I hope this does the trick’Cause I’m a sick of your complainin’
About how many bills
And I’m sick of all your bitchin’
Bout your poodles and your pills
And I just can’t see no humour
About your way of life
And I think I can do more for you
With this here fork and knife[Chorus:]
Eat the Rich: there’s only one thing they’re good for
Eat the Rich: take one bite now – come back for more
Eat the Rich: I gotta get this off my chest
Eat the Rich: take one bite now, spit out the restSo I called up my head shrinker
And I told him what I’d done
Said you’d best go on a diet
Yeah I hope you have some fun
And a don’t go burst a bubble
On the rich folks who get rude
‘Cause you won’t get in no trouble
When you eats that kinda food
Now their smokin’ up the junk bonds
And then they go get stiff
And they’re dancin’ in the yacht club
With Muff and Uncle Biff
But there’s one good thing that happens
When you toss your pearls to swine
Their attitudes may taste like shit
But go real good with wine
[Chorus]Wake up kid, it’s half past your youth
Ain’t nothin’ really changes but the date
You a grand slammer, but you no Babe Ruth
You gotta learn how to relate
Or you’ll be swingin’ from the pearly gate
Now you got all the answers, low and behold
You got the right key baby but the wrong key ho, yoBelieve in all the good things
That money just can’t buy
Then you won’t get no belly ache
From eatin’ humble pie
I believe in rags to riches
Your inheritence won’t last
So take your Grey Poupon my friend
And shove it up your ass!
[Chorus]Eat the Rich: there’s only one thing they’re good for
Eat the Rich: take one bite now – come back for more
Eat the Rich: don’t stop me now I’m goin’ crazy
Eat the Rich: that’s my idea of a good time baby

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/aerosmith/eattherich.html

Writer’s Notes

Though I have included some citations for quotes and source materials, I drew from many more for my views expressed here. Below is a list of resources utilized here as well as some interesting reading which is related to this topic and will enhance your knowledge. I read each of them in preparing this post.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/30/the_middle_class_myth_heres_why_wages_are_really_so_low_today/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scam-wall-street-learned-from-the-mafia-20120620?page=2

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/florida-welfare-drug-tests_n_4525534.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/koch-obamacare-ads_n_4533477.html

http://www.wearesc.com/forums/forum/main-category/off-topic/51431-stephens-obama-s-envy-problem

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/02/federal_judge_rules_floridas_welfare_drug_testing_law_unconstitutional/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/glenn-grothman-wisconsin_n_4537891.html

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/something-to-behold–2

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/01/05

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-backed-political-network-built-to-shield-donors-raised-400-million-in-2012-elections/2014/01/05/9e7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/counter_narrative/2014/01/david_brooks_smoking_pot_should_black_kids_pay_for_his_pothead_sins.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2014/01/north_carolina_s_assault_on_teachers_has_to_stop.single.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/06/marco-rubio-is-wrong-the-war-on-poverty-worked.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/01/07/republicans_will_only_revive_unemployment_benefits_if_they_get_to_keep_more.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/health-care-obstruction_n_4556307.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carly-paul/the-slow-grip-of-poverty_b_4516679.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/a-new-low-in-health-care-rhetoric-20140108

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/09/wealthy-gop-candidate-illinois-governor-cut-states-minimum-wage.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-alan-grayson/what-obamacare-really-is-all-about_b_4570052.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/09/noelle-roni-fired_n_4569907.html

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/10/robert_reich_gops_divide_and_conquer_strategy_is_backfiring/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/28/congress-austerity_n_4509179.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/10/krugman_explains_why_the_war_on_poverty_has_failed/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/10/jon-stewart-income-inequality_n_4575409.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/social_darwinism_and_class_essentialism_the_rich_think_they_are_superior.single.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/01/marco_rubio_and_paul_ryan_lead_a_republican_campaign_against_poverty.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/01/10/snap_should_be_cash_instead.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/01/welfare_works_for_kids_children_whose_parents_get_money_grow_up_healthier.html

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/30/the_middle_class_myth_heres_why_wages_are_really_so_low_today/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/minimum-wage-raise-proof_n_4597721.html

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/17/8_conservative_anti_poverty_ideas_that_will_make_things_so_much_worse_partner/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/red-state-voters_b_4608891.html

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2014/jan/12/occupy-democrats/pro-democrat-group-says-9-10-poorest-states-are-re/

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/19/how_the_young_elite_rise_in_washington_d_c/

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/19/what_i_learned_from_a_week_on_food_stamps_paul_ryan_couldnt_be_any_more_wrong/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/21/global_inequality_oxfam_report_finds_85_richest_people_s_net_worth_equals.html

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/15/poor_hating_hypocrites_secret_pro_military_loophole_reveals_latest_gop_outrage/

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kevin-oleary-oxfam-poverty-fantastic

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/american-dream-dead_n_4651337.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/wage-growth-50-year-lows_n_4651882.html?utm_hp_ref=business

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/gilded-age-state-of-the-union_n_4647348.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marian-wright-edelman/its-time-to-end-child-pov_b_4652975.html

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/23/when_companies_break_the_law_and_people_pay_the_scary_lesson_of_the_google_bus/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/low-wage-workers-education_n_4653020.html?utm_hp_ref=business

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/22/wall_street%e2%80%99s_lamest_enemies_meet_groups_who_represent_the_poor_%e2%80%93_but_push_deregulation/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/27/thomas-perkins-doubles-down-holocaust_n_4674266.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/27/republicans-poverty-gop-inequality_n_4577490.html?utm_hp_ref=business

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20140129/us-wealth-gap-health-overhaul/?utm_hp_ref=homepage&ir=homepage

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/the-daily-show-minimum-wage_n_4688134.html

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57468293-78/lunches-olsen-lunch-district.html.csp

THE SMALL BUSINESS TAX BURDEN MYTH

Last night’s Presidential debate featured some of the usual nonsense from Mitt Romney. President Barack Obama plans to end the Bush tax cuts but only for people earning in excess of $250,000 by restoring the top marginal rate to the 39.6% it was under President Bill Clinton instead of the 35% it is now. The Mittster is freaked out because of the adverse effect this will have on small business owners.

Well, this is one freak show rated PG, not XXX. The fact is, as the Adninistration has consistently maintained, that only 3% of small businesses would be affected by this change.

That has been the conclusion of the Joint Committee on Taxation and even House Speaker John Boehner has conceded the point. In an appearance on CBS Face The Nation he stated

Well, it may be three percent, but it’s half of small business income. Because, obviously, the top three percent have half of the gross income for those companies that we would term small businesses. And this is why you don’t want to punish these people at a time when you have a weak economy.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/boehner_concedes_only_three_pe.html

One might find the second part of his statement alarming, i.e. that the 3% has half of all small business income. But his words simply belie the point that those small businesses are not so small after all.

For instance small business has more to do with the type of business organization it is rather than mere size. So the Koch Brothers, operating at least some of their enterprises as private entities, not corporations, have a “small” business with 75,000 employees.

I imagine that little mom and pop shoe store is pretty damned crowded, doncha think?

In today’s Post-Gazette, Pa. Senator Pat Toomey pleads his case to leave small businesses alone. http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/dont-raise-income-taxes-657822/

His argument is oh so eloquent and logical until it comes crashing down around him, as if a 7.9 Richter Scale earthquake had its epicenter right beneath his feet.

Toomey presents two prime examples illustrating his rationale. The first, Richardson Cooling Packages, is based in New Castle, Pa.

Despite the economic downturn, Richardson has continued to thrive, expanding its business and hiring 35 new employees over the past year, bringing its workforce to 80. But company president David Richards is emphatic that “there is no way we could have done this if the president’s tax policies had been enacted. … We pay about 40 percent in taxes. That is money that we cannot use to grow. We need our working capital to remain competitive”

The pity party will begin soon, Mr. Richards. But not before I inform you that you are organized as an LL.C. That means that profits are distributed to the members per their share of ownership and taxed as individual income.

Unless it isn’t. Our tax code provides that, if an LL.C. wishes to treat some of that profit as retained earnings (usually for the purpose of paying debt or reinvesting into the business) it may elect to be taxed as a corporation. So not only will the unddistributed income not be taxed, the first $75,000 of income to each member is taxed at the corporate rate which for those amounts is less than the individual rate.

So Mr. Richards is either being disingenuous or he has the worst tax accountants in the country.

The second company Toomey cited is Precision Medical which is a CORPORATION. So its profits are taxed as a corporation with all the attendant benefits. In other words the “owners” will pay income tax only on what they receive as income whether it be salary, bonuses or dividends.

Let me address dividends for a moment. The reasoning goes that dividends are paid to individuals from corporations AFTER the corporate profits, if any, have already been taxed. Since the shareholders own the corporation, taxing their dividends amounts to double taxation.

If only it were so. General Electric, Co. is one of 30 corporations that paid no U.S. income tax for 2008-2010. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-usa-tax-corporate-idUSTRE7A261C20111103

General Electric has paid a dividend each quarter for over 100 years. http://www.ge.com/investors/stock_info/dividend_history.html

Furthermore, at present qualified dividends (most of them) are taxed at much lower capital gains rates than individual ones. That has been the law since the initiation of the Bush tax cuts but for most of the income tax’s existence dividends have been taxed as ordinary income. See chart.

Look folks, I’ve had a basic accounting course and had a taxation class in Law School. When dealing with my clients as a lawyer I was usually aware of when they might have tax consequences for their actions but would refer them to an expert, which I am not, for the necessary advice.

But these facts I am using are readily ascertainable from public sources.

In light of Toomey’s and Romney’s statements on taxes it appears the tax they need fear most is the imposition of one on lies.

POLITICAL KINDERGARTEN

Ever get fed up with the ways of many of our prominent politicians? You know, how they bicker back and forth while ignoring the lessons they have been taught and all the admonitions to “play well together”?

If you’re an Early Childhood Education specialist, surely you can see  traits of these politicians that are shared with kindergartners. You know, selfishness, fibbing, temper tantrums, bossiness or even bullying, cheap gossiping—well, you get the picture. Examples of these types are readily identifiable.

You have prissy little Mitt, after long anticipation,  finally getting the opportunity to address the class, to deny some alleged misbehavior. After all, when he played doctor he  never forced any other kids to play doctor with him, like that bad boy Barack did.

Just as he opens his mouth little Sarah pops breathlessly in, stealing poor Mitt’s spotlight while she says oh he’s just as bad as Barack and both should be banned from the class.

Meanwhile, John and Mitch, good friends of Paul, are trying to coerce all the other kids to play with  Paul even though few of the kids really like the same games as Paul. John and Mitch tell the others there will be no money for field trips if they fail to go along.

Ask Newt what happens when you don’t go along with what Paul wants.

Mike, the once pudgy toddler who still looks like he wants to eat everything in sight, just sits in a corner making nasty remarks about his classmates but still standing apart from them.

Nancy and Harry are often ostracized because they always want the teacher to make new rules to control everyone. Nancy can be found pouting when, even though Barack is her friend, he ignores her while actually doing what she wanted done in the first place.

Barack is the smartest kid in the room by far but sometimes talks down to his peers. The trouble then isn’t that this condescension is resented, but that none of the kids who sit on the right side of the room can understand what the hell he is talking about.

When Barack first came to the class he was not only shunned but some of the kids thought he was from a strange strange land far away. But little kids have a poor sense of distance so it turns out he simply resided in an adjoining neighborhood which he proved by showing his bus pass.

Then, last winter, when some other kids got into a little squabble that could have involved the neighborhood, Barack hurled a bunch of snowballs into their yard trying to get them to stop. Oh all the kids sitting on the right side of the class didn’t like that, even though George, who was kicked out of school, had once spread rumors that relatives of those kids had snowballs of their own and he had a buch of ruffian friends of his go into their yard and beat them up. No snowballs were found.

Barack’s best buddy in school is Joe, a slightly older kid who can talk about anything but will become completely mesmerized by trains.

The prissy kid in the corner is Donald, never to be found in jeans and sneakers and his hair always in place, even if the species of the source of the hair is unknown to modern day zoologists. He keeps printing his name on any surfaces he can reach.

The other day Sarah and Donald ate lunch together, barely having time to chew and swallow since neither shut up the entire time, producing a cacaphony that seemed overwhelming but Donald managed to unflappably eat his carrot sticks and cupcake with a fork.

To the disappointment of Herman, Donald wouldn’t try the pizza he had brought from home. But then again, Herman always has trouble getting his classmates to pay attention to him even if teacher frequently praises him.

Jon is new to the class but he’s considered an outsider because, instead of playing with all the kids on the right side of the room that he used to know, he helped Barack make friends with some Chinese kids from another neighborhood who had been accused of stealing all the marbles from the school and replacing them with cheaper ones coated in lead.

Everyone likes Timmy but he’s always the last one picked for any games. No hate or disrepect but they simply forget he is there. Tim does try to gain notice by denying all things he has been seen doing.

Michelle is pretty annoying. Whenever the teacher asks questions about lessons the class has had, Michelle wildly waves her hand until she’s permitted to answer then always, I mean ALWAYS, answers incorrectly.

Wonderfully, autistic children are mainstreamed into the school with excellent results. Rudy, one such child, has learned to socialize well (with three little girlfriends—the little devil). But he broke all the radio-controlled police cars and fire trucks and now he’ll occasionally just sit in the corner and mutter “nine eleven” over and over.

There is one former student who visits periodically. That’s Bill who inevitably tells all why the school was so much better when he was there.

Now it’s June and Kindergarten will soon be ending for the summer. I wonder if any of the kids will show more maturity in the fall. You think there’s a chance in hell?

COMMANDER IN CHIEF—OR KILLER IN CHIEF

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…

Thus begins Article II Section 2 of the United States Constitution. The most important principle gleaned from this language is that of civilian control over our nation’s military power. Remarkably this principle has received universal acceptance among the populace.

Respect for the military itself has wavered to some extent through the years, likely reaching a nadir during the Vietnam War. Though our government set the policy, there was no doubt the influence of military leaders was important in developing and implementing the policy of engagement in Southeast Asia that was folly unfolding before our very eyes.

Though advisors had first been sent to Vietnam by Eisenhower and JFK had expanded their roll, LBJ became the President of record for that war and his legacy is largely based on it. That, in spite of huge accomplishments in civil rights, the beginnings of Medicare, and other successful domestic initiatives that are as praiseworthy as his military adventures are damnable.

Is LBJ the only President to be judged on exercising his authority as Commander in Chief? Certainly not, or I would not have a topic for this blog entry.

FDR is fondly remembered for ushering the country through the Great Depression. But that challenge almost pales in comparison to what he faced in bringing the United States into World War II, culminating in the near victory achieved at the time of his death on April 12, 1945. Failure in that endeavor would have not only detracted from his legacy, but probably would have eradicated the memory of his restoration of the economy.

So today on a lesser scale we have a President with a recent successful military excursion now added to his resume. The editorialists, bloggers and media talking heads are now debating whether the tracking and killing of Osama Bin Laden will elevate the stature of President Barack Obama sufficiently not just for his legacy but, more importantly in the short term, assure his re-election in 2012.

Why is that. Why should his popularity, his survival in the Office, depend on much on this relatively minor exercise of his Commander in Chief powers, no matter how favorable the outcome?

An odd sidelight to this discussion is that, having only a few days prior to the raid on OBL’s hideout fended off a good deal of the birther issue, new polls apparently justify the conclusion that, miraculously, that issue is a now a mere speck on Obama rather than an albatross around his neck.

But the events of last Sunday also resurrected the tale of President Jimmy Carter’s failed rescue mission of the Iranian hostages in 1980, which certainly would have resulted in the deaths of many Iranians. That failure sealed Carter’s fate in his bid for re-election.

At one time we had a President, Woodrow Wilson, who enhanced his bona fides as CIC by “keeping us out of war” and won re-election in 1916. Post WW II, however, especially post Vietnam War, the image of the President suffers unless and until he has some meaure of success militarily, i.e. kills some bad guys.

That factor is even more evident as we elect Presidents with no combat military experience themselves. Ronald Reagan served in WW II but he made propoganda films and never came face to face with either German or Japanese combatants. He loved rattling sabers against the Soviet Union but had to invade tiny Granada lest his desire and capability to go to war be questioned.

George H.W. Bush served more than honorably in that war, but when he declined to drive all the way to Baghdad to oust Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War he was derided as a wimp.

Bill Clinton was excoriated as a “draft dodger” and unworthy to be CIC but deflected some of that criticism by sending troops to Kosovo and Somalia. Because neither of those moves resulted in, or ever COULD have resulted in clear military victories, his CIC legacy is not strong.

George W. Bush is the epitome of a President who took his CIC powers to heart. After starting two wars of dubious merit he then reveled in being a “war President”, though he chose to be so , often proclaiming how much these responsibilities weighed on him, but to this day offering no regrets for the cost of lives in those conflicts.

Most pointedly he did something his dad did not—hunt down and kill Saddam Hussein. Even if the actual execution was due to Iraqi justice, Bush got de facto credit for the death. For better or for worse his legacy will be judged on those wars and the demise of Hussein

So we arrive back at our current CIC who has shown little hesitation employing our forces, from maintaining a presence in Iraq to expanding one in Afghanistan, to firing assorted missles and dropping bombs in Libya Obama already dispelled any notions he was shy about using army, navy and air force to further his policies.

But, like many of his predecessors, Obama has found that his popularity, legacy and foreign policy support gain more traction from killing than from legitimate efforts to maintain peace or from the success of any domestic policy whatsoever.

The President of the United States is Commander in Chief of our armed forces and militias every day of his term(s) in office. But it seems that this power is underappreciated and even criticized and thought unworthy of him until he puts those forces in harms way to kill the bad guys of the moment.

My desire is for my Commander in Chief, no matter who, to demonstrate his, or her, strength as such by being able to maneuver the Ship of State through troubled waters without resort to the extreme use of that power.

I shouldn’t hold my breath, should I?