Ignoring Reality

I know I posted about this some time ago, likely when the NCAA penalties against Penn State were revealed.  But it seems to me to be more than just a little bit of posturing to fine the university $60,000,000.  First, what gives the NCAA such authority?  Second, who's going to pay that money, any of the perpetrators of the pedophilia or the cover-up?  Third, who will really be penalized?  I guess the NCAA is making a statement.  "Boy, look how tough we are!  We're really cracking down!"  Of course, the whole episode of pedophilia is revolting, sickening.  Those involved, from Sandusky to all those who looked the other way, deserve what they get and more (I won't reveal my punishments for them).  But c'mon....  Where is the NCAA on all of the things that it should be concerned with, not the pedophilia that should remain firmly in the hands of the legal system?  Why doesn't the NCAA deal with illegal payments to so-called "amateur athletes?"  Note the recent revelations of a former Ohio State football player that he "was living the NFL life" in college, "getting more money" then than he did as a professional.  Where is the NCAA on assuring these so-called "student-athletes" are attending classes, doing the same work other students do?  Again, let's point to an Ohio State football player who asked, in one of the social media sites, "Why should I gave to go to class?  I came here to play football.  I didn't come here to play school."  Where are the NCAA investigations into those?  How about drug usage and alcohol abuse?  What about the crimes, including rape, that apparently are swept under the carpet?  The NCAA permits the institutions to police themselves, sort of like letting the fox rule the henhouse.    Of course, we know what is at the bottom of all of this:  MONEY!  And the self-important, but hypocritical folks at the NCAA should be ashamed.  They aren't because look at all the money they are helping to bring in....

I have seen a number of articles and even cartoons applauding the success of the federal stimulus packages.  Hmmmm......  Many point to the resurgence of the auto companies.  Maybe, maybe not.  Is unemployment really lower?  The federal definition of "unemployment" makes it difficult to know.  One ploy used is not counting people who quite looking for jobs because they are so frustrated and discouraged by seeking jobs that don't exist.  One term that is used by some is "underemployment," that is, people who are now working part-time, some very part-time, who were formerly employed full-time.  According to one Maryland economist, the actual unemployment/underemployment rate is far close to 15% than the 8% that is reported by the LameStreams.  And, note the auto industry's jobs.  Many of the new hires are now making a fraction of what auto workers used to make.  (I'm not arguing for or against that, just stating what is.)  And, it's likely that the US taxpayer is on the hook for about $30 billion dollars of that stimulus money, money that won't be paid back.

In the same vein, did John Boehner really express surprise that Barrack Obama told him, "We don't have a spending problem?"  If so, how did this guy get to be Speaker of the House?

And, of taxing the wealthy at higher rates, note what is happening in France, where the wealthiest of folks are facing tax rates of 75%.  Belgium, the Netherlands, and other countries are reaping the benefits of the French tax increases.  The wealthiest of the French are moving, out of France.  Many French companies are also relocating.  And, French companies remaining in France are hiring top executives/management from Amsterdam, Brussels, etc. because those who make the big bucks won't live in France.  I guess some French actor, who is famous but I never heard of him, not only moved out of France with his fortune, but became a citizen of Russia.  Apparently, after six months of Russian citizenship, he will be taxed at 13%.  Hmmmmm....you steal, er tax, 75% of my money or I keep 87% of it??????  I know history isn't important, but look at the Depression years in the US, when federal tax rates were similarly high.  Note what happened to investment money or, more accurately, what didn't happen.  When, before the Second World War, tax rates were higher than 70%, unemployment skyrocketed back up to more than 20%, not too far off the earliest years of the Depression.  After the war, after FDR and his tax, tax, and tax some more policies died, tax rates were cut, cut by a lot--almost 1/3 less.  And by 1947, unemployment was under 4%.  Hmmmm......