The Republican's make it so easy, sometimes, to smash their logic. Case in point, Rep. Paul Ryan's official Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union address. Ryan: "Just take a look at what's happening to Greece, Ireland, the United Kingdom and other nations in Europe. They didn't act soon enough, and now their governments have been forced to impose painful austerity measures: large benefits cuts to seniors and huge tax increases on everybody."
The trouble is, in the case of Ireland and the UK, what happened actually refutes the current Republican narrative.
Krugman: "Again, American conservatives have long used the myth of a failing Europe to argue against progressive policies in America. More recently, they have tried to appropriate Europe's debt problems on behalf of their own agenda, never mind the fact that the events in Europe actually point the other way. But Ryan is widely portrayed as the intellectual leader within the GOP, with special experties on matters of debt and deficits. So the revelation that he literally doesn't know the first thing about the debt crises currently in progess is, as I said, interesting - and not in a good way."
Read the full editorial here.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
President Obama Calls on Corporate Tax Overhaul, Long Overdue
The article below is from SignOnSanDiego.com, and is the best exposure I’ve seen on the corrupted corporate tax structure in the United States. Instead of editing it, I’ve copied the entire article, and highlighted and bolded the best points. My point is, here are experts in their fields, quoted in a San Diego Union-Tribune website, agreeing with President Obama’s goal of restructuring the corporate tax policy so it is fair, finally. As you will read, we are losing from $60 billion to $100 billion a year in corporate income taxes, and guess who has to make that up?
See this link, too, on the Ugland House in Cayman Islands, ‘official’ headquarters to over 9,000 US corporations, including Intel, Atria, Exxon, and Coca Cola, allowing them to reduce their US income tax liability to a fraction of what it should be.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aWoQkk2WY1oc
EconoMeter: Should loopholes favoring lower corporate taxes be eliminated?
BY ROGER SHOWLEY ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED JANUARY 29, 2011 AT 6:44 P.M., UPDATED JANUARY 29, 2011 AT 5:23 P.M.
In his State of the Union address, President Obama covered much, including many ideas about federal spending priorities and the nation’s economic future. One idea was recommended by his deficit reduction commission last year and dealt with corporate tax rates and loopholes.
Q: Do you support President Obama’s idea to eliminate corporate income tax loopholes and reduce the overall income tax rate assessed against companies? What is your favorite loophole – and one that could generate a lot of revenue -- that should be eliminated?
Marney Cox, San Diego Association of Governments
NO
But don’t get me wrong, I’m against all loopholes; the principles of sound tax policy dictate that tax laws should not favor one economic activity over another. The goal should be to lower tax rates, removing the distortions in the present system, allowing businesses to compete on the basis of performance and return rather than on their ability to receive or keep special provisions in the tax code. Some of the biggest loopholes today are offered to companies in the energy field, no not oil companies, those that produce energy from renewable “green” sources. President Obama is not going to level the playing field and let the market rather than the tax system drive investment.
Kelly Cunningham, National University System
YES
The current top corporate tax rate in the U.S. is among the highest in the industrialized world, yet federal tax laws are filled with so many credits, deductions and exemptions, few companies ever pay the top rate. Most businesses should pay lower taxes, and thus stimulate more businesses to employ more workers and pay taxes. Simplifying tax codes also encourages sounder business decisions, while eliminating loopholes effectively raises net revenue to the Treasury. The litany of corporate loopholes is extensive, but the principle of the market determining costs and success is vastly preferable to government picking winners and losers.
Alan Gin, University of San Diego
YES
The U.S. statutory corporate tax rate of 35 percent is among the highest in the world. But when tax loopholes are factored in, the effective tax rate drops significantly. The problem is that the tax burden is uneven, with some companies benefitting from the loopholes and paying little to no taxes, while others have to pay the full rate. One area to look at is transfer-pricing arrangements that allow companies to shift income to subsidiaries in overseas tax havens and avoid taxes in the U.S. One estimate is that closing loopholes involving overseas tax havens could bring in an extra $100 billion dollars a year in tax revenue.
James Hamilton, University of California San Diego
YES
But I’ll believe it when I see it. Today’s “loophole” is yesterday’s “tax incentive.” Congress has never been able to resist the urge to decide that certain goals are useful and need to be encouraged, even if we all understand as a general principle that it makes more sense to let private firms decide which projects have the highest potential returns. If we’re serious about doing something about this, the place I’d like to see us start is the enormous tax breaks and subsidies for ethanol. These have made very little if any positive contribution to our net energy supplies, and have significantly increased the cost of food not just to Americans but also to consumers around the world.
Gary London, The London Group
YES
Particularly in those cases of corporations that are highly profitable. There is no inherent benefit to U.S. taxpayers to subsidize them with tax breaks. In fact, what they don’t pay, presumably the rest of us have to make up. The President cited Exxon, which earned a record $45.2 billion profit, none of it domestically taxed. Google, General Electric, and Facebook (their reported intention this year) send earnings from Ireland to the Cayman Islands, through a perfectly legal loophole called “transfer pricing,” paper transactions among corporate subsidiaries that allow for allocating income to tax havens while attributing expenses to higher-tax countries. Such income shifting costs the U.S. government as much as $60 billion in annual revenue. That is hard to ignore.
Norm Miller, CoStar Group
YES
The tactics of firms like Google and Facebook and many others depend on shifting income to lower tax rate countries like Ireland or the Cayman Islands by paying rent on things like the use of logos and other intellectual property. They deduct the expense in the high tax-rate country like the U.S. and claim the income in the low tax-rate country. The key to eliminating this behavior starts with lowering corporate taxes overall from 35% to say 25% and then eliminating the games. Doing so would provide $50 to $60 billion in revenue which would pay off .4% of the outstanding U.S. debt balance each year. It’s a start.
Lynn Reaser, Point Loma Nazarene University
Yes
The U.S. corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world but generates one of the lowest revenue totals relative to GDP because of the myriad of tax incentives. To improve U.S. competitiveness: (1) The corporate tax structure should be collapsed from multiple brackets, with the top taxed at 35%, to one bracket taxed at 28%; and (2) All of the more than 30 tax credits and over 75 tax exclusions, deductions, and deferrals known as “tax expenditures” should be eliminated. This approach could mitigate the backlash if tax preferences were retained for one industry but not another. A level playing field without the distortion of various tax subsidies, combined with a lower overall tax rate, would enhance both the efficiency and equity of the U.S. economy.
Dan Seiver, San Diego State University
YES
The U.S. corporate tax rate is too high compared to many other developed countries, and there are too many loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying taxes. If we simplify the corporate tax code, and eliminate loopholes, we can certainly reduce the statutory rate, and probably will not lose any tax revenue! The worst loophole is the one that allows U.S. firms to list their main or subsidiary “headquarters” as the Cayman Islands, which has no corporate tax rate. Many large American firms have used this loophole, including Altria, Coke and Intel. Don’t believe me? Google “Ugland House Bloomberg” and read the May 2009 story for yourself. Over 18,000 corporations list this 5-story building in the Cayman Islands as their official address. Close this loophole!
See this link, too, on the Ugland House in Cayman Islands, ‘official’ headquarters to over 9,000 US corporations, including Intel, Atria, Exxon, and Coca Cola, allowing them to reduce their US income tax liability to a fraction of what it should be.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aWoQkk2WY1oc
EconoMeter: Should loopholes favoring lower corporate taxes be eliminated?
BY ROGER SHOWLEY ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED JANUARY 29, 2011 AT 6:44 P.M., UPDATED JANUARY 29, 2011 AT 5:23 P.M.
In his State of the Union address, President Obama covered much, including many ideas about federal spending priorities and the nation’s economic future. One idea was recommended by his deficit reduction commission last year and dealt with corporate tax rates and loopholes.
Q: Do you support President Obama’s idea to eliminate corporate income tax loopholes and reduce the overall income tax rate assessed against companies? What is your favorite loophole – and one that could generate a lot of revenue -- that should be eliminated?
Marney Cox, San Diego Association of Governments
NO
But don’t get me wrong, I’m against all loopholes; the principles of sound tax policy dictate that tax laws should not favor one economic activity over another. The goal should be to lower tax rates, removing the distortions in the present system, allowing businesses to compete on the basis of performance and return rather than on their ability to receive or keep special provisions in the tax code. Some of the biggest loopholes today are offered to companies in the energy field, no not oil companies, those that produce energy from renewable “green” sources. President Obama is not going to level the playing field and let the market rather than the tax system drive investment.
Kelly Cunningham, National University System
YES
The current top corporate tax rate in the U.S. is among the highest in the industrialized world, yet federal tax laws are filled with so many credits, deductions and exemptions, few companies ever pay the top rate. Most businesses should pay lower taxes, and thus stimulate more businesses to employ more workers and pay taxes. Simplifying tax codes also encourages sounder business decisions, while eliminating loopholes effectively raises net revenue to the Treasury. The litany of corporate loopholes is extensive, but the principle of the market determining costs and success is vastly preferable to government picking winners and losers.
Alan Gin, University of San Diego
YES
The U.S. statutory corporate tax rate of 35 percent is among the highest in the world. But when tax loopholes are factored in, the effective tax rate drops significantly. The problem is that the tax burden is uneven, with some companies benefitting from the loopholes and paying little to no taxes, while others have to pay the full rate. One area to look at is transfer-pricing arrangements that allow companies to shift income to subsidiaries in overseas tax havens and avoid taxes in the U.S. One estimate is that closing loopholes involving overseas tax havens could bring in an extra $100 billion dollars a year in tax revenue.
James Hamilton, University of California San Diego
YES
But I’ll believe it when I see it. Today’s “loophole” is yesterday’s “tax incentive.” Congress has never been able to resist the urge to decide that certain goals are useful and need to be encouraged, even if we all understand as a general principle that it makes more sense to let private firms decide which projects have the highest potential returns. If we’re serious about doing something about this, the place I’d like to see us start is the enormous tax breaks and subsidies for ethanol. These have made very little if any positive contribution to our net energy supplies, and have significantly increased the cost of food not just to Americans but also to consumers around the world.
Gary London, The London Group
YES
Particularly in those cases of corporations that are highly profitable. There is no inherent benefit to U.S. taxpayers to subsidize them with tax breaks. In fact, what they don’t pay, presumably the rest of us have to make up. The President cited Exxon, which earned a record $45.2 billion profit, none of it domestically taxed. Google, General Electric, and Facebook (their reported intention this year) send earnings from Ireland to the Cayman Islands, through a perfectly legal loophole called “transfer pricing,” paper transactions among corporate subsidiaries that allow for allocating income to tax havens while attributing expenses to higher-tax countries. Such income shifting costs the U.S. government as much as $60 billion in annual revenue. That is hard to ignore.
Norm Miller, CoStar Group
YES
The tactics of firms like Google and Facebook and many others depend on shifting income to lower tax rate countries like Ireland or the Cayman Islands by paying rent on things like the use of logos and other intellectual property. They deduct the expense in the high tax-rate country like the U.S. and claim the income in the low tax-rate country. The key to eliminating this behavior starts with lowering corporate taxes overall from 35% to say 25% and then eliminating the games. Doing so would provide $50 to $60 billion in revenue which would pay off .4% of the outstanding U.S. debt balance each year. It’s a start.
Lynn Reaser, Point Loma Nazarene University
Yes
The U.S. corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world but generates one of the lowest revenue totals relative to GDP because of the myriad of tax incentives. To improve U.S. competitiveness: (1) The corporate tax structure should be collapsed from multiple brackets, with the top taxed at 35%, to one bracket taxed at 28%; and (2) All of the more than 30 tax credits and over 75 tax exclusions, deductions, and deferrals known as “tax expenditures” should be eliminated. This approach could mitigate the backlash if tax preferences were retained for one industry but not another. A level playing field without the distortion of various tax subsidies, combined with a lower overall tax rate, would enhance both the efficiency and equity of the U.S. economy.
Dan Seiver, San Diego State University
YES
The U.S. corporate tax rate is too high compared to many other developed countries, and there are too many loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying taxes. If we simplify the corporate tax code, and eliminate loopholes, we can certainly reduce the statutory rate, and probably will not lose any tax revenue! The worst loophole is the one that allows U.S. firms to list their main or subsidiary “headquarters” as the Cayman Islands, which has no corporate tax rate. Many large American firms have used this loophole, including Altria, Coke and Intel. Don’t believe me? Google “Ugland House Bloomberg” and read the May 2009 story for yourself. Over 18,000 corporations list this 5-story building in the Cayman Islands as their official address. Close this loophole!
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Historic Idea Has Democrats and Republicans Sitting Together for State of the Union Address
Congratulations to Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, U.S. Reps, Heath Shuler, D-N.C., and Paul Gosar, R-Ariz. for gathering 60 members of Congress to sit with members of the opposite party during President Obama's State of the Union speech tonight. I've always hated to see our elected Senators and Representatives divided by party. An article from the Houston Chronicle states this have never happened in the nearly 100 year history of the State of the Union address. It's about time.
'Date night' pairs lawmakers in nod to call for civility
Gesture breaks tradition that can be traced to 1913
By JOE HOLLEY
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Jan. 25, 2011, 10:47PM
GOP Sen. John McCain, right, talking before the address with Democratic Sen. John Kerry, suggested he was looking forward to less "jumping up and down" in his seat.
There was U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, in her coveted State of the Union perch along the aisle....This time, though, instead of sitting in a bloc with her fellow Democrats, Lee sat beside a real live Republican, U.S. Rep. Pete Olson of Sugar Land.
The two Houston lawmakers were enthusiastic participants in the State of the Union "date night," a bipartisan gesture prompted by the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., earlier this month. The pre-speech curiosity was almost Oscar-night giddy — or maybe prom-night giddy - as lawmakers over the past several days paired off.
More than 60 members signed up to sit beside one of their colleagues from a different party, including U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, the liberal Democrat from New York, who paired up with U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, a conservative Republican from Oklahoma. Schumer noted that sitting together was symbolic, but added, "Maybe it just sets a tone and everything gets a little bit more civil."
U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, sat with U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, while U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, sat next to U.S. Sen. Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat who had asked her for a "date" on ABC's This Week on Sunday.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi turned down an invitation from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., explaining via Twitter that she already had accepted an invitation from Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md.
U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat, sat with fellow Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, a Republican, who was attending his first State of the Union address.
"I'm bringing the popcorn; he's bringing a Coke with two straws," Durbin joked last week.
'Want to change the tone'
The move to break with tradition came earlier this month from a moderate Democratic policy group called Third Way and was quickly endorsed by Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo.
"I think we all believe that the State of the Union's become more like a high school pep rally, and we want to change the tone and show the public that we can work together," Udall said at a news conference a few hours before the president's speech. Joining him were U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and U.S. Reps. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., and Paul Gosar, R-Ariz. All three were co-signers of a "Dear Colleague" letter to every member of Congress, asking them to end the partisan-seating tradition.
"The choreographed standing and clapping of one side of the room - while the other side sits - is unbecoming of a serious institution," Udall had written. "And the message that it sends is that even on a night when the president is addressing the entire nation, we in Congress cannot sit as one, but must be divided as two."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., announced that he'd be sitting with Mark Udall's cousin, U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M.
"It might be nice to cut back a little bit on all the jumping up and down," McCain told CBS' Face the Nation on Sunday. McCain was a close friend of the late U.S. Rep. Morris Udall, a liberal Democrat from Arizona who sought his party's presidential nomination in 1976.
'Pep rally' dates to 1983
The partisan seating tradition dates back to 1913, when President Woodrow Wilson personally delivered a State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress for the first time since Thomas Jefferson.
Lawmakers observed the partisan seating tradition of the House - and continued to do so for nearly a century.
The "political pep rally," as Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court put it last year - members on one side leaping to their feet in a syncopated ovation while the other side sits glumly - dates back to 1983, when Democrats mockingly applauded President Ronald Reagan during a State of the Union speech.
"Date night" 2011 turned out to be a rather sober public lecture from the president. They heard Obama call for "our generation's Sputnik moment" - investment in biomedical research, information technology, clean-energy technology. They also heard him call for education reform, investment in infrastructure and tax reform.
Empty seat for Giffords
There were 79 applause interruptions, and lawmakers still rose for standing ovations, but less often and less raucously than in years past. An empty seat among the Arizona delegation, a tribute to Giffords, also contributed to a more somber tone.
Whether bipartisan civility lasts past midnight Tuesday is an open question, as the president acknowledged.
Just recognizing "common hopes and a common creed," Obama said, "won't usher in a new era of cooperation. ... What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow."
Sen. Mitch McConnell dismisses it as strictly symbolic with no meaning to the public, but I beg to differ. I've always hated to see the traditional splitting by party.
Others are not so enthusiastic. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said on FOX that he would sit in his usual Senate seat.
"If people want to mix it up, we don't have seating assignments," McConnell said. "The American people are more interested in actual accomplishments ... than seating arrangements for the State of the Union."
'Date night' pairs lawmakers in nod to call for civility
Gesture breaks tradition that can be traced to 1913
By JOE HOLLEY
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Jan. 25, 2011, 10:47PM
GOP Sen. John McCain, right, talking before the address with Democratic Sen. John Kerry, suggested he was looking forward to less "jumping up and down" in his seat.
There was U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, in her coveted State of the Union perch along the aisle....This time, though, instead of sitting in a bloc with her fellow Democrats, Lee sat beside a real live Republican, U.S. Rep. Pete Olson of Sugar Land.
The two Houston lawmakers were enthusiastic participants in the State of the Union "date night," a bipartisan gesture prompted by the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., earlier this month. The pre-speech curiosity was almost Oscar-night giddy — or maybe prom-night giddy - as lawmakers over the past several days paired off.
More than 60 members signed up to sit beside one of their colleagues from a different party, including U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, the liberal Democrat from New York, who paired up with U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, a conservative Republican from Oklahoma. Schumer noted that sitting together was symbolic, but added, "Maybe it just sets a tone and everything gets a little bit more civil."
U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, sat with U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, while U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, sat next to U.S. Sen. Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat who had asked her for a "date" on ABC's This Week on Sunday.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi turned down an invitation from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., explaining via Twitter that she already had accepted an invitation from Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md.
U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat, sat with fellow Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, a Republican, who was attending his first State of the Union address.
"I'm bringing the popcorn; he's bringing a Coke with two straws," Durbin joked last week.
'Want to change the tone'
The move to break with tradition came earlier this month from a moderate Democratic policy group called Third Way and was quickly endorsed by Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo.
"I think we all believe that the State of the Union's become more like a high school pep rally, and we want to change the tone and show the public that we can work together," Udall said at a news conference a few hours before the president's speech. Joining him were U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and U.S. Reps. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., and Paul Gosar, R-Ariz. All three were co-signers of a "Dear Colleague" letter to every member of Congress, asking them to end the partisan-seating tradition.
"The choreographed standing and clapping of one side of the room - while the other side sits - is unbecoming of a serious institution," Udall had written. "And the message that it sends is that even on a night when the president is addressing the entire nation, we in Congress cannot sit as one, but must be divided as two."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., announced that he'd be sitting with Mark Udall's cousin, U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M.
"It might be nice to cut back a little bit on all the jumping up and down," McCain told CBS' Face the Nation on Sunday. McCain was a close friend of the late U.S. Rep. Morris Udall, a liberal Democrat from Arizona who sought his party's presidential nomination in 1976.
'Pep rally' dates to 1983
The partisan seating tradition dates back to 1913, when President Woodrow Wilson personally delivered a State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress for the first time since Thomas Jefferson.
Lawmakers observed the partisan seating tradition of the House - and continued to do so for nearly a century.
The "political pep rally," as Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court put it last year - members on one side leaping to their feet in a syncopated ovation while the other side sits glumly - dates back to 1983, when Democrats mockingly applauded President Ronald Reagan during a State of the Union speech.
"Date night" 2011 turned out to be a rather sober public lecture from the president. They heard Obama call for "our generation's Sputnik moment" - investment in biomedical research, information technology, clean-energy technology. They also heard him call for education reform, investment in infrastructure and tax reform.
Empty seat for Giffords
There were 79 applause interruptions, and lawmakers still rose for standing ovations, but less often and less raucously than in years past. An empty seat among the Arizona delegation, a tribute to Giffords, also contributed to a more somber tone.
Whether bipartisan civility lasts past midnight Tuesday is an open question, as the president acknowledged.
Just recognizing "common hopes and a common creed," Obama said, "won't usher in a new era of cooperation. ... What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow."
Sen. Mitch McConnell dismisses it as strictly symbolic with no meaning to the public, but I beg to differ. I've always hated to see the traditional splitting by party.
Others are not so enthusiastic. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said on FOX that he would sit in his usual Senate seat.
"If people want to mix it up, we don't have seating assignments," McConnell said. "The American people are more interested in actual accomplishments ... than seating arrangements for the State of the Union."
What is Possible?
The next time someone tells you something isn't possible, tell them first to finish their sentence, after you quote the following to them, from Wikipedia.org:
"Modern U.S. Navy aircraft carriers have the Mark 7 Mod 3 arresting gear installed, which have the capability of recovering a 50,000-pound (23,000 kg) aircraft at an engaging speed of 130 knots in a distance of 340 feet (104 m). The system is designed to absorb theoretical maximum energy of 47,500,000 foot-pounds (64.4 MJ) at maximum cable run-out.
.....Aircraft coming in to land on a carrier are at approximately 85% of full throttle. At touchdown, the pilot advances the throttles to full power. Once the arresting gear stops the aircraft, he brings the throttles back to idle..."
We have all seen pictures of aircraft landing on aircraft carriers, the above showing the incredible numbers behind the pictures. The point is, with the will to make something happen, it can be made to happen, and the above is an excellent example. The current class of aircraft carriers in the US cost only $4.5 billion dollars, not pocket change, but less than one might have imagined.
"Modern U.S. Navy aircraft carriers have the Mark 7 Mod 3 arresting gear installed, which have the capability of recovering a 50,000-pound (23,000 kg) aircraft at an engaging speed of 130 knots in a distance of 340 feet (104 m). The system is designed to absorb theoretical maximum energy of 47,500,000 foot-pounds (64.4 MJ) at maximum cable run-out.
.....Aircraft coming in to land on a carrier are at approximately 85% of full throttle. At touchdown, the pilot advances the throttles to full power. Once the arresting gear stops the aircraft, he brings the throttles back to idle..."
We have all seen pictures of aircraft landing on aircraft carriers, the above showing the incredible numbers behind the pictures. The point is, with the will to make something happen, it can be made to happen, and the above is an excellent example. The current class of aircraft carriers in the US cost only $4.5 billion dollars, not pocket change, but less than one might have imagined.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Ridiculous Legislations Passes Every Month
What, you ask, isn't this a gross exageration? No, when you consider that virtually all legislation which contains a dollare amount is not indexed! For example, the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 established penalties, in section 17. Here is subsection a:
(a) Any employer who willfully or repeatedly violates the requirements of section 5 of this Act, any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant to section 6 of this Act, or regulations prescribed pursuant to this Act, may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $70,000 for each violation, but not less than $5,000 for each willful violation.
The penalty amounts were updated in 1990, from $10,000 to the current $70,000. Accounting for inflation, the amount would have grown to $33,685 if indexed, so the new 1990 amount was more than double, creating a great dis-incentive. Today, however, to keep the same weight, the penalty should be adjusted to $116,785. However, Congress fails, month after month, to simply index such legislation so that it automatically continues to have the same weight and impact on violations.
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics maintains an Inflation Calculator, so it would be simple to attach all fines to this Calculator, by law. Instead, they continue to pass legislation that loses bite, year after year. Ridiculous.
US Inflation Calculator
(a) Any employer who willfully or repeatedly violates the requirements of section 5 of this Act, any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant to section 6 of this Act, or regulations prescribed pursuant to this Act, may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $70,000 for each violation, but not less than $5,000 for each willful violation.
The penalty amounts were updated in 1990, from $10,000 to the current $70,000. Accounting for inflation, the amount would have grown to $33,685 if indexed, so the new 1990 amount was more than double, creating a great dis-incentive. Today, however, to keep the same weight, the penalty should be adjusted to $116,785. However, Congress fails, month after month, to simply index such legislation so that it automatically continues to have the same weight and impact on violations.
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics maintains an Inflation Calculator, so it would be simple to attach all fines to this Calculator, by law. Instead, they continue to pass legislation that loses bite, year after year. Ridiculous.
US Inflation Calculator
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Supervisor Roberts Opens New Juvenile Hall Parking Lot, Benefits Clients and Birdland Residence
On December 23, 2010, Deputy Probation Officer Yvette Klepin, Serra Mesa Planning Group Chair yours truly, and Supervisor Ron Roberts, cut the ribbon officially opening the new Juvenile Hall Parking Lot. This new parking lot provides 265 new spaces for Juvenile Hall and Court employees, and frees up the same number of spaces in the much more convenient existing lot behind the Juvenile Court, for people with business at the Court and Hall. This, in turn, takes away the need for those people to search for onstreet parking in the Birdland neighborhood, up to four blocks away from the Court complex. Thank you, Supervisor Roberts, for providing such a good solution to the problem, but also doing it so quickly, less than a year from start to finish.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Serves Last Week
Nest Monday, Governor Schwarzenegger's two terms and seven years come to an end. He is far from the worst governor California has ever had. I think we can thank the woman behind the man for much of his success, that being Maria Shriver. He led California through some very tough times. I didn't always agree with his politics or actions, but I do have a lot of respect for him. "My struggle for reform will continue, my belief in environmental issues and in protecting the environment will continue," he said recently. Overall, I have to say, Thank You Governor, for your two terms as governor of the eighth largest economy in the world. Happy Trails to you and your family.
Brazil's 1st Female President Takes Office
From Marxist rebel to economist to the new leader of the world's fifth largest country, what a story for the new president of Brazil. Dilma Rousseff, 63, in a 45 minute speech at her inauguration, wept when she remembered her past as a member of a leftist Marxist guerrilla group and her dead comrades in the fight against the 1964-85 dictatorship in Brazil, during which she was imprisoned and suffered torture. What an incredible story! "I do not come here to enrich my biography but to glorify the life of every Brazilian woman. It is my supreme commitment to honor women, to protect those who are weakest and to govern for all," she said. She succeeds her mentor, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who termed out, and leaves office with record popularity. Best of luck to her and the people of Brazil.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Sam Harris Writes About the Dangerous Growing Wealth Gap
Sam Harris writes in Huffingpost.com about the current wealth gap, how dangerous it is, and a 'simple' solution to it. Here is a quote from it:
Most Americans believe that a person should enjoy the full fruits of his or her labors, however abundant. In this light, taxation tends to be seen as an intrinsic evil. It is worth noting, however, that throughout the 1950's--a decade for which American conservatives pretend to feel a harrowing sense of nostalgia--the marginal tax rate for the wealthy was over 90 percent. In fact, prior to the 1980's it never dipped below 70 percent. Since 1982, however, it has come down by half. In the meantime, the average net worth of the richest 1 percent of Americans has doubled (to $18.5 million), while that of the poorest 40 percent has fallen by 63 percent (to $2,200).
Follow the link to read this well-thought out article.
Sam Harris on the Growing Wealth Gap
Most Americans believe that a person should enjoy the full fruits of his or her labors, however abundant. In this light, taxation tends to be seen as an intrinsic evil. It is worth noting, however, that throughout the 1950's--a decade for which American conservatives pretend to feel a harrowing sense of nostalgia--the marginal tax rate for the wealthy was over 90 percent. In fact, prior to the 1980's it never dipped below 70 percent. Since 1982, however, it has come down by half. In the meantime, the average net worth of the richest 1 percent of Americans has doubled (to $18.5 million), while that of the poorest 40 percent has fallen by 63 percent (to $2,200).
Follow the link to read this well-thought out article.
Sam Harris on the Growing Wealth Gap
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)