I see the Michigan Democratic Party had Bill Clinton as its keynote speaker last night at the Jefferson/Jackson Day fund-raiser. That befuddles me a great deal. I can't understand and, in turn, would question anyone voting for members of a party who embraced someone like Bill Clinton, so much so as to invite him to speak at the fund-raiser.
Note only was this guy one of only two Presidents to be impeached (and, deservedly so, despite the revisionists and Kool-Aid drinkers who still defend the guy). He lost his license to practice law for lying under oath, perjury. (Yes, think about that one for a minute and, esp, what would have happened to you or me had we lied to a federal grand jury.) He has spent a lifetime of sexually preying on women. And this is the Democratic Party, the once supposedly the party of and for women! (Again, I ask you to think what would have happened to you or me had we in similar positions of authority done what he did.)
I'm not sure if this says more about the Democrats or about the American people/society or maybe all of us. Regardless, it's not complimentary. Our standards of decency have reached the gutter and, apparently, we are happy to leave them there.
Don't tell anyone, but I watched a bit of C-Span yesterday, an hour presentation on the Lincoln Archives at the Library of Congress. The presenter was very good, a good lecturer. (And I know how difficult it is to lecture well, esp as well as she did.) But I was dismayed to be reminded that Obama was sworn in on the same Bible as Lincoln. I find that, well, sacrilegious. Maybe I make too much of it, maybe. Still it's bothersome. (Of course, maybe Obama was just kidding when he took the Presidential oath??????) I was though heartened and found humorous a letter Lincoln wrote to his wife, Mary. He signed it, "Affectionately, A. Lincoln." How cool!
I don't know the numbers, but find it very unbelievable that the U of M can't find enough black students with high enough GPAs, ACT/SAT scores, etc. to fill some "diversity quota." I have had a number of really great black students over the years--intelligent, articulate, curious and inquisitive, hard-working, etc. I have no doubts they could succeed at Michigan. Do many blacks not apply to the school? There is a good argument out there, though, which really gives pause in any criticism of affirmative action. That is the poor schools that blacks attend, often out of necessity with no options. (Of course, I'm not convinced many of the public schools are all they are cracked up to be. That's a topic for another day--oh, it's been a topic here for many a past day!) Most of the black students with whom I went to college, regardless of their high schools, were far better academically than I was; I couldn't hold a candle to them. Too, I wonder how many opponents of using race as a factor for admission have the same views toward admission of athletes, esp in football and basketball, or even legacy children. I suspect not. (In full disclosure, I also recognize I was admitted to Amherst in part because I was an athlete. That was a factor that separated me from others with equally good high school GPAs and SATs--I don't think there were ACTs back then! And, yes, for a while I felt uncomfortable about it. Later, as some others pointed out, I did the work and received the grades to graduate. There were no "jock" graduations. I had to take the same courses, do the same reading and writing, etc. as the other students. And, I later discovered, the college used me, too, to recruit. That is fine with me; I harbor zero ill-feelings. I'm still humbled and honored to be an Amherst graduate.) I also know, from personal experiences, that abilities and achievements are not always rewarded. I find this a very complex issue, one I still haven't been able to get a handle on.
I noted to some classmates that I have little optimism for the futures of my grandkids, that too many people don't care enough to think about those futures. As long as they have their American Idol, NFL, and Big Gulps ("Slurp, Slurp, Slurp"), all is right with the world. I also indicated I hope I am very wrong.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Friday, April 25, 2014
The Wealthy?
They aren't who we are led to believe they are. In other words, somebody is being deceitful or dishonest. (Is that the same thing as "lying?")
I guess a couple of university professors (Washington Univ?) did a study of several decades of the "1%" in the US. (Can I assume their findings are not distorted, that they aren't being "deceitful" or "dishonest?") Over the lifetimes of Americans, fully 16% will find themselves at one time or another in the top 1% of income earners in the US. Almost 2 in 5 will be in the top 5% at least once in their lives. 56% will be in the upper 10%. More astounding to me is that just about 3/4 of all Americans will, at one time or another in their lifetimes, be in the upper 20% of income earners.
On the other hand, just over half of Americans will experience poverty- or near-poverty levels for at least one year in their lifetimes.
What this suggests is that the 1% and the 99% are fluid, not at all static. People's economic/financial pictures seem to change a great deal.
I find it interesting, on a tangential note, that many people I talk to who criticize the big money bankers, CEOs, etc. earn (Yes, I did say "earn.") don't agree that, say, Don Worth of the Detroit Tigers be given the same money as Miguel Cabrera. After all, what does production count? What does what one really contributes have to do with anything? Isn't Worth trying as hard as Cabrera? Doesn't he practice as much? Doesn't he, too, have a role on the team--the key here being the word "team?" He's likely just as nice a person, too. So, shouldn't the two get the same money? That would only be fair, wouldn't it? Oh, no, not a one says that. Why, then, should things be any different in the corporate world, with people running their own businesses, etc.? Shouldn't people who are more productive--for whatever reasons--be rewarded with greater incomes?
(OK, yes in candor, I resented many other teachers who didn't assign essays, showed movies all of the time, never graded papers or took work home, etc. taking home the same money as I did. In fact, I wonder why others, in the bargaining unit, who didn't have students, didn't have any of the classroom work, weren't responsible for 150 or 160 or 180 students a day, etc. received the same pay as I did. I'm not saying anything about me here; rather, I'm saying it about others--and there were far more than one would imagine.)
I believe that, since 1962, the income gap between the very wealthy and the not-so-wealthy has increased, but at a rather paltry 2.2%. (I think that comes from the CBO, but I'm not sure. Regardless, I'm never certain if I'm supposed to believe CBO figures or not--they depend on who's making the argument on whatever issue!) I've noted this before, but I think it's worth repeating. I don't really care if some Hollywood-type, some hippy rock star, or some professional athlete is making millions of dollars. I don't really care if the CEOs, bankers, etc. are making far more than I am. (Now, school administrators, yes, I do resent that they make far more.) I think it's ridiculous that professional athletes, TV so-called "stars" (so-called because what little television I watch, I am not at all impressed with acting abilities, not at all), gangsta rappers, etc. make millions and millions. How stupid! But I don't resent it, not at all. As I have noted, I now have far more than I ever dreamed of growing up in the shadows of the Ford Rouge Plant. Compared with what my parents were able to afford, I have them beaten by tons. That doesn't mean I'm one of the "1%" or even 5% or 10%. It just means I am comfortable and am adult enough to realize I can't have everything I want. I'm not jealous of those wealthier than I am. I'm not envious. If they've earned their money--or someone thinks they've earned it, enough so that they are paid so--good for them. Much of the squabble over "income inequality" isn't about anything but greed and not the greed of the wealthy.
I guess a couple of university professors (Washington Univ?) did a study of several decades of the "1%" in the US. (Can I assume their findings are not distorted, that they aren't being "deceitful" or "dishonest?") Over the lifetimes of Americans, fully 16% will find themselves at one time or another in the top 1% of income earners in the US. Almost 2 in 5 will be in the top 5% at least once in their lives. 56% will be in the upper 10%. More astounding to me is that just about 3/4 of all Americans will, at one time or another in their lifetimes, be in the upper 20% of income earners.
On the other hand, just over half of Americans will experience poverty- or near-poverty levels for at least one year in their lifetimes.
What this suggests is that the 1% and the 99% are fluid, not at all static. People's economic/financial pictures seem to change a great deal.
I find it interesting, on a tangential note, that many people I talk to who criticize the big money bankers, CEOs, etc. earn (Yes, I did say "earn.") don't agree that, say, Don Worth of the Detroit Tigers be given the same money as Miguel Cabrera. After all, what does production count? What does what one really contributes have to do with anything? Isn't Worth trying as hard as Cabrera? Doesn't he practice as much? Doesn't he, too, have a role on the team--the key here being the word "team?" He's likely just as nice a person, too. So, shouldn't the two get the same money? That would only be fair, wouldn't it? Oh, no, not a one says that. Why, then, should things be any different in the corporate world, with people running their own businesses, etc.? Shouldn't people who are more productive--for whatever reasons--be rewarded with greater incomes?
(OK, yes in candor, I resented many other teachers who didn't assign essays, showed movies all of the time, never graded papers or took work home, etc. taking home the same money as I did. In fact, I wonder why others, in the bargaining unit, who didn't have students, didn't have any of the classroom work, weren't responsible for 150 or 160 or 180 students a day, etc. received the same pay as I did. I'm not saying anything about me here; rather, I'm saying it about others--and there were far more than one would imagine.)
I believe that, since 1962, the income gap between the very wealthy and the not-so-wealthy has increased, but at a rather paltry 2.2%. (I think that comes from the CBO, but I'm not sure. Regardless, I'm never certain if I'm supposed to believe CBO figures or not--they depend on who's making the argument on whatever issue!) I've noted this before, but I think it's worth repeating. I don't really care if some Hollywood-type, some hippy rock star, or some professional athlete is making millions of dollars. I don't really care if the CEOs, bankers, etc. are making far more than I am. (Now, school administrators, yes, I do resent that they make far more.) I think it's ridiculous that professional athletes, TV so-called "stars" (so-called because what little television I watch, I am not at all impressed with acting abilities, not at all), gangsta rappers, etc. make millions and millions. How stupid! But I don't resent it, not at all. As I have noted, I now have far more than I ever dreamed of growing up in the shadows of the Ford Rouge Plant. Compared with what my parents were able to afford, I have them beaten by tons. That doesn't mean I'm one of the "1%" or even 5% or 10%. It just means I am comfortable and am adult enough to realize I can't have everything I want. I'm not jealous of those wealthier than I am. I'm not envious. If they've earned their money--or someone thinks they've earned it, enough so that they are paid so--good for them. Much of the squabble over "income inequality" isn't about anything but greed and not the greed of the wealthy.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Thur Thoughts
Is spring really here? Hmmm...... I'm not sure, but Tue night's practices were very cold. It took half an hour or more back home to warm up to a comfortable level. In fact, I'm not sure when I've been colder, at least not recently even with the cold, cold winter. The temperatures were forecast for the mid- to upper-50s and the Detroit readings were so-read. My auto thermometer never went above 45, all day, and there was a strong and biting northwest wind, with blustery gusts to boot. Part of the cold was my fault, at both practices. I should have helped organized drills better. For some reason I didn't. Maybe it's another sign of senility?
Speaking of that, last Sat--the last pitch to the last batter--I was tossing BP. All had gone well, although I was getting tired after about 45 mins. I struggled to throw the last few strikes and really concentrated on grooving the last one, if only to get out of there. I did groove it and the kid nailed it--right back at me. I deflected it with my glove, but it still caught my sunglasses and ripped a tear above my left eye. I was too intent on focusing on throwing a strike, not on fielding afterward. And, perhaps, it's another sign of getting a bit older, that my reflexes were a tad slow. I'm not sure if I had let it go if it would have hit me. I'm pretty sure, had I not been wearing sunglasses, it would have been just a glancing blow, not hard at all. Regardless, the ER MD said, "Oh, I think you'll need a couple of stitches." I guess in medical terms, "a couple" translates to seven. Gee, those are the first stitches I've ever had other than having a wisdom tooth removed about 30-35 years ago. All those sports as a kid, two sports in college...and not a single stitch until now. I guess I must have been a wimpy athlete?
I see the Obamas are after us again about what we eat. OK, I suppose that's well-intentioned, although I resent someone telling me how I must eat. I'm a big boy and if I want, well, a Big Boy, I should be able to eat it. I do think there should be consequences, though, for one's choices of food. But that's not the point here. The Administration wants to tell us how to eat, even through the schools, but then also backs wider use/legalization of some drugs. That seems to be a bit incongruous to me. Of course, maybe that's just me.
I heard a term last week that has stuck with me, "Culture of Leisure." I have been mulling it over and over. No doubt, for the vast majority of us, we have created such a culture. Regardless of people's belly-aching about the economy, about "income inequality," about "the greedy rich," etc., many people have lives of leisure today that I could never have dreamed about when I was growing up. What many consider absolute necessities today were frivolous extras back then, almost toys for the wealthy. That is, if those frivolous extras even existed 50 years ago. Has such a culture led to people being "bored?" (I use quotation marks for "bored" because I don't like the word. It's misused by far too many people--like the word "ironic"--and it is not a word I identify in my life, at least not with my lifestyle.) Is that a cause of our malaise, our troubled world today, particularly in the US? Do we have too many "toys," things that really don't provide any meaning to life or lives? Is life too easy, outside of a lot of the made-up maladies that keep far too many so-called "helping professions" in business? Have we lost the sense of real accomplishment, many finally figuring out (perhaps even subconsciously) that winning a video game is not a big deal, that making the little league all-star team isn't the top of the world (not when so many make the all-star teams), that wearing an NFL jersey to an NFL game doesn't make one an NFL player, etc.? So, then, we turn to other things to combat the "boredom," things such as shooting people with real guns, killing them with real bombs? Perhaps all the toys have desensitized us to reality, that these are real guns, are real bombs, etc. I don't know. After all, in the video games (and on television, in the movies the dead people all aren't really dead).
And maybe all this leisure, all these toys, have led us to become a culture of "Peter Pans," never growing up. We don't become adults, but willingly remain kids who play with toys, as high tech as they might be. Again, I'm not sure, but this might be a way to explain what's gone wrong.
Speaking of that, last Sat--the last pitch to the last batter--I was tossing BP. All had gone well, although I was getting tired after about 45 mins. I struggled to throw the last few strikes and really concentrated on grooving the last one, if only to get out of there. I did groove it and the kid nailed it--right back at me. I deflected it with my glove, but it still caught my sunglasses and ripped a tear above my left eye. I was too intent on focusing on throwing a strike, not on fielding afterward. And, perhaps, it's another sign of getting a bit older, that my reflexes were a tad slow. I'm not sure if I had let it go if it would have hit me. I'm pretty sure, had I not been wearing sunglasses, it would have been just a glancing blow, not hard at all. Regardless, the ER MD said, "Oh, I think you'll need a couple of stitches." I guess in medical terms, "a couple" translates to seven. Gee, those are the first stitches I've ever had other than having a wisdom tooth removed about 30-35 years ago. All those sports as a kid, two sports in college...and not a single stitch until now. I guess I must have been a wimpy athlete?
I see the Obamas are after us again about what we eat. OK, I suppose that's well-intentioned, although I resent someone telling me how I must eat. I'm a big boy and if I want, well, a Big Boy, I should be able to eat it. I do think there should be consequences, though, for one's choices of food. But that's not the point here. The Administration wants to tell us how to eat, even through the schools, but then also backs wider use/legalization of some drugs. That seems to be a bit incongruous to me. Of course, maybe that's just me.
I heard a term last week that has stuck with me, "Culture of Leisure." I have been mulling it over and over. No doubt, for the vast majority of us, we have created such a culture. Regardless of people's belly-aching about the economy, about "income inequality," about "the greedy rich," etc., many people have lives of leisure today that I could never have dreamed about when I was growing up. What many consider absolute necessities today were frivolous extras back then, almost toys for the wealthy. That is, if those frivolous extras even existed 50 years ago. Has such a culture led to people being "bored?" (I use quotation marks for "bored" because I don't like the word. It's misused by far too many people--like the word "ironic"--and it is not a word I identify in my life, at least not with my lifestyle.) Is that a cause of our malaise, our troubled world today, particularly in the US? Do we have too many "toys," things that really don't provide any meaning to life or lives? Is life too easy, outside of a lot of the made-up maladies that keep far too many so-called "helping professions" in business? Have we lost the sense of real accomplishment, many finally figuring out (perhaps even subconsciously) that winning a video game is not a big deal, that making the little league all-star team isn't the top of the world (not when so many make the all-star teams), that wearing an NFL jersey to an NFL game doesn't make one an NFL player, etc.? So, then, we turn to other things to combat the "boredom," things such as shooting people with real guns, killing them with real bombs? Perhaps all the toys have desensitized us to reality, that these are real guns, are real bombs, etc. I don't know. After all, in the video games (and on television, in the movies the dead people all aren't really dead).
And maybe all this leisure, all these toys, have led us to become a culture of "Peter Pans," never growing up. We don't become adults, but willingly remain kids who play with toys, as high tech as they might be. Again, I'm not sure, but this might be a way to explain what's gone wrong.
Friday, April 18, 2014
Tax Day
Or is it Tax Freedom/Relief Day? I believe today is it, the day when the average American has earned enough money (from January 1) to pay off taxes for the year. Wow! We had to work three and a half months just to pay off our federal, state, and local taxes? Well, at least we get to keep the last eight and a half months' income--for a while. Isn't that ridiculous?
Now before I go further, those who don't think it's "ridiculous" can keep paying if they want. There's no law that prohibits them from putting their money where their mouths are. If they think it's good (or as Joe Biden claimed, "patriotic") to pay taxes for more and more government spending, then certainly they should keep sending more of their money to Washington, to Lansing, to their local governmental units. At least then we could have a little more respect for them, that they tried to live like they talked.
I think Tax Freedom/Relief Day is a few days later this year than last. That's not encouraging, not at all. One account claims the federal government will take in, for the first time, more than $3 trillion in taxes. Yet, that's not enough for the ravenous spending. The feds will borrow another half billion dollars, from the commies in China, our friends the Saudis, etc. State and local governments will bag another trillion and a half dollars.
To put that in perspective, according to the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, Americans annually spend about $4.2 trillion on food, clothing, and their homes. That is, we pay more in taxes than we do on the necessities of life. Isn't that ridiculous? (See above if you don't think so.)
The national debt is somewhere in the $18 trillion range. If each American (at least those who are working) gave all of their income, down to the last penny, in '14 to Washington, that wouldn't pay off that debt. (Isn't that ridiculous? (See above......)
We obviously don't have a revenue problem, not at all. It's the politicians and bureaucrats in government who have a spending problem. As Economic Nobelist Milton Friedman once noted, "It's easy to spend other people's money."
There are many, many ways to cut spending. It's just that there are very few politicians with the integrity and courage to do so. Not many of them subscribe to Harry Truman's dictum, "Do what's right, not what's popular."
At least tangentially in that same vein, there are far too many unelected people who make decisions, financial and otherwise. These are the bureaucrats who are, for the most part, accountable to nobody. Certainly no one from Congress seems to question them.
I got a kick out of a recent poll (Washington Post??????) that indicated 16% of Americans don't believe that Obama lies, not at all. Gee, even the Post has given Obama "Pinocchios." Can there be that many naive people out there?
One of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was that he approached the IRS to go after his political enemies. To its credit--then!--the IRS said no; it refused to use its considerable (and I believe unconstitutional) authority to do so. (Where else in American society is a person judged guilty until he proves his innocence?) Still, the attempt by Nixon was enough for an article of impeachment. Yet, it is pretty apparent that, from somewhere in the White House, orders came to the IRS to attack Barrack Obama's political enemies. (I suppose if there are 16% of American who don't think Obama lies, there are many who still believe Lois Lerner and Obama that there were "rogue IRS agents" in the Cincinnati office who targeted the conservative groups. Yeah, right, "rogues......") I know there's no chance of impeaching Obama, but isn't it interesting to compare then and now.
Now before I go further, those who don't think it's "ridiculous" can keep paying if they want. There's no law that prohibits them from putting their money where their mouths are. If they think it's good (or as Joe Biden claimed, "patriotic") to pay taxes for more and more government spending, then certainly they should keep sending more of their money to Washington, to Lansing, to their local governmental units. At least then we could have a little more respect for them, that they tried to live like they talked.
I think Tax Freedom/Relief Day is a few days later this year than last. That's not encouraging, not at all. One account claims the federal government will take in, for the first time, more than $3 trillion in taxes. Yet, that's not enough for the ravenous spending. The feds will borrow another half billion dollars, from the commies in China, our friends the Saudis, etc. State and local governments will bag another trillion and a half dollars.
To put that in perspective, according to the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, Americans annually spend about $4.2 trillion on food, clothing, and their homes. That is, we pay more in taxes than we do on the necessities of life. Isn't that ridiculous? (See above if you don't think so.)
The national debt is somewhere in the $18 trillion range. If each American (at least those who are working) gave all of their income, down to the last penny, in '14 to Washington, that wouldn't pay off that debt. (Isn't that ridiculous? (See above......)
We obviously don't have a revenue problem, not at all. It's the politicians and bureaucrats in government who have a spending problem. As Economic Nobelist Milton Friedman once noted, "It's easy to spend other people's money."
There are many, many ways to cut spending. It's just that there are very few politicians with the integrity and courage to do so. Not many of them subscribe to Harry Truman's dictum, "Do what's right, not what's popular."
At least tangentially in that same vein, there are far too many unelected people who make decisions, financial and otherwise. These are the bureaucrats who are, for the most part, accountable to nobody. Certainly no one from Congress seems to question them.
I got a kick out of a recent poll (Washington Post??????) that indicated 16% of Americans don't believe that Obama lies, not at all. Gee, even the Post has given Obama "Pinocchios." Can there be that many naive people out there?
One of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was that he approached the IRS to go after his political enemies. To its credit--then!--the IRS said no; it refused to use its considerable (and I believe unconstitutional) authority to do so. (Where else in American society is a person judged guilty until he proves his innocence?) Still, the attempt by Nixon was enough for an article of impeachment. Yet, it is pretty apparent that, from somewhere in the White House, orders came to the IRS to attack Barrack Obama's political enemies. (I suppose if there are 16% of American who don't think Obama lies, there are many who still believe Lois Lerner and Obama that there were "rogue IRS agents" in the Cincinnati office who targeted the conservative groups. Yeah, right, "rogues......") I know there's no chance of impeaching Obama, but isn't it interesting to compare then and now.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Taxes
Well, April 15 has come and gone and the taxes are in. I found out a couple of interesting things; perhaps I already knew them, but at least I was reawakened to them.
The Federal Income Tax Law and accompanying Tax Code totals somewhere north of 6,000 pages. It's hard to determine the exact number, even from several government sources. The Government Printing Office says "16,845 pages" and charges $1,153 for printing copies of the law and code.Members of Congress make determination even more difficult as some have claimed the Tax Law and Code total more than 70,000 pages. Several other (credible?) sources cite a figure greater than 20,000 pages. (They may seem that long, but aren't quite.) Still, what are we doing with an income tax law that has this ridiculous amount of pages? Of course, the Washington Post wrote that ObamaCare has more than 13,000 pages.
Speaking of ObamaCare, were people really giving K. Sebelius a standing ovation when her resignation as HHS Secretary was announced at a White House gathering? "...a standing ovation?" You must be kidding me, unless they were exuberant over the fact she was leaving. That must have been it.
And speaking of taxes, I've read in several places that General Electric paid no income tax and hasn't at least since 2008, despite making a profit of close to $30 billion over that period. Methinks something smells rotten. In fact, more than 100 Fortune 500 companies, profitable ones, paid no income taxes in at least one (but often more) year of the last five. GE, Boeing, and Verizon not only paid zero to Uncle Sam over the entire 5-years, but actually received $3 billion in refunds! There's something rotten in Denmark. In fact, a US Senate committee voted to continue the loopholes that perpetuate these tax breaks, just last week. (A full vote of the Senate is on the schedule for May.) Hey, wait a minute! Isn't the Senate controlled by Democrats? Aren't the Democrats for the little guy and the evil Republicans the party of big business? Let me repeat, there's something rotten in Denmark.
The loopholes are ridiculous, keeping with government policies that reward bad or less desirable behavior and punish righteous actions. For instance, how many lunches, dinners (with drinks, of course), and other things such as conferences and conventions (which always somehow are found in Las Vegas, Miami, San Diego, etc, never Peoria, Walla Walla, etc.) are written off as expenses? I'd like to find a dollar figure on that. Yet, teachers are allowed to deduct $200 for their expenses. Yep, it seems once again our priorities are clear--and all messed up.
Did you hear Harry Reid the other day, decrying the Clark County, NV cattle rancher who won't cave in to the Bureau of Land Management? The issue is a lot more complicated (OH, that history stuff again!) than it seems at first glance, but I won't address the heavy-handed federal government taxes, at least not yet. Reid spoke about "American people who violate the law and just walk away from it. We can't have that." What? Did Reid really say that? Well, the tape I saw/heard seems to confirm it. So, then, why is Reid in the forefront of letting immigrants come into this country illegall, you know, they "violate the law," yet "just walk away from it?" I guess he comes from the same school as Obama, picking and choosing what laws are to be obeyed and which are, well, "just kidding." What a Bozo! It sure says a whole lot about the character of the US Senate when a guy like that can become Majority Leader. (What it "says" isn't very complimentary, either.)
Oh, there's a lot a more, but time to start my school bus driving routes--well, at least to start picking up the kids from their various schools.
The Federal Income Tax Law and accompanying Tax Code totals somewhere north of 6,000 pages. It's hard to determine the exact number, even from several government sources. The Government Printing Office says "16,845 pages" and charges $1,153 for printing copies of the law and code.Members of Congress make determination even more difficult as some have claimed the Tax Law and Code total more than 70,000 pages. Several other (credible?) sources cite a figure greater than 20,000 pages. (They may seem that long, but aren't quite.) Still, what are we doing with an income tax law that has this ridiculous amount of pages? Of course, the Washington Post wrote that ObamaCare has more than 13,000 pages.
Speaking of ObamaCare, were people really giving K. Sebelius a standing ovation when her resignation as HHS Secretary was announced at a White House gathering? "...a standing ovation?" You must be kidding me, unless they were exuberant over the fact she was leaving. That must have been it.
And speaking of taxes, I've read in several places that General Electric paid no income tax and hasn't at least since 2008, despite making a profit of close to $30 billion over that period. Methinks something smells rotten. In fact, more than 100 Fortune 500 companies, profitable ones, paid no income taxes in at least one (but often more) year of the last five. GE, Boeing, and Verizon not only paid zero to Uncle Sam over the entire 5-years, but actually received $3 billion in refunds! There's something rotten in Denmark. In fact, a US Senate committee voted to continue the loopholes that perpetuate these tax breaks, just last week. (A full vote of the Senate is on the schedule for May.) Hey, wait a minute! Isn't the Senate controlled by Democrats? Aren't the Democrats for the little guy and the evil Republicans the party of big business? Let me repeat, there's something rotten in Denmark.
The loopholes are ridiculous, keeping with government policies that reward bad or less desirable behavior and punish righteous actions. For instance, how many lunches, dinners (with drinks, of course), and other things such as conferences and conventions (which always somehow are found in Las Vegas, Miami, San Diego, etc, never Peoria, Walla Walla, etc.) are written off as expenses? I'd like to find a dollar figure on that. Yet, teachers are allowed to deduct $200 for their expenses. Yep, it seems once again our priorities are clear--and all messed up.
Did you hear Harry Reid the other day, decrying the Clark County, NV cattle rancher who won't cave in to the Bureau of Land Management? The issue is a lot more complicated (OH, that history stuff again!) than it seems at first glance, but I won't address the heavy-handed federal government taxes, at least not yet. Reid spoke about "American people who violate the law and just walk away from it. We can't have that." What? Did Reid really say that? Well, the tape I saw/heard seems to confirm it. So, then, why is Reid in the forefront of letting immigrants come into this country illegall, you know, they "violate the law," yet "just walk away from it?" I guess he comes from the same school as Obama, picking and choosing what laws are to be obeyed and which are, well, "just kidding." What a Bozo! It sure says a whole lot about the character of the US Senate when a guy like that can become Majority Leader. (What it "says" isn't very complimentary, either.)
Oh, there's a lot a more, but time to start my school bus driving routes--well, at least to start picking up the kids from their various schools.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
What's in a novel?
I found this quotation in a novel I am reading:
"It's ironic that doing what's best from one's government and doing what's best for one's country are so diametrically opposed."
Hmmmmmm......
"It's ironic that doing what's best from one's government and doing what's best for one's country are so diametrically opposed."
Hmmmmmm......
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Sunday's Op-Eds
Four op-eds in today's newspapers (Det News, Det Free Press, Oak Press) were worth reading and considering. All offered insights and were thoughtful. And, I think, they covered various ends of the so-called political spectrum.
First, Mitch Albom covered the story of the Mets player who forwent his teams first two games to be at the birth of his child, his first one. I guess a number of sports commentators tried to run the player through the ringer about it. I didn't see this stuff, since I don't really follow sports, but Albom included some quotes from these, well, Neanderthals. And, apparently, there was a good deal of support for their ridiculous ideas. Funny, though, he had the support of his teammates, his manager, and MLB. So who are these ding-a-lings who said, and I'm recalling from memory as best I can, "Have his wife get a C-section and be at the game." "He doesn't do anything [at the birth] anyway. He should be with his team." Albom had several great points, one about "We don't use leeches anymore, either." The other he cited what this player's child will one day say. "My dad missed two Major League games to be at my birth." Then, Albom asked, "What will these other guys' kids say? 'My dad did his radio show when I was born.'" I was at the birth of both of my sons and all three of my grandkids--and I'm glad I was. They were five of the best days of my life.
Second, Brian Dickerson wrote about Mary Barra, the GM CEO, and her appearance before Congress, at least a committee. He shined some light on the hearing, including some questions (his, not the committee members') that were insightful. I have two questions myself. First, some folks are feeling sorry or at least have some compassion for Barra in this. After all, they argue, she wasn't the CEO when the ignition problem and cover-up(s) occurred. Maybe fair enough, maybe not. I'm assuming that she wasn't working on the assembly line or pushing some pencil as a low-grade accountant when all of this happened. So, if she wasn't, did she know about the problem? Did she know about the cover-up? If not, why not? If so, did she speak up? If not, why not? If she did, then why was she ignored or overruled? Now, there's a question that might need an answer. Second, I find it very disingenuous for these arrogant members of Congress to be holding hearings of this sort. After all, who had done more to harm American people and their lifestyles than these self-appointed elitists? I think that the LameStreams should begin asking the same sort of questions of members of Congress as they ask of others.
In the News, Nolan Finley wrote a piece that will invite, I'm certain, charges of "racism" and/or "bigotry." I must admit first though that a lead story on the front page of the Free Press editorial section on the incident last week where a driver who accidentally hit a young boy who walked out in front of his car was beaten badly (still near death) by a mob of 10-12 "young men." Oh, the driver was white and each of the mob was black. The Free Press writer, in the headline, insisted, "It's not about race......" Why do I find it hard to believe that had the driver been black, no beating would have occurred. I can't prove it, but can't believe it would have. I think the Free Press writer is delusional. Finley's column related this incident to one a couple of months ago, when a man shot a young woman who knocked on his door in the wee hours of the AM--oh, and the man was white and she was black. Why were there cries of "racism!" in this shooting, but not in the beating? In fact, as the Free Press article insisted, "It's not about race...." It was Winston Churchill who said, "Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them." If the United States is to have a meaningful discussion of problems of race, everything must be on the table.
Walter Williams in The Oakland Press took on the sex and race police again. With only the biting sarcasm he can write, he noted all of the inequality based on race and gender--that we must deal with. How, he asks, do we justify that 39% of all Nobel Prizes won by Americans go to Jews, who comprise only 3% of the population? "They are taking the rightful Nobel laureates of other racial groups." And blacks, he notes, are grabbing an unfair share of NBA and NFL jobs. With 13% of the US population, blacks make up almost 80% of the NBA and 2/3 of the NFL. Surely they are depriving other races of professional football and basketball jobs? And the NIH recommends more calories per day for male babies than female babies, up to 10% more. This, he cites, is a "government-sanctioned war on women." And, if we truly value integration and equality, why are men and women segregated in our prisons? These are other such differences between genders and races should be found "offensive," he insists, by the progressive elements in society.
There was also blather in The OP by E.J. Dionne. I won't waste my time with his column, other than repeat "blather."
First, Mitch Albom covered the story of the Mets player who forwent his teams first two games to be at the birth of his child, his first one. I guess a number of sports commentators tried to run the player through the ringer about it. I didn't see this stuff, since I don't really follow sports, but Albom included some quotes from these, well, Neanderthals. And, apparently, there was a good deal of support for their ridiculous ideas. Funny, though, he had the support of his teammates, his manager, and MLB. So who are these ding-a-lings who said, and I'm recalling from memory as best I can, "Have his wife get a C-section and be at the game." "He doesn't do anything [at the birth] anyway. He should be with his team." Albom had several great points, one about "We don't use leeches anymore, either." The other he cited what this player's child will one day say. "My dad missed two Major League games to be at my birth." Then, Albom asked, "What will these other guys' kids say? 'My dad did his radio show when I was born.'" I was at the birth of both of my sons and all three of my grandkids--and I'm glad I was. They were five of the best days of my life.
Second, Brian Dickerson wrote about Mary Barra, the GM CEO, and her appearance before Congress, at least a committee. He shined some light on the hearing, including some questions (his, not the committee members') that were insightful. I have two questions myself. First, some folks are feeling sorry or at least have some compassion for Barra in this. After all, they argue, she wasn't the CEO when the ignition problem and cover-up(s) occurred. Maybe fair enough, maybe not. I'm assuming that she wasn't working on the assembly line or pushing some pencil as a low-grade accountant when all of this happened. So, if she wasn't, did she know about the problem? Did she know about the cover-up? If not, why not? If so, did she speak up? If not, why not? If she did, then why was she ignored or overruled? Now, there's a question that might need an answer. Second, I find it very disingenuous for these arrogant members of Congress to be holding hearings of this sort. After all, who had done more to harm American people and their lifestyles than these self-appointed elitists? I think that the LameStreams should begin asking the same sort of questions of members of Congress as they ask of others.
In the News, Nolan Finley wrote a piece that will invite, I'm certain, charges of "racism" and/or "bigotry." I must admit first though that a lead story on the front page of the Free Press editorial section on the incident last week where a driver who accidentally hit a young boy who walked out in front of his car was beaten badly (still near death) by a mob of 10-12 "young men." Oh, the driver was white and each of the mob was black. The Free Press writer, in the headline, insisted, "It's not about race......" Why do I find it hard to believe that had the driver been black, no beating would have occurred. I can't prove it, but can't believe it would have. I think the Free Press writer is delusional. Finley's column related this incident to one a couple of months ago, when a man shot a young woman who knocked on his door in the wee hours of the AM--oh, and the man was white and she was black. Why were there cries of "racism!" in this shooting, but not in the beating? In fact, as the Free Press article insisted, "It's not about race...." It was Winston Churchill who said, "Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them." If the United States is to have a meaningful discussion of problems of race, everything must be on the table.
Walter Williams in The Oakland Press took on the sex and race police again. With only the biting sarcasm he can write, he noted all of the inequality based on race and gender--that we must deal with. How, he asks, do we justify that 39% of all Nobel Prizes won by Americans go to Jews, who comprise only 3% of the population? "They are taking the rightful Nobel laureates of other racial groups." And blacks, he notes, are grabbing an unfair share of NBA and NFL jobs. With 13% of the US population, blacks make up almost 80% of the NBA and 2/3 of the NFL. Surely they are depriving other races of professional football and basketball jobs? And the NIH recommends more calories per day for male babies than female babies, up to 10% more. This, he cites, is a "government-sanctioned war on women." And, if we truly value integration and equality, why are men and women segregated in our prisons? These are other such differences between genders and races should be found "offensive," he insists, by the progressive elements in society.
There was also blather in The OP by E.J. Dionne. I won't waste my time with his column, other than repeat "blather."
Friday, April 4, 2014
April Showers
We can't really complain, can we? We've have had rain three of the first four days of April, but after the winter we just endured...... There are still pockets of snow and icy patches. Ice still covers the lakes. And this after a number of 50-degree days. Little league practices have now missed three weeks, as the league directors--correctly--have ordered the fields closed. There is still ice and snow on some of them. And the frost line beneath is likely keeping the outer crust nothing but mush. Maybe in a week or two I can get out with the three teams I'm helping to coach.
The Codester and I have "played catch, Grandpa" three or four times and took BP once or twice. Bopper and I were throwing the ball one day last week, too. But, now with the rain......
I'm finishing a book by Doris Kearns Goodwin, Bully Pulpit. It's a dual biog of sorts of Teddy Roosevelt (He didn't like the name "Teddy.") and William Taft (Imagine, as it is claimed, this 325-pound man being a twinkle toes on the dance floor!). It's interesting, but a slow go. There are a lot of extraneous additions, esp of the magazines, editors, publishers, writers, etc. of the time. Of course, the thesis of the book is how TR used the magazines and newspapers (their editors, reporters, etc.) to effectively gain support from the American citizenry to get things done while Taft wasn't so good at that. Still, one thing has remained with me throughout the book (other than Big Bill's dancing ability!). By all accounts, even from his political enemies, Taft was a good man, a decent man. He was honest, compassionate, caring, and willing to listen to others' laments. Yet, he seems to have been out of his league in dealing with the corrupt, lying, deceitful politicians he encountered. Imagine a culture where the scumbags rule and the decent people are the losers. Boy, if I've been sour toward politicians and government officials, this does nothing to change my mind.
I almost drove off the road earlier in the week driving to class. On the radio--I don't know who said it other than he was some liberal talking head--some guy said something such as "Of course, the Malaysian liner went down and we're having all sorts of trouble in the after math. [And here's what shocked me.] It's government-owned. Governments are not good at running this sort of thing." Wow! Again, I don't remember who it was or even what day it was. I wonder if the guy even knew what he was saying. Here was some guy who politically believes in bigger and bigger government (at least he talks that way) now saying that l'Affaire Malaysia shouldn't be a surprise because that what gov't always does--messes up.
Gasoline prices heading upward again--about $3.70 right now, but some stations are at $3.80.
The Codester and I have "played catch, Grandpa" three or four times and took BP once or twice. Bopper and I were throwing the ball one day last week, too. But, now with the rain......
I'm finishing a book by Doris Kearns Goodwin, Bully Pulpit. It's a dual biog of sorts of Teddy Roosevelt (He didn't like the name "Teddy.") and William Taft (Imagine, as it is claimed, this 325-pound man being a twinkle toes on the dance floor!). It's interesting, but a slow go. There are a lot of extraneous additions, esp of the magazines, editors, publishers, writers, etc. of the time. Of course, the thesis of the book is how TR used the magazines and newspapers (their editors, reporters, etc.) to effectively gain support from the American citizenry to get things done while Taft wasn't so good at that. Still, one thing has remained with me throughout the book (other than Big Bill's dancing ability!). By all accounts, even from his political enemies, Taft was a good man, a decent man. He was honest, compassionate, caring, and willing to listen to others' laments. Yet, he seems to have been out of his league in dealing with the corrupt, lying, deceitful politicians he encountered. Imagine a culture where the scumbags rule and the decent people are the losers. Boy, if I've been sour toward politicians and government officials, this does nothing to change my mind.
I almost drove off the road earlier in the week driving to class. On the radio--I don't know who said it other than he was some liberal talking head--some guy said something such as "Of course, the Malaysian liner went down and we're having all sorts of trouble in the after math. [And here's what shocked me.] It's government-owned. Governments are not good at running this sort of thing." Wow! Again, I don't remember who it was or even what day it was. I wonder if the guy even knew what he was saying. Here was some guy who politically believes in bigger and bigger government (at least he talks that way) now saying that l'Affaire Malaysia shouldn't be a surprise because that what gov't always does--messes up.
Gasoline prices heading upward again--about $3.70 right now, but some stations are at $3.80.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
