Tax Cuts

Well, the House and Senate have come together and agreed to extend the tax cuts on payroll for another two months while they work out their differences.  This seems odd to me.  What differences could they possibly have?  Either they support the tax cuts or they don't.


The Senate put out a two month extension, which made the House bristle.  After all, they said, a two month extension is useless.  We need a full year.  The Senate was being disingenuous to the American people by not extended the cuts longer.  The House was simply interested in doing what's best for the country.


I find this hard to believe.  Scrutinizing the bill gives a completely different picture.  The final bill that was signed by Barack Obama does the following:

• Extends the current payroll tax rate
• Renews federal unemployment benefits
• Stops cuts in Medicare payments to doctors
• Approves construction of an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas
• Increases home loan fees from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
• Requires the House and Senate to work on a bill extending the cuts for one year

What does an oil pipeline have to do with tax cuts?  And herein lies the problem.  The House and Senate are both lying to the American people by blaming the other side for not passing this legislation when the legislation itself is garbage and neither side will admit to that.

Let's have honesty in our government.  Take every one of these items and make each one a separate piece of legislation, bring it to the floor and vote on it.  Let us, the American people, see exactly how each member of the House and Senate is willing to vote on each individual item.

Start with the tax cut extension.  Bring that to the floor immediately upon return from the holidays and vote on it.  Let's see who does care enough about the American people to pass it and who does not.  

Ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, it is time for you to stand up and be counted.

Taking Over Wall Street

I highly commend those brave men and women all around the world who are standing up to the status quo and demonstrating against corporate greed.  This anger is long overdue but I have to wonder, is it enough?  Will mere demonstrations alone be enough to make the changes we desperately need in these horrible economic times?  Frankly, I doubt it.


What I think we need is a plan of reform.  It seems to me that the real problem here is twofold; first, that too few people are holding too much money; and second, that too many jobs have been lost needlessly.  Let me address these in order.


Our corporations are completely out of control when it comes to salaries.  While base salary is one indicator of the problem, it is far from the truth.  Entire compensation packages, including stock options, benefits and bonuses are often ridiculously high.  To illustrate, according to Forbes in 2011 the head of Bank of America will earn $1.9 million.  Several other corporate heads show even higher salaries:


Wal-Mart - $18.7 million
Exxon-Mobil - $28.9 million
General Electric - $21.4 million
Ford Motor Company - $17.9 million


These salaries are beyond obscene.  No one person on this planet needs that kind of income to live their life.  Period.  What's worse, these people are not making these salaries because they wrote a best selling book or found a cure for cancer.  They earn these salaries by charging the American people for services.  Bank of America, for example, has recently announced that they will charge $5 per month ($60 per year) to any customer who uses their debit card for purchases.  Note that these salaries are for one person; the head of the particular corporation.  Other executives make similar salaries.


The second problem is that too many jobs have been lost.  When the economy began to sour, corporations laid off large numbers of employees.  They also outsourced much of their work and in many cases, to foreign countries.  All the while, executive salaries and compensation remained high.


These are the problems that I see with the current situation and these are the most immediate problems that must be addressed.  To that end, I would like to recommend the following:


Using the above-referenced corporations as a starting point, I would recommend a boycott of their goods and services until such time as they agree to a) reduce all salaries to not more than $500,000 annually, including bonuses, benefits, stock options and all other compensation and b) return all jobs to the United States that have been outsourced to other countries.


These steps sound easy but in actuality, they require careful planning.  This would mean closing accounts with Bank of America and opening them with other institutions.  Avoid Exxon and Mobil gas stations, as well as products made by these companies.  Do not shop at Wal-Mart (or Sam's Club).  It also means not supporting Care Credit, Universal Studios or NBC (all owned by General Electric) and staying away from Ford Motor Company and all its subsidiaries.


This will undoubtedly hurt people in our own communities but only until their corporate officers agree to change their ways.  Once they do, then the boycott must move to other companies until ALL corporations in America follow this scheme.


If the people throughout the country demonstrating against corporate greed would start with these moves, we would see a change in our economy before the end of the year.  Personally, I think this would be much more effective than merely protesting on the streets.  Make your voices heard with your wallet and you WILL see a difference.

Sample Letter on Congressional Reform

The following is a letter I sent to both of my Senators and my Congressmen.  If you like it, feel free to copy and paste it and send it to your representatives, as well as your email list:

August 6, 2011




Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Dianne:

Our country is in dire need of reform and the place to start is with our Congress, both House and Senate. I am writing to you as one of your constituents to request that you bring forth the following in a bill to the Senate:

1. Congress was originally envisioned to be a legislation of the people, by the people and for the people. To that end, Congress needs term limits. Twelve years is more than enough time to serve our country and then return to their former work, therefore Congressional terms should be limited to three four-year Senate terms, six two-year House terms or any combination of the two totaling no more than 12 years.

2. Congress receives their salary while in office. Upon completion of their term(s), they return to their former occupation. They do not receive any further compensation from the American people, be it in the form of pensions, retirement pay, etc., except as stated in number 3.

3. Congress (and all Federal employees) must participate in Social Security. All funds currently held in Congressional or Federal employee retirement funds are to be moved to the Social Security immediately. All future funds will be paid directly to Social Security. Congress and Federal employees will participate in the same retirement as the American people.

4. Like all Americans, should Congress wish to receive additional retirement money, they can participate in any private retirement fund that is allowable to the American people.

5. Congress will no longer be allowed to vote themselves a pay raise. Salaries for all Congressmen, whether they be in the House or the Senate will be calculated at a starting salary of $100,000. Any pay differential for leadership positions will be eliminated immediately. From this starting salary, annual raises of the lower of CPI or 3% will be added. Those currently serving in the Congress will have their salaries adjusted immediately. Future Congressmen will have a starting salary of $100,000.

6. Congress shall participate in the same health care system as the rest of America. Any health care currently offered will be canceled immediately. Additionally, Congress and all Federal employees will pay their portion of their health care premiums based on the average percentage of cost paid by Americans in the private sector. No union negotiations can alter this amount. Cost for dependents will be calculated in a like manner.

7. All benefits for Federal employees (including both houses of Congresses and their staff) will be no greater than the average of benefits offered to the American employees of the private sector. This includes vacation time, holidays, medical benefits and all other perks.

8. Congress and all Federal employees must equally abide by all laws imposed on the American people.

I realize that these changes will mean a decrease in pay and benefits for you and your staff but they will also ensure a fairness to all Americans. Should you choose not to introduce this legislation or to vote against it when it is introduced, you will be replaced as my representative in the next election.

Sincerely,

Mr. Patt Gavin

Reforming our Congress

If you agree with the following congressional reforms, please follow the instructions at the end of this writing. 

Our Congress (both House and Senate) is out of control and needs reform.  The following ideas have been circulating via email and they have merit:

1. Congress was originally envisioned to be a legislation of the people, by the people and for the people.  To that end, Congress needs term limits.  Twelve years is more than enough time to serve our country and then return to their former work, therefore Congressional terms should be limited to three four-year Senate terms, six two-year House terms or any combination of the two totaling no more than 12 years.

2. Congress receives their salary while in office.  Upon completion of their term(s), they return to their former occupation.  They do not receive any further compensation from the American people, be it in the form of pensions, retirement pay, etc., except as stated in number 3.

3. Congress (and all Federal employees) must participate in Social Security.  All funds currently held in Congressional or Federal employee retirement funds are to be moved to the Social Security immediately.  All future funds will be paid directly to Social Security.  Congress and Federal employees will participate in the same retirement as the American people. 

4. Like all Americans, should Congress wish to receive additional retirement money, they can participate in any private retirement fund that is allowable to the American people.

5. Congress will no longer be allowed to vote themselves a pay raise.  Salaries for all Congressmen, whether they be in the House or the Senate will be calculated at a starting salary of $100,000.  Any pay differential for leadership positions will be eliminated immediately.  From this starting salary, annual raises of the lower of CPI or 3% will be added.  Those currently serving in the Congress will have their salaries adjusted immediately.  Future Congressmen will have a starting salary of $100,000.

6. Congress shall participate in the same health care system as the rest of America.  Any health care currently offered will be canceled immediately.  Additionally, Congress and all Federal employees will pay their portion of their health care premiums based on the average percentage of cost paid by Americans in the private sector.  No union negotiations can alter this amount.  Cost for dependents will be calculated in a like manner.

7. All benefits for Federal employees (including both houses of Congresses and their staff) will be no greater than the average of benefits offered to the American employees of the private sector. This includes vacation time, holidays, medical benefits and all other perks.


8. Congress and all Federal employees must equally abide by all laws imposed on the American people.

If you agree with these reforms, write to your Congressmen, both in the House and the Senate.  If you don't know who your representatives are, you can find them from the Congressional websites.  Go to www.house.gov for your United State Representative and www.senate.gov for your Senator.  For the Senate you will have two representatives.  Once you have located these people, simply cut and the past the eight points (above) into a letter and mail it to your representatives.  You can also email them but emails may be limited in size so it might not include the entire list.  Add to your correspondence that you wish your representatives to bring these reforms to the floor and that failure to do so and to vote for their passage will result in their being replaced as your representative at the next election.  Finally, cut and paste this entire writing and email it to your like-minded friends.

It's time the American people let our voices be heard.

Is This God's Punishment?

In the past, there have been a number of religious zealots who have accused homosexuals of being the reason for God smiting the world.  From AIDS to all sorts of natural disasters, and even the bombing of the World Trade Center, the culprit is always gay people or the gay movement.  With this in mind, I think we need to take a closer look at 2011.  At least, the first half.


This year has seen a great many natural disasters hitting right here in the good ol' U S of A.  I'm going to look at three categories of these, dealing with Wind, Fire and Water.  If we had a good earthquake in the U.S. I'd include it and we'd have Earth, Wind, Fire and Water but I didn't find any record of anything sizable this year.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.  By sizable, I mean a 6.0 or greater.


First, let's look at fire.  Wildfires burned huge parts of Texas and are still burning large areas of Arizona.  These fires are still not 100% contained and threaten many more homes before they are eradicated.


Next, water.  The Mississippi river flooded this year, resulting in damage in not only Mississippi but also Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and Louisiana. 


Lastly, wind.  There have been over 1,000 tornadoes so far this year and they have hit Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Oklahoma and Kansas.  


And what do all of these states have in common?  They're all blue states. 


Apparently, God has had enough.

Here's To The Cheeseheads

I wish someone could explain to me what the heck is going on in Wisconsin.  As I see it, their governor is trying to balance the state budget and one way he is attempting to do that is by reducing salaries of the government employees.  Further, he is trying to eliminate their collective bargaining rights.  If I have any of  this information incorrect, I hope someone will please set me straight.  So to speak.


Let's take a closer look at what I see going on in Wisconsin.  According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the per capita personal income in Wisconsin was $29,196 in the year 2000.  I couldn't find anything more recent but this figure should work.  Just keep in mind it's 11 years old so it might need to be dusted a bit.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Median Household Income in Wisconsin is $45,349.  The national average is $42,148, so Wisconsin is ahead of the curve. These numbers are relatively recent.


Now, $29,196 doesn't sound like much to someone like me living in Los Angeles but remember, this is Wisconsin.  According to the Wisconsin Realtor's Association, the Median Price paid for a home in that state in January 2010 was $135,000.  This means that if someone earning the per capita average of $29,196 was to take out a mortgage with nothing down (which is highly unusual but this is purely hypothetical) and took that loan at 7% (which is higher than interest rates actually are at the moment) they would have a monthly payment of $898.16.  With a salary of $29,196 even if they were in the 30% income tax range (which would be very high) they would have a monthly take-home salary of $1,703.10.  


What does this mean?  It means that on a salary of $29,196 a person can afford to buy a house in Wisconsin.  This means that this is a livable salary, since the person making it can live on it.  It's not excessive and it's not going to buy many luxuries but it will provide the necessities and if budgeted properly, there might even be a little left over at the end of the week.


In 2008, according to the Census Data, the average state employee in Wisconsin was paid $49,760.  That's 70% more than the per capita personal income.  It's important to understand here that the per capita number is all the residents of the state, where the state employee number is only those people employed by the state.  In other words, the employees are making 70% higher wages than their employers.


But wait, there's more.  According to Sunshinereview.org, the average Wisconsin state employee pays 6% of the cost of their healthcare insurance.  The National Conference of State Legislatures says that the national average is 22%.  The Wisconsin state employees are therefore getting paid more and spending less.  


The governor is trying to do his job and balance the budget and one area where he sees waste is in overpaid state employees.  At 70% above the state average, how is he not correct?  Further, if the average employee contribution to pay for healthcare is 22% and the Wisconsin state employees are only paying 6%, shouldn't the state employees be expected to contribute more?


The governor is going after their collective bargaining agreements because those agreements are what allowed the state employees' unions to get these high wages in the first place.  Reducing their wages is only the first step because the unions will only get the wages back.  Ridding the state of the bargaining rights ensures the taxpayers that the state employees will have salaries that are in line with the rest of the state.  


It sound to me like the Cheesehead knows what he's doing.  Reduce the state employee salaries to an average of $35,000, which is still higher than the state average.  Additionally, increase contributions to healthcare from 6% to 15%, which is still lower than the national average.  Finally, rid the state of collective bargaining agreements and pass legislation tying state salaries to the state averages, adjusted annually (nominally) for cost of living and true these up every ten years when the census is taken.


There was a time when unions were necessary in this country.  Paying their employees 70% above the state average only shows the abuse that unions have been allowed to get away with for many years.  

Here's To The Cheeseheads

I wish someone could explain to me what the heck is going on in Wisconsin.  As I see, their governor is trying to balance his budget and one way he is attempting to do that is by reducing salaries of the government employees.  Further, he is trying to eliminate their collective bargaining rights.  If I have any of  this information incorrect, I hope someone will please set me straight.  So to speak.


Let's take a closer look at what I see going on in Wisconsin.  According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the per capita personal income in Wisconsin was $29,196 in the year 2000.  I couldn't find anything more recent but this figure should work.  Just keep in mind it's 11 years old so it might need to be dusted a bit.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Median Household Income in Wisconsin is $45,349.  The national average is $42,148, so Wisconsin is ahead of the curve.


Now, $29,196 doesn't sound like much but remember, this is Wisconsin.  According to the Wisconsin Realtor's Association, the Median Price paid for a home in that state in January 2010 was $135,000.  This means that if someone earning the per capita average of $29,196 was to take out a mortgage with nothing down (which is highly unusual but this is purely hypothetical) and took that loan at 7% (which is higher than interest rates actually are at the moment) they would have a monthly payment of $898.16.  With a salary of $29,196 even if they were in the 30% income tax range (which would be very high) they would have a monthly take-home salary of $1,703.10.  


What does this mean?  It means that on a salary of $29,196 a person can afford to buy a house in Wisconsin.  This means that this is a livable salary, since the person making it can live on it.  It's not excessive and it's not going to buy many luxuries but it will provide the necessities and if budgeted properly, there might even be a little left over at the end of the week.


In 2008, according to the Census Data, the average state employee in Wisconsin was paid $49,760.  That's 70% more than the per capita personal income.  It's important to understand here that the per capita number is all the residents of the state, where the state employee number is only those people employed by the state.  In other words, the employees are making 70% higher wages than their employers.


But wait, there's more.  According to Sunshinereview.org, the average Wisconsin state employee pays 6% of the cost of their healthcare insurance.  The National Conference of State Legislatures says that the national average is 22%.  The Wisconsin state employees are therefore getting paid more and spending less.  


The governor is trying to do his job and balance the budget and one area where he sees waste is in overpaid state employees.  At 70% above the state average, how is he not correct?  Further, if the average to pay for healthcare is 22% and the Wisconsin state employees are only paying 6%, shouldn't the state employees be expected to contribute more?


The governor is going after their collective bargaining agreements because those agreements are what allowed the state employees' unions to get these high wages in the first place.  Reducing their wages is only the first step because the unions will only get the wages back.  Ridding the state of the bargaining rights ensures the taxpayers that the state employees will have salaries that are in line with the rest of the state.  


It sound to me like the Cheesehead knows what he's doing.  Reduce the state employee salaries to an average of $35,000, which is still higher than the state average.  Additionally, increase contributions to healthcare from 6% to 15%, which is still lower than the national average.  Finally, rid the state of collective bargaining agreements and pass legislation tying state salaries to the state averages, adjusted annually (nominally) for cost of living and true these up every ten years when the census is taken.


There was a time when unions were necessary in this country.  Paying their employees 70% above the state average only shows the abuse that unions have been allowed to get away with for many years.  

18 Days to Freedom

The citizens of Egypt accomplished in 18 days what the United States military has been trying to do for eight years; they ousted a dictatorial leader and reformed their nation.  What's more, they did it without firing a single shot.  Something our government cannot brag about.


While the Egyptian uprising was largely peaceful, no revolution is ever entirely so and toppling the leadership of the Egyptian government has come at a cost of human lives.  The exact number is not known at the moment but it is certainly at least 2 and possibly as high as 300.  Some might even go as high as 1,000.  The loss of even one life is tragic but here in the United States, we have always believed that one thing worth dying for is freedom.


Compare this figure with our war in Iraq where 4,436 American soldiers have given their lives (as of January 26, 2011).  Added to this are the estimated 1,421,933 Iraqi citizens who have lost their lives (according to JustForeignPolicy.com).  Even if the Egyptian dead total 1,000 it doesn't compare to the number who died in Iraq.


Added to that is the cost of the Iraq war.  Since its inception on March 19, 2003 the United States has spent more than $3 Trillion dollars on this war.  I'm sure the numbers in Egypt aren't in yet but I would venture to guess that like their dead, the cost will be far less than we have paid.


What is the lesson to be learned here?  That toppling a dictatorial regime does not take military strength but the strength of conviction.  The power borne of a desire to be free.  It must come from within and be lead by those who have finally reached their breaking point, not by a military beyond their borders.  We could have assisted the Iraqis to topple Saddam Husein if we had merely enacted economic sanctions against Iraq.  If we had refused to buy oil and requested our allies to do the same.  If we had ended any monetary contributions and again, made this request of our allies.  


The Iraq war was never necessary.  George W. Bush was wrong.  4,436 American soldiers have paid dearly for a war that should not have been.