Showing posts with label Billionaire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Billionaire. Show all posts

Saturday, November 05, 2016

There is a much better way than voting for Trump to express your anger with government

Whether you are Republican or Democrat, many people are upset with government.  Some are so upset with what they call government establishment politicians, that they want something completely different.  They want someone with no connection to the existing government infrastructure.  Given the choices for President this year, they see Donald Trump, a person with more connections to the Russian government than the American government, as suitable.

Trump supporters are so angry with government, that they are willing to forgive Trump of all his trespasses.  They have faith that a proven narcisisstic sociopath and sexual predator such as Trump can change his nature to become a true American dream of a patriotic and fair presidential Trump.  Someone who will "drain the swamp" in Washington (as Donald tweets) to correct the injustices they have felt and  that they believe have been caused by those politicians running the government now.

These angry feelings are understandable, but the source of this anger may be misdirected and the resolution of this anger by voting for Trump will only feel good for a very short time.  Trump's transgressions and trespasses will only get worse if he becomes President.

We are dealing with a man who has serious mental illness that may not be curable.  It prevents him from respecting anyone's opinion but his own.  It causes him to do and say things that a psychologically healthy person would find abhorrent.

Winning is more important to him than being President, and if he should lose, his flaws will cause him to find unreasonable excuses and blame others.  It causes him to assume an authoritarian personality which if elected, will make his term as President resemble a dictatorship more than democracy.

His business dealings with foreign governments will jeopardize foreign policy.  His closeness to Russia may cause him to champion policy that will favor Russian world domination.  He may even be seen by Putin as an unwitting partner in his pursuit of that effort.  Imagine the influence that  allying with the United States could have for Putin.

He has already shown an ignorance of our Constitution by challenging freedom of the press and stating that he would jail his political adversaries if elected.  He even violates the rights of American citizens by claiming that an entire religion should be exiled from the country.

He has violated business ethics and treated workers and small businesses unfairly by refusing to pay for work performed according to business contracts.  Many of his businesses have gone down to bankruptcy, which he feels makes him a smart businessman, showing complete apathy for the workers who lost jobs as a result.

He claims he will bring American jobs back to America, yet his own companies operate in China, India, Bangladesh and other third world nations.

I can continue on many more reasons that Donald Trump should not be President, but I promised in my title that there is a better way to resolve the situation that is causing so much anger with the government.

The American electorate agrees that the current Congress is worthless.  We all know that nothing gets done there.  One thing that may be missing from the explanation you have heard in the media is that not everyone there is useless.  In fact, those people that are useless are the biggest reason you are angry, even if you don't realize it.

Republicans may not accept this explanation, but I would ask that you remain open minded and consider that the GOP may have caused your anger.  If you are a devoted Fox News Republican, or listen to the multitude of right wing broadcasters, you may have been brainwashed into believing that Obama and the Congressional Democrats are responsible for all of your anger.  I submit for your review a few of the things that I believe may have caused some of your anger.

If you don't have a good job, let me remind you that America's unemployed work force could be put back to work if the President's American Jobs Act was enacted.  Unfortunately Congressional Republicans prevented passing it.

If you don't feel the improvement in the economy, remember that women earn less than men and yet could become equal in the workforce if legislation to prevent discrimination in wages was lifted by removing Republican obstruction.  Women belong to families, so increasing women's wages increases family wages.

If you care about your fellow Americans, America's immigrant families could receive fairer treatment if Congressional Republican leadership would not disallow a vote.   A bipartisan immigration effort was stifled by Republican leadership.

If you want to improve the finances of many Americans who work in lower paying jobs, and want to help stimulate the economy by putting more money in their hands, then an increase in the minimum wage could do it, except that Republicans refuse to support it.

The unfair control of government realized by the few uber-rich American contributors to the Republican party who influence their legislation and activities could be eliminated if Democrats were in the majority.

The economic theories of the GOP is summed up in the "trickle down" theory, which pretends that jobs will be created by giving tax breaks to the rich at the expense of the middle class.  The failure of the theory has been proven over many years.

It fails because jobs will never be created unless demand for products increases.  No business owner is going to increase the number of people working unless he needs them because the demand for product is exceeding current capacity of the workforce.

One way to benefit the economy, the rich and the middle class would be to increase the wealth of the middle class.  This will allow them to spend more on products and stimulate demand.  This would then allow the business to increase the workforce.  Provided the businessman has some patriotism left, these new workers will be American workers.

This demand side policy has not been allowed into practice by Republicans who are in the majority in Congress and all attempts to introduce increased wages have been blocked by the Congressional GOP.

If you are a caring person, realizing that some poor children go to bed hungry should make you  angry with Congressional Republicans whose cuts to the SNAP program are based on incorrectly identifying fraud as the reason for cutting aid.

If you are proud of your vote, then falsely imposed voting restrictions in Republican run states might make you angry.

Perhaps you are angry that Congress is spending millions of tax dollars on the Republican party's partisan witch-hunts based on false accusations.  Maybe you would like to see this waste of money stop being the focus of the Congress.  The GOP has already promised many more years of "witch hunts" if Hillary Clinton is elected.

America would never again renege on their debt obligations if Republicans are not given the power of the majority to cause it as they have already.  Incidentally, this also added billions to our debt because of our decreased credit rating and increased interest charges as a result.

Dealing with scientific facts, the government could make more reasonable decisions to enact laws that protect our environment and prevent climate change if Republicans were not in control.

Near treasonous acts that show Republican leadership's opposition to government would end.

Using fear tactics and lies to persuade Americans into voting against their own self interest could end if Republicans are shown that using those unethical tactics cannot win them elections.

The federal government may never face another shutdown if Republicans were not in control.

Real efforts to fix the Affordable Care Act to protect Americans with health insurance would be possible and not face Republican efforts to repeal it and replace it with "something really terrific" but as yet unidentified and most likely non-existent.

We can accomplish all of this by voting for Democrats up and down the ticket.  Believe it or not, it is your Republican run Congress that is causing your anger.

Your vote is the key.  Don't waste it on four more years of obstruction.  Your situation will improve as soon as we have reasonable politicians who put people before profits working in our government.







Monday, August 08, 2016

Living in the past, Trump reincarnates Reagan trickle down plan as most forward looking policy for America



Trump speaking in Detroit
Today, Donald Trump gave some specifics about his Tax plan, among other subjects, if he were elected President.  I review here what the major features of his plan includes.

Trump believes that taxes are the biggest differentiation between him and Hillary.  He repeated his campaign's rhetoric and false claim that Hillary says she will increase taxes on the middle class.

Overall, his approach to taxes is to reduce them for most people, but especially for the wealthy and Corporate America.  Although he stated that he is the future thinking of American taxes, his tax plan is to reactivate the 1980's Reagan trickle down economic policy, which many argue does not increase the number of jobs, or give wage increases to workers.  What it does do is pad the bank accounts of the extremely rich.  He spoke nothing about minimum wage increases.

The "trickle down" policy is cited as one of the major reasons for the redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich which caused today's income inequality.  Most of his recommendations would reduce revenue to run the Federal government and likely increase the deficit unless severe cuts are made to the social safety net or other programs thought unworthy by a Republican Congress.

For example,  Donald Trump admits that the tax code is extremely complicated but does not mention how the tax code would change, other than by reducing the number of tax brackets from seven down to three.  The three brackets would be 12%, 25% and 33%.

Donald believes that taxes and regulation on Corporate America have had the most adverse impact on reducing the GDP.  Further, he believes that reducing the already highest business tax rate of all western countries from 35% to 15% will improve the economy and spur on business investments and job growth.  The problem with that statement is that 2/3 of all businesses pay no taxes and those that do, have their taxes reduced through exemptions, deductions and off-shore tax havens to about 12.6%.  If reduction in Corporate taxes had any long term impact on increasing jobs or increasing wages, we should have already seen it.  We have not.

Not stopping there to improve the lives of the wealthy, Mr. Trump also advocates elimination of estate taxes.  This was received by a large round of applause from the audience, who apparently either are very rich themselves or do not understand that estate taxes are not paid by any family having less than a $10.8 million estate.

Mr. Trump indicates that the rich will pay their fair share of taxes, but this is very subjective.  Mr. Trump did not get into details on what constitutes a fair share.  For example, if a Corporate CEO who enjoys a $15 million annual income shelters $14 million of it in offshore tax shelters, does he pay tax on the $15 million or $1 million?  Even if he finds legal ways to protect most of that income, what constitutes a fair share?

One tax advantage offered that could favor working women is elimination of all child care expenses from taxes.  Again no specifics but on the surface, it appears that provided you have a job and a child in day care, your child care costs might be deductible from your gross income and not be subject to a tax.  The average cost of child care for working women is about $200 per week, so this has the potential to save over $10,000 from being taxed.  We'll have to see how a Republican Congress would find this proposal, but if history is any indicator, Republicans are not very generous appropriating money for such social reasons.

For example, on the subject of equal pay, if Republicans in Congress passed equal pay legislation, women's wages would be increased by about 30%, potentially increasing the take home pay by much more than $10,000.  That has been rejected by Republicans more than once.  My guess is that Trump's child care deduction will be solidly rejected if Republicans stay in control of Congress.

Donald indicates that more about his tax policies can be found on his website.

Tuesday, August 02, 2016

The economy is great...so why don't I feel it?


Led by Donald Trump, a familiar claim of the Republican party is that Obama has made the economy far worse than ever. However, the economy has actually improved, especially after the Bush financial crisis was resolved by the Obama administration. But this fact does not ring true with many workers in the middle class.  

And therein lies the strength of the Republican strategy to convince people of their false statements about the economy.  As a whole, the middle class has truly not participated in the economic improvements and large cash in-flows enjoyed by the financially top 1% of society.

The reason for this is simple to explain and has nothing to do with the Obama Administration or the new Democratic platform.

If you are a middle class worker, you have a job.  The salary you got when you took that job was between you and your boss.  The government currently has no control over the wages that you are paid by your employer, except if you are a minimum wage worker.  State legislatures set the minimum wage that your employer cannot legally go below.  But there is no governmental requirement for an employer to increase your pay at any time.  Whether you get a pay increase at all, depends on the policies of the executives running your employer's company.  In the distant past, employers used to treat employees to annual raises, the amount of which depended on how well you met your job objectives.  Today however, regardless of how well you do your job, your employer may still not increase your pay.

Prior to the Reagan administration, some middle class workers enjoyed protections on living wages by their union membership.  Labor unions were started under a Democratic administration at a time when business executives put profits before people in the worst way.  

Before labor unions, many company executives treated workers with contempt and disrespect.  Hours were long.  Safe working conditions were not a consideration.  Weekend work was expected. If you got a vacation it was not paid.  Children were put to work in factories as executives of manufacturing companies took advantage of families that could not afford to eat during the depression unless their children worked. Some workers were killed during strikes against unfair labor practices.

As soon as they gained back the Presidency, the Republicans worked hard to reverse workers gains received from labor unions.  This effort continues even today and has resulted in the demise of union membership.  Today, less than 25% of workers belong to unions and the Republicans are still trying to get rid of unions altogether.  Their "Right to Work" legislation is being promoted as a positive measure to help workers, but in reality it is just another Republican lie to reduce current Union membership and reduce workers rights and wages.   Republican legislators have argued that the National Labor Relations Board, the agency that is the only help workers have with grievances against their boss, be dissolved from the federal government.  Republican legislators have refused to increase the federally mandated minimum wage.  They have legislated for increased work visas for lower paid foreigners to take American jobs.  Working for their true constituents, the Republican party has assisted the wealthy by devaluing workers and ensuring that workers wages do not impact the corporate bottom line.

Labor to an executive is an expense.  It costs the company money and reduces the profits.  The profits are for the executives and the owners and not something shared with workers in most companies.  A large part of business management's responsibility is to reduce costs so there is always downward pressure on wages. In a society that found slavery as a viable alternative to more expensive labor, it is fairly apparent that in a capitalistic society the powerful value profits over people.

Your employer has enjoyed the benefits of the economic progress made by the Obama administration, but has not shared the profits with you.  Your wages could be increased since there is plenty of cash in the coffers of Corporate America, but your employers have decided against it.  That is why you have not been feeling the benefits of economic gains being realized by the rich.  

For the last thirty years, the share of the economic gains received by the top 1% of society have exceeded those that most workers have received by nearly 300 times.  If you have been employed for more than 20 years, you may remember a time when annual raises were a thing.  Today, most corporations have eliminated annual raises and increased the competition between fellow workers in order to keep their workers more productive and content with having a job with no increase in wages.  With foreign workers visas being increased yearly, American workers today are always fearful that their company may have another lay-off, in which they might lose their job to lesser paid foreigners unless they out-work their fellow employees and don't complain about their wages.

Ultimately, you are not feeling the improvement in the economy because of the greed of your bosses.  They have received the benefits, which one could say are the result of your labor, since no company is made profitable by its non-human elements.   

Nearly 75% of the economy is from consumer purchases.  The other 25% is from government spending. The Republicans want to keep your wages low and reduce the federal government.  Both tactics will reduce the economy for all socio-economic classes.  The Republicans are married to the "trickle-down" theory where you give the economic benefits to the rich and they will create more jobs.  This is a total farce that has hurt the middle class for over the last 35 years.  The only thing their economic theory has caused is a redistribution of wealth to the top 1%.  Jobs don't get created if demand does not warrant it and simply giving tax breaks and exemptions to the rich does not increase demand.

The Democrats want to improve the economy from the middle class out, which will improve the economy from the consumer side.  This will ultimately benefit the rich as well since consumers with more money can buy more things.

When you vote this November, remember that Donald Trump is not an island to himself, but rather the culmination of historic Republican obstruction and erroneous economic policies that contributes to your inability to make gains from the improvement in the economy.  If you are middle class, you should not want Republicans in state or federal office.

Vote for Democrats for all political offices to eliminate the obstruction in Washington and give America back to the middle class.  Only then will workers make progress against the powers that otherwise would hold them down.



Tuesday, March 01, 2016

Trump: Ironic outcome of establishment Republican obstruction

Donald J. Drumpf
Throughout the Obama Presidency, establishment Republicans in Congress did their very best to obstruct the normal functioning of the Federal Government.  They were convinced that obstruction was a winning strategy to ensure that the GOP would become victorious in the 2012 Presidential election.  Although they were somewhat victorious in the mid-term elections, the GOP lost the  2012 Presidency to a second Obama term.  They continued their obstruction of government with even more intensity in preparing for the 2016 Presidential election, all the while ignoring the impact of their obstruction on the American people and especially on the voting base of their own party.

Republican leaders ignored the data that their own post Romney party "autopsy" showed them.  That they were losing their constituents to old age.  That they were not appealing to the diverse ethnicity of America.  That they were on the wrong side of women's issues.  That they were being seen as a party of the rich and not a party of the ordinary person.  Yet they did nothing positive to improve their image.

Instead they took to underhanded and un-American actions to cheat American Democracy such as voter suppression actions, reducing voting precincts and changing voting privileges for students so they could not vote at their own campuses.  All attempts to reduce the number of Democrats who might vote.

They used their power in government committees to create artificial controversies around the Obama administration and the future most-likely to be nominee for President, Hillary Clinton.  They openly disrespected the Office of the President, calling President Obama names and falsely accusing him of not being a leader.  According to many of them in office, Russian President Putin is a better leader than our American President.  Their intentions were to make Democrats seem ineffective as leaders or untrustworthy by using insults, insinuation and disrespect.  To them, it was just another tactic to win votes in future elections.  This tactic worked on their own constituents.  It also served as a lesson to Donald Trump.  Appealing to Republican's worst nature wins their support.  If we were paying attention, we would see how closely Trump would follow this tactic in the Republican Primaries.

In this 2016 Presidential nomination process we are now seeing the decaying fruits of those actions for the GOP as a party.  Republican voters now see vitriolic rhetoric like their party's leaders used on the Obama Administration as a characteristic of a good leader.  Republican leaders led them down this path.  Voters are voting by overwhelming margins in primary elections for a narcissistic sociopathic con-man.

Donald Drumpf is riding the tides of victory in primary elections, not because he is the best person for the job.  Not because his policies ring clearly as the correct approach to governing.  Not because he will make America great again.  He is not the best person to be President and nothing good would come of his winning the Presidency.  He is simply winning because of the anger that Republican voters have.  He is now the Republican nominee for President.

Republicans are angry because they see themselves as ordinary citizens who have not benefitted from the improvement in the economy.  They believe current government policies will make them fall further.  They know things are better for some people, but not for them.  They do not understand why and need to blame someone for their situation. The confusing explanations they get from their Republican leaders are intentionally meant to mislead them.  They know Republicans in Congress are not getting anything accomplished to benefit society and are beginning to doubt them.

There is now a state of utter confusion in GOP politics.  Establishment Republicans agree that Donald Trump is not a true Republican.  But that is not the worst of his characteristics.  Secretly they believe he is not a stable individual either.  Not someone you would want in control of the nuclear codes.  How should they react to Trump's overwhelming win margins?  The GOP base obviously wants him as their new President.  Did the establishment create a monster?  If they get behind this monster, will GOP policies be advocated?

At this point, Donald is the Presidential nominee.  Republicans now must decide whether they will support him or not.  They do have some things to gain if he becomes President, such as Supreme Court appointments.  He will carry out his threats to eliminate "Obama-care," which Republican leadership has stated is the worst thing since Obama himself.

The dilemma they are faced with is whether they will give up more than they gain.  We will see in the upcoming months whether Republicans will stand behind Trump and save their party or do the right thing and save the country instead.

Thursday, November 06, 2014

Lies, fear mongering, appealing to baser emotions and other winning GOP strategies

It's been a while since I have written.  I thought I said it all; educated you to the dangers of partisan politics and expected you to go to the polls enlightened enough to make choices that would help improve what is wrong with government.

Then the mid-term elections took place.  After I came back from the acute case of shock induced depression brought on by the recent romping that the Democrats got from the Republicans, I began to ponder what just happened.

For every enlightened voter out there, there are just a few more who are blind to the devious ways of the Republican party.  Just enough low information voters to give Republicans an advantage in mid-term elections with low voter turn-out.  Although the general public has rated our modern "do-nothing" Congress with only 13% favorability, it appears they do not know who the real culprits are.  I used to think that America blamed both parties equally.  Now I understand that America only blames Democrats.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Republicans purposely caused the failure of the government in order to deceive voters that the party holding the office of the President, cannot accomplish anything.

Many voters think that all failure and blame lands on the President and his party.  Republican strategists and Mitch McConnell himself understood this and used it to their advantage.  Before the President was inaugerated in 2009, Mitch and his band of Republican strategists met to take advantage of it.  See the evidence in an article from Time magazine here. The plan they created was to obstruct every major piece of legislation that Democrats and the President wanted.  In this way, Mitch and his malcontents knew that the President would not be given any credit for any accomplishment.  This would strengthen Republican potential to win future elections.  They did this in plain view of the public and yet too few noticed it happening.  They did it to the detriment of America for political gain and got rewarded for it in the end.  Their obstruction has gone on for years now.

Republicans kept deceiving the public at a rapid clip with continuous lies about the President.  During the 2012 Presidential campaign, Republicans used lies as a campaign strategy.  They blamed Obama for telling business owners that they did not create their business.  A complete fabrication intended to mislead the public.  They took the President's words out of context to make it appear he said denigrating things against all Americans.  They spoke of how damaging Obamacare was without justification and voted to repeal it over fifty times.  Republicans even denied medicaid expansion without reason in most Republican run states to attempt to encourage it's demise and deny healthcare to millions of Americans.

Conservative "news" shows kept slamming the President with false accusations, appealing to their audiences baser emotions, using fear mongering, appealing to racism and spreading lies to confuse the public.  They blamed Obama for everything.  If Ebola got into the country on the backs of ISIS it would be Obama's fault.

Republican leaders like Michele Bachman lied to the public about Obamacare death panels.  Republicans closed the government and blamed the Democrats while Republican leaders took photo-ops with veterans at closed government federal parks and facilities pretending that the GOP was outraged that the government was closed.  Republican led witch-hunts by Congressional committees to hear about the so-called involvement of the President or his cabinet members in Benghazi, the IRS tax exemption decisions, and other fabricated scandals were done not to get at the truth, but instead to confuse the voting public and spread lies about the President and his cabinet.

Republican voting shows them to be against the poor and middle class, veterans, the elderly, women, students and labor.  Their budget proposal shows that they have plans to increase the wealth of the super-rich while taking from the middle class to accomplish it.

And this strategy worked.  America blamed the Democrats and rewarded Republicans bad behavior by electing them into power.  There is only one deceiver I can think of who might be on par with the deception of the Republican party and that horned demon might actually be behind all of this.  Nothing else makes as much sense.






Saturday, May 10, 2014

Are you misguided, uniformed, heartless or rich? Then you must vote Republican.

Elections for many political offices will be occurring this fall.  The winners of these elections will be responsible for future legislation in federal and state governments that will control our daily lives.

The upcoming mid-term elections are not insignificant nor typical.  One could say that these mid-term elections are the most important election of our time.  The future of our American society could be in the balance.

The Congressional elections for the federal House and Senate could reinforce Republican obstruction or eliminate it, depending on the results.  State elections could make life or death differences to many who cannot receive medical care under Republican obstructed medicaid expansion.

To help you remember or to just inform some of you for the first time, of some of the deleterious effects of having Republicans in office, let me recall some things you should know by now.

America's unemployed work force could be put back to work if the President's American Jobs Act is enacted without Republican obstruction.

Women could become equal in the workforce if legislation to prevent discrimination in wages was lifted by removing Republican obstruction.

America's immigrant families could receive fairer treatment if Republicans could not prevent it.

Opportunity for all Americans and America's economic condition could be improved with an increase in the minimum wage which Republicans refuse to support.

The unfair control of government realized by the few uber-rich American contributors to the Republican party who influence their legislation and activities could be eliminated.

The American worker and middle class could rise in importance and our government could be "of, for and by the people" again.

Poor children would go to bed less hungry if Republican cuts to the SNAP program were eliminated and reversed.

Falsely imposed voting restrictions could be stopped if Republicans were run out of state legislatures.

The Republican party's partisan witch-hunts based on false  accusations would stop being the focus of the Congress and taxpayer money could be used more productively for legislation that Americans need if Republicans lost control of the House.

America would never again renege on their debt obligations if Republicans are not given the power to cause it.

Dealing with scientific facts, the government could make more reasonable decisions to enact laws that protect our environment if Republicans were not in control.

Near treasonous acts that show Republican leadership's opposition to government would end.

Using fear tactics and lies to persuade Americans into voting against their own self interest could end if Republicans are shown that using those unethical tactics cannot win them elections.

The federal government may never face another shutdown if Republicans were not in control.

The Affordable Care Act might be allowed to continue to benefit people; improve the health of America; put money back into the economy with increased jobs in health services; improve the profits of medical device manufacturers, hospitals, doctors, nurses and insurance companies while at the same time making healthcare affordable.

Expanding Medicaid in Republican run states would insure and protect the health of over seven million uninsured poor voters and reduce costs for taxpayers whose premiums are higher in order to cover the costs of those who do not have health insurance.  Hospitals in rural areas of Republican run states could become profitable again and re-open their doors.

America's tax policies could be reviewed and certain unfair loop-holes closed so that all Americans and American Corporations pay their fair share of taxes and revenue could again become part of the equation for budget considerations if  Republicans did not control the federal House.

Ultimately, the mid-term elections are  extremely important.  You should consider this as important an election as a Presidential one and get out to vote. 

If you consider yourself a Republican, perhaps you have inherited that title or been influenced to vote as one from your parents and grandparents whose culture of Republicanism goes back many years.  You should recognize that political parties change over time and may not be the same as the party your parents or grandparents aligned with.  For example, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican who freed the slaves yet some modern day Republicans pass legislation to restrict voting rights to African-Americans.  In regards to empathy toward others, Republicans have changed dramatically.

A political party affiliation should not be treated the same as your genetically inherited characteristics. Although "mutation" is a similarity between genetics and political parties, your party affiliation should be based on how closely a comparison of the overall beliefs and policies of the party match your own personal beliefs.  The comparison should not be limited to one or two policies but to all policies and beliefs so you get a complete picture of a party.  For example, Republican leaders claim to hold to the teachings of Christianity because they support a right to life but their legislation may indicate that they oppose Christianity since they do not support the needy and carry out injustices to other diverse populations.

In order to make such comparisons you should research the facts about the political party's policies; understand how they vote on issues and determine if they represent your views.  It is important to determine these things by reviewing factual reference material while ignoring commentators or others who would attempt to deceive you or are just misinformed themselves.  One way this can be done is by reviewing government web sites such as http://www.house.gov, http://bls.gov and http://www.senate.com.  

To keep informed on current events in politics, watch political television shows on both sides of politics and judge for yourself which is most truthful.  For example, Fox News is known to be conservative television that takes a less factual "entertainment" approach to supporting Republican causes while MSNBC is known to be progressive news reporting that supports Democratic causes.  Seeing these two networks present both sides of the same issue can be enlightening. 

Paul Ryan (R) Wisconsin
That being said, I want to begin analyzing Republicanism with one of the most telling subjects in recent days; the 2014 Republican budget proposal.  It has been said that you can tell where a party's priorities are by the budget they propose.  

Paul Ryan was tasked with the job of preparing a Republican budget proposal that balanced within ten years.  Balancing a budget can be done in many ways, but the Republican budget had to be based on Republican principles which molded and forced the end result.  

One building block of that Republican budget is that tax revenue cannot be increased.  Without new revenue, only cuts in federal programs would be possible. 

Another prerequisite was that military spending must be increased. Increasing military spending without raising taxes means something else must be cut by the amount of increase in military spending.  About $650 billion is spent on the United States military each year which exceeds the combined military spending of the next ten highest spending countries in the world.  Even the US military has stated that the amount is too high and can be reduced.  When Republicans speak of military spending they do not mean government assistance for veterans.  They do mean to increase the wealth of defense contractors.

Yet another prerequisite of the Republican budget is that much of the cost and operation of Federal government programs must be passed on to the states.  Making states take on safety net programs will force them to either increase their taxes (if they plan to continue to provide the service) or cut or eliminate the programs.  In Republican run states I can state almost certainly that these services will be cut.  Overall, their budget expects that the financial burden that they are eliminating from the federal government should be placed on the states.  Provided the states maintain the programs, the savings to the individual would be no different than if the federal government had kept the financial burden except that the taxes would be coming from the state instead of the federal government.

The Ryan budget makes severe cuts to services that support the poor, middle class, students, the elderly and disabled while at the same time rewarding the rich with lower taxes, repealing the alternative minimum tax, reducing corporate tax, and changing international tax laws to allow corporations to avoid being taxed on foreign income brought back into the United States.

By the explanation he gives in his budget's narrative, Ryan tries to convince people that government loans are the reason that students must pay such high tuition costs as these somehow encourage Universities to charge higher tuitions.  Even if this were true, Ryan's solution is to reduce government loans and cap Pell Grants for students, thereby eliminating help some deserving students might be able to obtain without a government loan.  It's funny how Republican reasoning often defies logic.  They accept big business' action of  charging higher tuitions as reasonable given the availability of government money and instead blame the federal government for providing so much loan money.  I guess we are supposed to understand as our Republican leaders do, that the ethics of businessmen can readily be overcome by such easy opportunity for profit.

Sticking to the Republican claims that the Affordable Care Act is the worst thing that could happen to America, his budget calls for the repeal of the ACA leaving no alternative but to return to the way it was before the ACA.   The budget calls for repealing Medicaid Expansion and eliminating healthcare premium subsidies available on the government healthcare exchange.  With these words, Republicans are saying that insurers can deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, so if you lose your job and have a pre-existing condition, you will no longer have health insurance.  They remove healthcare access from millions of the poor who are now covered under medicaid expansion.  Lifetime coverage caps will return so if you get a debilitating and costly disease you may also lose your life savings.  If you have limited income, you will no longer get any help to pay for your insurance premiums.  Certain free services will once again be charged.  Children between 21 and 25 will lose their parent's insurance and be required to purchase their own or not be insured.

Medicare and social security will not be the same for  future seniors.  Not being capable of funding social programs almost certainly means medicare and social security will suffer under Republican rule.

There are many more aspects to the budget that you should see for yourself.  Visit this link: The 2014 Republican Budget to find the actual text.

If you are not in the top 2% financially, voting for Republicans is not in your best interest.  If you are a caring person, voting for Republicans should outrage you.  If you are an informed and intelligent person and not in the 2%, you should never vote Republican.  What does that make you?

Remember to vote in the fall's midterm elections.  It's your protected right and it's what will make all the difference to America.








Thursday, July 18, 2013

Are unions really the bad guys?

Allow no compromise!
The longer I live in America the more I realize that politicians like to take sides.  It seems the culture is one where there are winners and losers but very few opponents, at least in modern day politics, who share success.

Look at Congressional Democrats and Republicans.  They have lost the ability to compromise on most everything.  It takes extreme measures to come to agreement.  Each party is at opposite sides of the political spectrum.   There are very few moderates who can empathize with the other side.  Progress in Washington has become stuck in needless competition for the most political points at the expense of America.  Anything is possible and it seems the important thing to most politicians is to propel their party to success in upcoming elections.  Deceiving the public is no exception.

Republicans stand with the wealthy.  Democrats stand with the middle class and poor.  Republicans support management.  Democrats support workers.  Republicans support a right to life.  Democrats support freedom of choice.  Republicans stand with the NRA.  Democrats want to protect families from gun violence.  Republicans want to end the National Labor Relations Board while Democrats support it as the only means left for American worker's grievances to be heard.  Democrats introduced worker union protections with the Wagner Act.  Republicans reduced worker union protections with the Taft-Hartley Act.

Senator Rand Paul
Today I received a mailing from Rand Paul asking me to petition my Senators, Congressmen, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to support the National Right to Work Act because (and I quote) "union lobbyists, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and their allies are going to use every trick in the book to bury the National Right to Work Act."

Sounds very serious.  Why would the Democrats want to prevent someone from having a right to work?

As I read further into the mailing I soon realized that the real trickster was Rand Paul.  The name of the Act is a misnomer.  The Act deceives the American public into thinking that unions make people pay to work, when its real intention is to weaken employee protections by the further erosion of union membership.  Republicans in government hate unions and since Ronald Reagan have successfully hoodwinked the American public into believing they are the bad guys causing lots of problems with the economy.  Republicans hate of unions rises from the fact that unions protect the labor force.  Labor is a cost to business owners and Republicans in Congress represent business owners.

The Wagner Act became law in 1935.  It established the National Labor Relations Board and legally established the right to organize unions.  Unions were established by Congress as an employee protection against existing unfair practices by their employers.  These practices included such things as harsh working conditions, long hours, low pay, unsafe working conditions, workplace health risks and child labor.  These things really happened and at one time Congress sought to protect American workers from it.  In fact if you don't think it can ever happen again, just look at current working conditions in  factories in China, Bangladesh and India which are used by American manufacturers.  American CEOs are still looking for the cheapest labor and least government labor regulations in order to decrease costs so executive management can profit more.  There is no concern for the safety of employees in those countries and American CEO's know it.

Then in 1946 Republicans won both the Senate and the House.   They acted quickly to reduce employee union membership and further erode the unified voice that American workers had by passing the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 over President Truman's veto.  This act banned "closed union shops" and encouraged "right to work" laws.  The act gave management new weapons while restricting union activities.

Now just based on those two historical events, the reader should understand that Republicans support the management side of the equation and Democrats support the employee.  For Rand Paul to attempt to make people believe anything else is dishonest.  Any labor act introduced by Republicans will only reduce employee benefits in order to protect wealthy business owners.

Yet Rand Paul wants workers to believe that unions are greedy self-interested groups of mobsters and union dues bankroll tax-and-spend politicians and fund a "limousine lifestyle" for union "bigwigs."  How deceitful!

Rand Paul's Act proposes amending the NLR Act (National Labor Relations Act, a.k.a. Wagner Act)  and the Railway Labor Act in several places.  All amendments would change the current law with the major intention of reducing union membership by making it possible for non-union members to be hired in a union shop.  These non-union members would not pay union dues and still work under contracts negotiated by the existing union.  Paul's Act would allow all states to decide whether they should be pro-labor union or anti-labor union.

Senator Paul uses reverse psychology to make current law sound as though it takes something away from employees since their right to represent themselves to management is not present in current law.  This is completely opposite of the purpose of the law and unions themselves.  Employees could not protect themselves from employers in the first place and that is why unions were allowed by law.  Union negotiations and union actions are made much less successful when a large number of employees in a union shop do not belong to the union.  The protections of workers is seriously reduced as a result.

Senator Paul also believes that most workers would be better off if they do not have to pay union dues.  As he puts it workers are forced to pay union dues to keep their jobs.  Apparently he believes having the few dollars more in a paycheck that union dues would represent is better than having union protections for the average worker.

So what evidence do we have that workers in anti-labor union states are better off than pro-labor union states?   How do the anti-labor union "right to work" (RTW) states fair in comparison to pro-labor union states?

Anti-labor union states
The states where Republican legislatures have passed RTW laws is shown in the map and are shaded with greenish color.

RTW anti-labor union states on average have a 3.2% lower wage than pro-labor union states.  Because wages are lower, some manufacturers are moving their operations to the RTW anti-labor union states and so the statistic sometimes quoted by RTW states is that business is increasing its presence in their states.  Do you think the move to RTW states by business is due to more protections for that state's workers?  Or could it be some other reason, like reduced labor costs?  The AFL-CIO says that wages in RTW states are about $5600/year less than pro-labor union states.

Employers that have health insurance plans is about 2.6% lower in the RTW states and amounts to about two million less workers covered by health insurance nationally.  Employer sponsored pensions are about 4.8% lower in RTW states.  If workers in pro-labor union states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.

Republicans have been working for decades to erode labor laws so that their constituents, big business executives, can increase their share of the wealth in the United States.  They are not doing it for the protection of the labor force and don't let them tell you differently.

UPDATE: As with a lot of their policies, despite their phony rhetoric about saving America, there is an ulterior motive for Republicans desire to remove Unions from America.  Unions are the greatest political lobbying groups that working class Americans have against the vast array of conservative lobbyist groups.  Unions represent working class Americans.  By removing Unions, Republicans are removing all of their competition from the political money arena.   Especially with the Citizens United decision that gave big money the ability to buy politicians, this makes a huge difference in elections and increases the chances that Republicans will get elected.  This is not a coincidence.


Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Fed Chairman Bernanke's report to Congress

Ben Bernanke
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke met today with Congressional leaders of the Financial Services Committee to report on the Federal Reserve's take on the state of the economy and Federal Reserve actions in that regard.

In an introductory statement Mr. Bernanke made it clear that the fiscal policy that legislators have chosen to take has been a detriment to the economic recovery.  In an effort to acknowledge the impact that a dysfunctional Congress has on the economy, he highlighted that tight fiscal policy will restrain economic growth.  He warned that political fights over raising the debt ceiling as has happened in the past would hamper the recovery.  Although a few of the Congressmen on the committee appeared to understand the importance Congress has in assisting in the recovery, it is still to be seen if Congressional Republicans take this guidance into consideration as they enter discussions about raising the debt ceiling, ending sequester or resurrecting the American Jobs Act.

Bernanke believes the economy is recovering at a moderate pace.  He cited the improvements in the housing market as contributing to economic gains and predicted this would continue to improve notwithstanding recent mortgage interest gains.

He believes the labor market is improving gradually and contributed a 0.1% drop in the unemployment rate to the Fed's policies of buying assets.  He admits that job growth has a long way to go to be considered satisfactory.  As I have stated in previous blogs, I question the impact that buying assets really has on the job market especially because it does nothing to increase demand for products and services.  It does have an important impact on the stock market as we have seen investors sell off stocks and bonds when Bernanke hinted that the asset purchase program was going to be discontinued.

Understanding the emotional nature of the stock market, Bernanke was careful not to repeat the mistake of hinting at a change in the asset program at the committee meeting.  He emphatically stated that the current asset purchase program will continue and monetary policy will be "accommodative" for the foreseeable future.  As of noon today the US markets appeared to be unaffected by Bernanke's comments.

In order to help prevent another Bush era financial collapse of the big banks, Fed policy is to prevent  collapse by increasing the requirement for cash reserves under what is called Basel III capital reforms.

 In summary, Bernanke explained three mechanisms that the Fed is using to support economic growth.  These are mortgage asset purchases, forward guidance on Fed plans for the federal fund rate target and Basel III capital reforms.

Based on the comments at the committee meeting, it appears obvious that the Fed needs a lot of help from Congress to revitalize the economy.  Bernanke's warning about Congressional actions around fiscal policy may have been his cry for help.






Friday, June 21, 2013

How the rich will make $millions while avoiding the impending financial crisis

Ben Bernanke
When Fed commissioner Ben Bernanke announced that the Fed’s purchase of mortgage securities might be reduced if the economy continued to improve, he gave early warning to the 1% that they should cash out of the market and use one of their off-shore tax shelters to keep their money safe.

As a result, the market lost billions of dollars in the last two days when many wealthy investors cashed out.  The market doesn't look much better today.

I contribute the recent loss in the stock market directly to the one-per centers.  

This was not a case of middle-class investors cashing out their 401K’s because the penalty is too much to cash out a 401K.  It was not a case of investors moving their investments around because that would have had no net change impact on the market.  It was an outright removal of investment cash by selling while prices are still good.  The group of investors who can do this without tax consequence are the wealthiest people in America.  Other investors may soon follow in this selling frenzy now that the trend is sounding alarm bells.

Middle-class workers who try to save some of their pay in 401Ks have the most to lose. 
They do not have the freedom to cash out of the market without losing 40% of their cash to early withdrawal penalty tax.  They must weather the storm when disaster happens.  So when the billionaire investors got out of the market it caused the loss in value which will be to the detriment of middle-class owners of 401Ks.

In 2007 we saw the serious financial collapse of the market as millionaire’s and billionaire’s who had the freedom to remove their dollars from the market did so at a rapid-fire pace.  In that disaster middle-class Americans lost up to 50% of their savings in 401K’s.  

After only the last two days, the market has lost up to 5% of its value.  The trend seems to be continuing today.  If it continues to lose at this rate it will only take a month to repeat the 2007 disaster.

Do the wealthy believe that Bernanke’s security purchase program is really improving the employment situation?  Is that what is worrying them?  Of course not!  They are the job creators, so they should realize that increasing jobs only happens when there is an increase in product and service demand.  That is not happening.  So what are they worried about?  

They worry that Bernanke may be starting to realize that any increase in the economic outlook or jobs for America is really not due to his policies.  They are getting the idea that Bernanke will end security purchases even if the job situation and the economy does not improve.

Up until now, Bernanke’s policies have kept interest rates low and made it easy for investors to purchase stocks and bonds without fear.  The stock market usually does very well when interest rates are low and investors feel confident.  This undoubtedly favors the wealthiest investors.  

By removing that investor guarantee, Bernanke has decreased the certainty of profiting in the stock market.  And one thing the 1%’ers love more than anything is profit.  So they are willing to trash the rest of America and start the collapse of the market in order to preserve their beloved cash.

I expect that this free-fall in the stock-market will persist in the upcoming weeks as more and more of the wealthy catch on to what many of them have already deduced.  They will remove their cash from the market, shelter it off-shore and just wait it out.  When the market bottoms out, they will be ready to pounce on some really cheap stocks and the whole cycle will repeat itself.  That's how you make millions and avoid the financial crisis.

And for the millions of baby-boomers who are retiring, or about to retire, they can thank the wealthy for the additional burden that they will have in their old age as they try to find ways to stretch their greatly reduced nest eggs.  Even when the market comes back eventually, we will have lost whatever time it takes and this lost time will stunt financial growth.

I hope I am wrong.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

A Republican to English dictionary

Although born and raised in the United States, my father, who passed away in his old age a few years ago, was not really good with the English language.  Sometimes he used words that he made up in conversation that sounded like words that they really weren't.  My kids were often confused by their "Papa", as they used to call him, and I would joke with them that maybe we needed to get a Papa- to-English dictionary.

Because of their support for policies which Republicans stand for, most of which go against their best interest, middle-class Republicans may be well served if they had a Republican-to-English dictionary.  Perhaps that way they could better understand that their welfare is not of concern when it comes to modern Republican politics.

Here are a few examples of statements we have heard our Republican leaders talk about.  I have given some assistance to the American voter by attempting to identify the true meaning of these words in plain English.

"Jobs, Jobs Jobs": Cheap foreign labor for America's Corporations.  

"Support for our troops": Increasing government funding of defense contractors.

"Reducing the deficit":  Protecting the 1% by taking revenue off the table, increasing military budgets to protect defense contractors and only calling for government spending reductions in programs for the poor, women, children, the elderly, students, the handicapped, military veterans and the unemployed.

"Smaller Government": 1. Eliminating government protections of it citizens in regards to regulations on business so that big business can operate with a free hand to decrease costs involved with making a safe product, protecting the environment, giving fair wages, creating a safe work environment, treating workers fairly and otherwise operating responsibly.  2. Reducing government spending by eliminating public service jobs such as teachers, police, fire-fighters and government workers and rejecting the American Jobs Act that would have improved the infrastructure of roads, bridges, schools, etc. 

"2nd Amendment rights": Returning the favor for NRA lobbyist money and preserving the market and demand for weapon manufacturers regardless of the wishes of the majority of Americans for stronger gun laws.

"Obama-Care": Originally a Republican introduced derogatory term for the Affordable Care Act which later became adopted as a catch-phrase by President Obama.  Republican intent is to put fear into American citizens and protect big insurance corporations from the effects of treating American citizens with fairer insurance rules and charging costs that would benefit the citizen.  Most of the effort of the Republicans in the 113th Congress has been in attempting to repeal Obama-Care law 37 times as of this date.

"Sequester": A Republican plan since 2010 to reduce the size of government in a way that would protect the wealthy and would otherwise never be possible by normal legislative proceedings.

"Filibuster": The cornerstone of Republican obstructionism used to prevent problem resolution, slow down progress on legislation and block President Obama's appointees and ideas that support middle-class Americans.

"Balanced Budget": A financial plan that reduces spending on useful government programs such as medicare, medicaid, the social safety net and social security which must not be balanced by any increase in revenue, especially by increased taxes on the wealthy or corporations. 

"501(c)4": Republican worked loophole in the IRS regulations that permits a political action committee to receive donations that are exempt from federal taxes and then to complain when the IRS workers request information that may prove they are political action committees.  The 501(c)4 is supposed to be for non-political social organizations.

"Stimulus package": Another name for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  An act carried out by the Democrats and President Obama that saved the country from financial collapse.  Republicans voted against the stimulus package.

"Voter ID": An attempt to reduce access to voting by members of the citizenry who would not vote Republican in elections.  This action as well as closing down voting precincts and voting hours were used by Republican state legislatures as a strategy in the 2012 elections.

Republicans have proven that they do not represent the middle-class or the poor.  If you are in one of these groups and you vote Republican, I would be interested in knowing why you would vote that way.

If you have any other definitions, please feel free to add a comment.  I'll add the best one's to my collection.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Fed promises unlimited mortgage security purchases...should we be worried?


Ben Bernanke
The Federal Reserve Board today, indicated that in attempts to restore jobs to the economy, they will be purchasing upwards of $40 Billion per month in mortgage securities.  Should we be worried?

While it seems that the short term goal of reducing interest rates for banks and business will most probably work, is the longer term goal of increasing jobs going to be guaranteed from this strategy?  I seriously doubt it.  And here's why.

If you follow the demand side theories of job creation, then you would expect increase in demand to be the major factor in creating new jobs.  This demand theory is supported by President Obama.  Consumers are the source of new demand for business.  Consumer spending is dictated by the amount of cash available to them after necessities spending.  The primary source of this cash for most middle-class workers is take-home pay from a job.

If you follow supply side theories of job creation, then you would expect anything that reduces the expenditures of business should automatically allow them to spend on new hiring.  The new demand part of the equation is not really important in this theory.

While some middle-class workers have 401K's the increase in the value of these accounts due to the Fed's actions will not give them any immediate spending capacity since the cash in the 401K can only be accessed after retirement without significant financial penalties.

Those elderly retired persons who have 401K's may see some immediate benefit to their cash available, but these people are already retired and are not looking for jobs.  It is also doubtful that this extra cash would be a new source of demand for businesses as most retirees would probably need the extra cash for necessities and not luxury items.

It does not appear that the Feds actions today will do anything to help spur significant new demand.  So the only hope of creating new jobs would be based on the Feds belief in supply-side economics.

The main recipients of the benefit of reduced interest rates and increased stock market prices are wealthy investors, banks and businesses.

One might think that with this cash, business will be motivated to grow and at the same time hire.  But we know that most US Corporations are already sitting on the largest cash reserves they have had in decades.  They are not using these funds to grow or hire, although some are buying up competitors businesses and consolidating the workforce by layoffs of excess personnel.  This is the reverse of what the Fed is shooting for.

We also know from the history of Corporate America for the last 30 years or so, supply side economics does not work for creating new jobs.  When American Corporations were allowed to have significant tax breaks, American jobs were not increased, they were actually decreased.  Over the last twelve years or so, we have lost close to ten million American jobs to outsourcing to foreign countries.

One hope for creating new jobs using supply-side arguments is new small business start-ups.  With low interest loans, new small business start-ups might increase, but with interest rates already extremely low, and small business start-ups not currently saving our economy or producing significant jobs, this option does not look promising.

The Feds approach to creating new jobs supports supply-side economics and from my observations at least, has little chance of creating new jobs.  Millionaires and billionaires will be happy with their new cash inflow, but are very unlikely to use the opportunity to hire without demand requiring it.

In order for jobs to be created, we also need a significant increase in demand across all industries.  If new technologies or new products are not being developed, then we need to support the middle-class with increased wages, federally funded jobs, returning jobs to America and other work supports to give them the ability to increase demand until government and business research brings new products to market.

President Obama's American Jobs Act meets all of these requirements.  We need the Republican Congress to stop filibustering the Act and do the job that Americans want them to do.  They need to approve the American Jobs Act.  We Americans need to re-elect President Obama.








Monday, September 10, 2012

From Romney's Official Web Site - His Tax Plan explained

Romney and Ryan
While on the Campaign trail we hear a lot of platitudes and rhetoric from Romney and Ryan but very little factual information on how they plan to improve our economic condition.  The Romney tax plan has been one of these kinds of issues.  

So for this session, I will review the actual facts as presented by Romney on his official web site, http://www.mittromney.com  When I am done, I think you'll understand why he is so quiet about it on the campaign trail.  Those lines that are in quotes are extracted from Romney's web site.  Those lines that follow the quoted lines are my explanatory comments.



To repair the nation’s tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy.”

Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.”

The following paragraphs cite the various steps in Romney's plan.


Romney's Tax Plan For Individuals:

Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates"

Marginal rates have the greatest effect on the wealthiest of taxpayers. A twenty percent rate cut is a huge amount but only makes a real difference to the wealthiest among us.   Add to that the tax loop-holes that are only available to the wealthy and soon middle class America will not only be paying a higher tax percentage than the wealthy, but some may even pay more in absolute tax dollars than the rich.

Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains”

The categories of income included in interest, dividends and capital gains are used almost exclusively by the wealthy. The current tax rates for these are very low with capital gains as low as 15%. With the many tax loop-holes available to the ultra-rich, this tax rate is already lower than that for most wealthy taxpayers. The point is that this tax favoritism is again directed toward the rich. Most of the middle-class will have almost no tax savings at all because they do not have income from investments.

“Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains”

Again, these categories are already non-existent for most middle-class Americans. The estimated AGI income of the Middle class Americans is around $50,000. About 94% of America has AGI less than $100,000.  Ask yourself how much of your taxable income (not 401K investments) comes from cash stock trades done throughout the year.  Do you understand that Romney's plan is targeting benefits for the wealthy?

Eliminate the Death Tax”

This tax is already non-existent for middle class Americans unless an individual has over $5,000,000 in assets.  And who do you think would benefit from such a tax elimination? Let me give you a clue.  It is estimated that the heirs of the each of Koch brothers would benefit by nearly $8 billion dollars if this tax was eliminated

Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)”

The AMT is paid only if the regular tax amount would be less than the AMT amount. It is not used in addition to the regular tax rate, but as the name implies, as an alternative to the regular rate. It is normally required by individuals and Corporations with incomes over $200,000. Since Romney is proposing to make the regular tax rates for the wealthiest individuals much less, he must repeal the AMT, or his favoritism to the wealthy would be over-ridden by the AMT. So this strategy is not to benefit the middle-class, but instead to ensure that his tax favoritism for the wealthy stays in tact.

Romney's Corporate Tax Plan:

Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent”

Romney's tax plan for Corporations calls for a 10% reduction in tax rates. Similar to the plan for wealthy individuals it goes without saying that Corporate Tax initiatives would favor the wealthiest in America. It has very little benefit on the middle class. No jobs will be created because Corporations have their taxes cut unless demand increases. The American worker is the source of nearly 75% of the demand in America. Reducing taxes for the rich will only benefit the rich as it has for the last thirty years with very little improvement in jobs or take-home pay for workers. When more workers are employed and wages are improved, demand will increase. This starts from the middle-class out and not from the top down.

Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit”

This tax advantage is intended to increase spending on Corporate Research. It is difficult to know how much of an impact that this tax credit has had on the economy but it is known what kind of tax advantages are had by Corporations because of it. A study by Ernst and Young in 2005 reported that 17,700 Corporations claimed $6.6 Billion in R&D Tax credits.

Switch to a territorial tax system”

This is Romney's way of allowing American Corporations to escape paying taxes on any business carried out in foreign countries. A territorial Tax system is one that only taxes income earned in the United States. This would be a huge loop-hole for Corporate America to escape paying their fair share of taxes. It is difficult to estimate how much revenue would be lost since it would likely change Corporate practices to take advantage to the greatest extent possible.  It is easy to say that the reduction in Corporate tax revenue would be extremely high and outsourcing of plants and jobs would likely be increased to the max.

Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)”

For the same reason as the individual AMT repeal, this would be necessary if Romney's other reductions in taxes are to be effective in reducing taxes for the wealthy.


Ultimately, Romney's tax plan would favor the wealthiest of Americans and do little for the middle class.  With a territorial tax it may even hurt the middle class by taking more jobs out of the country.  And who do you think will get stuck paying the taxes that are being lifted from the rich?  You guessed it...Middle-class America.

If you hear Romney and Ryan proclaim that they are for the middle class during their campaign tour, now you'll know that they are both compulsive liars who will say anything to get your vote.  



Like sheep to the slaughter, millions of our middle class American Republicans are being led astray by the slick double-talk of their so-called concerned Republican leaders.  

Save your vote and your job.  Vote a total Democratic ticket this November.


Thursday, September 06, 2012

As anxious as I am for the release of the iPhone 5, I'm even more anxious for the release of Rmoney tax records on September 28th.

Today, CNN reported that Price Waterhouse Cooper's (PWC) Franklin, TN, the Republican Campaign and the Democratic Campaign offices received a package from an anonymous person who claims that Mitt and Ann Romney's tax records were stolen from the PWC office and will be released to the Public on September 28th.  PWC is an accounting firm that is often used for complex tax returns.

Some of the details of this break-in are reported by the group or person who claims responsibility on the website called "pastebin.com" which you can find here. 

Although CNN claims that the group is holding the data ransom for $1,000,000, there is no mention of this in the letter posted to the paste bin site.  Perhaps this info was included in the package left with PWC, or perhaps was just made up.  This was not clear as of this writing.

The Secret Service is reportedly involved in an investigation.

It was not certain if this was a scam or a real incident, but the Republican and Democratic Campaign offices both did report receiving the package which they purport to not have opened.

I guess time will tell.