Author: hens teeth

The Confirmation Hearings for Geitner & Daschle have highlighted a problem that is not mentioned very often. Rich people can get away with not paying taxes because the IRS does not have the funding to do thorough audits. When nominated for high government office, they suddenly remember the taxes they should have paid.

Unfortunately, an extra hundred thousand dollars here and there doesn’t really make much of a dent in our deficit. So I had another thought.

Corporations are people. We could get billions of dollars in back taxes with the right nominations. I’ll start the list;

Exxon – Energy Secretary
Microsoft – Commerce Secretary
Halliburton – Defense Secretary

Tax breaks aren’t a lot of help when you don’t have an income. Lower costs are only one way to increase profit. Increased income also increases profit. An investment in our infrastructure, green technology, and basic research will create income for businesses. It could create enough business to generate the need for more businesses.

An investment in our infrastructure and research can also lower costs for business. A good transportation system makes it easier and cheaper to do business. A good education system means that companies don’t need to teach basic skills to their employees. Green technologies can lower energy costs for business.

In a strange upside down kind of way, lower business taxes can lead to increased business expenses. When the government invests in our country, we all profit.

Note:
Obviously, this post was hyperbole to make a point. It’s the bottom line that counts. No resonable person would turn down increased income, or lowered operating expenses or taxes.

But the often-mentioned Joe the Plumber reminds me that there are people that would turn down lower taxes. Joe acknowledges that he would pay less taxes with Obama’s plan, but he doesn’t want the tax break. He would rather make sure that his taxes are low when he becomes rich. How he expects to become rich is another story.

I’ve had a Bellsouth dialup account for years. A few months ago, I decided to upgrade to DSL. Due to the recent merger with AT&T, and their new system, I was not allowed to keep my old email address. I had to create a new email address for the DSL account. Eventually I got them to keep my old email address active as another (paid) account, so that I would have time to migrate to the new address.

A few days ago, I lost Internet access. After some time with tech support, I found out that they had moved my old email address to the DSL account. The new email address, that I was migrating to, was suspended. Mistakes happen, so I asked them to fix it. That turned out to be impossible. After six hours on the phone getting passed back and forth between billing & tech support people, I couldn’t get past, “We are unable to reactive an account for 90 days.” What kind of a goofy system allows employees to turn accounts off, but not restore them?

Over the past few days, I must have talked to every billing and tech support person they have. Not one of them knows how to reactivate my account, or if my lost emails will ever be restored. Today I was told that I was on the data cleanup group’s todo list, but that there is an enormous backlog of work ahead of me.

What really makes this fun, is that AT&T doesn’t have any direct numbers. You get someone new every time you call them. I have to re-explain the problem every time I get passed to a new person. They can’t read the trouble report before I go through the spiel. Some of them never do understand what the problem is.

I have learned a little about dealing with AT&T:

1. Never let them call you back. They won’t. Insist on staying on hold. You can at least tie up their system if they can’t help you.
2. If they pass you to someone else, insist that they stay on the line. The other department will soon decide to pass you back. If you don’t keep the first person on the line, you will get someone new & have to start all over.
3. If they want a way to contact you, give them a Yahoo or Hot Mail address. The free accounts work, might as well remind them.

Maybe I should file a Freedom of Information request. They can forward my email to me. With any luck, the spam will be redacted.

The economic meltdown has started. So what do our fearless leaders plan to do about it?

The Fed dropped interest rates. About all this means is that the banks who made fraudulent or stupid investments will get propped up for a little longer, because the people who are paying these loans will be able to pay them for a little while longer. Before going bankrupt and disappearing off the face of the Earth.

Tax breaks for business. After all corporation are people too. The vampirarchy must be protected. All the short-sighted, self-centered decisions made by corporations will be repaid with a tax decrease. Heaven knows we can’t let them get desperate enough to sell off a couple of corporate jets.

Tax rebates for people who still have jobs.  yippee.   They think that $300 is a big enough bribe to get me to go along with the corporate handout? I’m not that cheap.

What could I do this $300?
-I could pay down a loan, which would give money to the vampires that are already overcharging me.
-I could use it to pay for the increased price of food & gas for a month or two. Big economic stimulus there.
-I could use it to buy more stuff. After all, consumers keep the economy afloat. With any luck, it will bounce around our economy for a little while before zooming off shore. The bump in spending will spur an increase in the price of oil, and I get to pay even more for food & gas.

What about the people who have been laid off by the vampirarchy? We can’t extend unemployment benefits because people would be counted for a longer length of time. That would make our unemployment rate closer to the real number. No, they have the honor of subsidizing the companies that laid them off. Since Pelosi is so ready to abandon them, maybe it’s time for a permanent tent city on her front lawn. Should we call it Pelosiville or Pelosiburg?

By the way, Pelosi is so busy fixing the economy, we are going to have to put off those subpoenas for Josh Bolton & Harriet Miers a little while longer. But she promises to get to it, just as soon as this emergency is over.

And what has our Senate been doing about this mess? Reid decided that they are too busy to deal with economic problems. They need to make sure that the telecom companies have immunity for those wiretaps that weren’t illegal.

John Edwards has a really stupid idea. Many the economy would be stimulated if people had good jobs. And we could use these jobs to make the country more energy efficient. Wow! hope for a better future, that couldn’t possibly spur the economy.

Impeach. Now.

Note: vampirarchy – A set of ruling persons, comparable to vampires.

The following is taken from the January 9, 2008, Supreme Court Hearing on voter fraud.

There is no requirement that the State show evidence of past in-person voter impersonation for the State’s interest in preventing such fraud to qualify as important. A State need not wait to suffer a harm; it can adopt prophylactic measures to prevent it from occurring in the first place. That is particularly true in a situation, like voter fraud, where the temptation is obvious and the consequences of undeterred and undetected violations are enormous.

Brief for the United States as amicus curiae, Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General

I suppose. I don’t know if I can say significant. The situation has existed for now a number of years, and the salient fact here is that there’s not a single recorded example of voter impersonation fraud.

Paul M. Smith, Esq.; on behalf of the Petitioners

… if there were that kind of as-applied challenge, one of the virtues of it would be that the remedy at the end of the day would not be to strike the statute down on its face, …

Paul D. Clement, Esq., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents

Mr. Clement is arguing that the state has the right to be pre-emptive by passing a law to prevent people from committing a crime, even though there are no cases where the crime has been committed. However, citizens do not have the right to be pre-emptive by questioning a law, even though it is obvious that they will be affected if the law stands.

In other words, it is better to prevent a few people from voting because they might vote fraudulently, than to stop a law that will definitely prevent citizens from legally voting. This whole problem could be solved by putting a little purple stamp on voter’s hands. Then everyone would have one, and only one, vote.

http://www.brennancenter.org/dynamic/subpages/download_file_51017.pdf
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-21.pdf

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me–
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Martin Niemoeller

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.

Bishop Desmond Tutu

The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good.

Dr. Samuel Johnson

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Martin Luther King

If anyone is subject to being unjustly arrested or imprisoned, we are all in danger.

If anyone is denied access to health care due to poverty or class, we are all in danger.

If anyone is poisoned with unsafe food, polluted water, or toxic waste, we are all in danger.

If anyone can lose their job to an underpaid replacement, just so that the ultra rich can get richer, we are all in danger.

We all need to be reminded from time to time that none of us is so rich, powerful, gifted, experienced, educated, connected, privileged, or healthy, that we are immune to injustice.

Last week, Hillary Clinton presented her health care plan; Everyone is required to buy health insurance. If you can’t afford it, you get a tax cut.

This is brilliant, but it could do so much more. I expect her next plan will address the homeless problem. Under her plan, everyone will be required to buy or rent a home. When everyone acquires a place to live, the problem is solved. Naturally, if you fall below a certain standard of income, (which will steadily increase) you will get a tax cut. And no worries about the rising cost of housing either, with all the efficiencies that will automatically appear, costs will rise more slowly.

Oh boy! Just think of all the necessities of life I can now buy with all my tax cuts. I can buy health insurance, housing, food, and maybe even afford the copays so that I can use my great health insurance plan. With all those cuts, I’ll bet that my tax cuts will be higher than my income.

And choices, we get choices. You can choose a cheap worthless plan (substandard housing), an expensive decent plan (average home), or try to figure out which mid-priced plan will exactly cover the tests you will need next year (roof don’t leak if the rain isn’t too hard).

No more need for any of those inefficient government programs. Just add another tax cut, and problem solved. It puts “the consumer in the driver’s seat”, as long as they use the government-approved list of private contractors. The government-approved list will guarantee a level of quality (or maybe a level of campaign contributions, I keep getting those confused). Note, that the system will require a new improved bureaucracy to certify private contractors, but it will be “fiscally responsible”, no civil service, or labor unions, or anything like that. And she’s still working out the details of how tax cuts can be used to finance the Iraq occupation. But the basic premise is that “it’s going to take shared responsibility. Everyone with a stake in our health care system will have to step forward and do their part.”

This is the part where her honesty slips through. Corporations don’t have a stake in our health care system, or our country. They don’t eat, breath, or get sick. But if they did, they would deduct it from their taxes as an expense. In other words, don’t treat corporations like people, treat people like corporations.

One more thing, Hillary. The only people that like the health plan they now have, HAVEN’T USED IT YET.

(from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000.)

Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.
ETYMOLOGY: Greek kakistos, worst, superlative of kakos, bad; see caco- + -cracy.

What a great word.  And how depressing to be surrounded by examples of it.

We were waiting for a High School club meeting to end. We talked about the weather, and not enough sleep, and our kids’ plans for college. When she mentioned another child considering the military so that he could pay for college, I couldn’t resist easing the conversation over a little.

“The military can be a good way to pay for college, provided you survive it.”

[Puzzled look]

“Iraq. A lot of kids have died there.”

“Yes, but they are very dedicated to the cause.”

“Actually, there have been record numbers of desertions, and a record number of West Point graduates are not reenlisting.”

“But what can we do? They hate our culture. They want to kill us.”

“They don’t hate our culture. They just don’t like us running their country.”

“They hate our culture.”

“Even in Iran, most of them like the American people. They just don’t like our government trying to run their country. They would like to have more freedom like us, but they want to do it themselves.”

“Well, a small minority of them hate our culture.”

“A small minority of OUR culture hates our culture.”

She had to stop and think about that idea. It was just small talk between two mothers passing the time, but who knows? Maybe she will consider the idea a little more. Maybe she’ll repeat it to someone else.

also at kos

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States;

As everyone knows, Congress has the authority to declare war. But, who has the authority to declare the end of a war? Once war is declared, does the “Commander in Chief” have complete control over the tactics and length of a war?
This section of the Constitution continues with;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Congress has a great deal of authority over the military. The only reference to military authority of the president is;

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

Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States

The idea of an open-ended war with a continuously redefined goal against an ambiguous enemy is not directly addressed in the Constitution. Some ideas are so stupid that you can’t fault the writers for not anticipating the possibility. All the same, here we are. How do we put an end to it?

Since Congress has the authority to declare war, I would say that they have the authority to declare that a war has ended. Setting a time for our soldiers to leave Iraq is not micromanaging the war. It is fulfilling their constitutional duty.

(also at kos)