I have a very large box of Crayola crayons. I say very large because it has 96 different crayons in it. It was actually given to me in a class I took my first semester as a Religious Studies major at California State University Northridge. I've kept it for many years even though I don't really use the contents. Today I'm looking inside and marveling at the colors.
With nearly one hundred crayons, there are a great many colors to see but I'm fixating on the greens and browns. There are quite a few shades of each but neither can be categorized as better than the others, or more important than the others.
But what if I want to draw a leaf? To draw a leaf requires green and to give it depth requires various shades. I can use granny smith apple, olive green, spring green, green yellow, forest green, yellow green, tropical rain forest or even shamrock.
Except this particular leaf might be dead. Now the brown becomes more important and like the green, it comes in a variety of shades. Raw sienna, burnt orange, mahogany, sepia, indian red (which isn't called that any longer), tumbleweed, burnt sienna, tan, copper and bittersweet.
Although between the leaf being green and it being brown, it might go through other colors. What if I'm drawing a leaf in the autumn and I want to capture the idea of the flaming foliage that is so beautiful just before the onslaught of winter? Then I can go with the reds; maroon, purple pizzazz, wild strawberry, magenta, red violet, violet red, razzmatazz, brick red, cerise and fuchsia.
Perhaps I should use orange; vivid tangerine, red orange, yellow orange or macaroni and cheese.
Also, the yellows; unmellow yellow, laser yellow and dandelion.
I might place the leaf in juxtaposition against the blue sky, which can be any number of shades of blue; sky blue (which seems like the most obvious choice) but also robin's egg blue, teal blue, denim, cerulean, turquoise blue, aquamarine, blizzard blue and cornflower.
Every crayon in the box is different than every other crayon, even if the difference is only a slight one but this makes every crayon unique. Each can do something that no other crayon can do exactly the same way. A green leaf is not identical to an olive green leaf or a shamrock leaf any more than a cerulean sky matches a sky blue one. It's not a matter of one being better than the other but merely of being different.
Today is the twentieth anniversary of the Los Angeles race riots, which started on April 29, 1992. It's a day I remember too well. One of the aspects of this city that I love most is the difference of the people. Having grown up in a neighborhood that was all too homogeneous, I relish my adopted city where there is so much diversity. Just as the box of crayons is made up of unique individuals, so is my city. Just as each crayon is equally as important as any other crayon, so are the residents of my city. Just as the loss of one crayon would be noticed, so would the loss of any of the diversity of my city.
As we reflect on the memory of that sad and horrible day twenty years ago, I will think of my city as being like this box of crayons -- very colorful and always brings a smile to my face. And mostly, I will remember that it takes all of US to make the USA.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Idiot of the Week
It's probably not nice to call someone an idiot but if someone does or says something so amazingly stupid, then the moniker seems to fit. In this case, I feel that the label does justice to the content and so, without further ado, I present my candidate for the Idiot of the Week:
In an effort to defend Mitt Romney as being a person of the people (and not simply a rich snob), a conservative radio talk show host presented the following argument:
"I don't believe people are going to bed hungry. ... For, instance I have friends of mine who eat rice and beans all the time. Beans protein, rice. Inexpensive. You can make a big pot of this for a week for negligible amounts of money and you can feed your whole family."
Beans and rice. Rice and beans. Really?
In case you haven't heard about this, the host was Sean Hannity.
Where to begin. First, Hannity was not born poor. He attended a private preparatory school in New York as well as a private college (Adelphi University). He also attended New York University, so Mr. Hannity is obviously unfamiliar with what it means to be poor. He is not, however, unfamiliar with what it means to be stupid.
Beans do provide a moderate amount of protein (about 6 to 9 grams per 100 grams of beans, depending on the type) but they do not constitute a complete protein. In order to be considered a complete protein the food in question must contain all nine essential amino acids in proper proportions to meet the dietary needs of humans. Mr. Hannity might have known this had he not dropped out of both of his colleges. Not a smart move.
While he doesn't state what type of rice he means, since he is presenting this argument as a way of saving money, I would have to think (notice, Sean, I think) that he means white rice, since it is far cheaper than other varieties. White rice also contains the least amount of nutrients and very little fiber. Had he substituted brown rice there would at least be some fiber added to the diet but that was apparently not necessary to Mr. Hannity because he doesn't realize that fiber can also reduce the risk of illnesses like heart disease and diabetes. At least, that's what the Mayo Clinic believes but Sean has probably never read anything put out by the Mayo Clinic. He thinks that's where Mayonnaise is made.
Now, in Mr. Hannity's defense, he did also say;
"Look, you should have vegetables and fruit in there as well, but if you need to survive you can survive off it. It's not ideal but you could get some cheap meat and throw it in there as well for protein. There are ways to live really, really cheaply."
Exactly how long does Mr. Hannity think someone could survive on beans and rice? He doesn't say but he does say that there are ways to live "really, really cheaply." And on his current salary of $10 million a year, what would Mr. Hannity know about living cheaply?
Notice that he says the people who eat the rice and beans are friends of his. If I made $10 million a year, I can honestly say that none of my friends would be living on rice and beans. Not unless they did so without my knowing about it.
Apparently, there are many things Sean doesn't know about.
In an effort to defend Mitt Romney as being a person of the people (and not simply a rich snob), a conservative radio talk show host presented the following argument:
"I don't believe people are going to bed hungry. ... For, instance I have friends of mine who eat rice and beans all the time. Beans protein, rice. Inexpensive. You can make a big pot of this for a week for negligible amounts of money and you can feed your whole family."
Beans and rice. Rice and beans. Really?
In case you haven't heard about this, the host was Sean Hannity.
Where to begin. First, Hannity was not born poor. He attended a private preparatory school in New York as well as a private college (Adelphi University). He also attended New York University, so Mr. Hannity is obviously unfamiliar with what it means to be poor. He is not, however, unfamiliar with what it means to be stupid.
Beans do provide a moderate amount of protein (about 6 to 9 grams per 100 grams of beans, depending on the type) but they do not constitute a complete protein. In order to be considered a complete protein the food in question must contain all nine essential amino acids in proper proportions to meet the dietary needs of humans. Mr. Hannity might have known this had he not dropped out of both of his colleges. Not a smart move.
While he doesn't state what type of rice he means, since he is presenting this argument as a way of saving money, I would have to think (notice, Sean, I think) that he means white rice, since it is far cheaper than other varieties. White rice also contains the least amount of nutrients and very little fiber. Had he substituted brown rice there would at least be some fiber added to the diet but that was apparently not necessary to Mr. Hannity because he doesn't realize that fiber can also reduce the risk of illnesses like heart disease and diabetes. At least, that's what the Mayo Clinic believes but Sean has probably never read anything put out by the Mayo Clinic. He thinks that's where Mayonnaise is made.
Now, in Mr. Hannity's defense, he did also say;
"Look, you should have vegetables and fruit in there as well, but if you need to survive you can survive off it. It's not ideal but you could get some cheap meat and throw it in there as well for protein. There are ways to live really, really cheaply."
Exactly how long does Mr. Hannity think someone could survive on beans and rice? He doesn't say but he does say that there are ways to live "really, really cheaply." And on his current salary of $10 million a year, what would Mr. Hannity know about living cheaply?
Notice that he says the people who eat the rice and beans are friends of his. If I made $10 million a year, I can honestly say that none of my friends would be living on rice and beans. Not unless they did so without my knowing about it.
Apparently, there are many things Sean doesn't know about.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Learning to Get Along
The Trayvon Martin case in Florida has rocked this country with outrage. As Americans, the majority of us learned long ago that the only way our country can progress is to treat all Americans with the same respect and consideration that we wish to have shown to us. When we learn to respect each other then we can get along together, work together and build a great nation together.
Our country did not become the most powerful nation on the planet solely by the works of the White Anglo Saxon Protestants who first arrived here. It was the influence of many groups of people who all brought something to the table that make this bountiful banquet. That first began with the Native Americans who continually get the short end of any negotiations with our government.
When countries throughout the world have hard times, some of their people come here and by welcoming those people, we open our doors not only to those yearning to breathe free but also to some of the most incredible minds that help to shape our country and make it better. Those minds are not restricted to one race or nationality or gender. Brilliance comes in many shapes and sizes and by welcoming so many different people to this country, our nation has become great.
Trayvon Martin has shown us that not all Americans respect the diversity of our country but this does not mean that we, as a people, do not respect each other. This type of killing was commonplace at one time and the fact that it has been so newsworthy shows that our thinking toward each other has changed. We have learned to get along and the outcry against Zimmerman (the man who killed Trayvon) is not restricted to the black community. Those of us who are white are just as outraged by this action.
We should be taking our political ideology beyond our own borders. We should be showing other countries that even though they have people living within their country with whom they do not get along, they can overcome their differences if they try. Our nation went through a terrible civil war because of the issue of slavery and even when the blacks were freed, it was still decades before they finally achieved full civil rights. To this day we still have individuals who do not believe in those rights but the majority of us do. The majority of us proudly elected our first black president to lead this country.
We need to help other countries to achieve this and the first place we should start is in the Middle East. Ever since declaring statehood in 1948, Israel has continually fought with the Palestinians who live within her borders. For more than 60 years the bloodshed continues not because of terrorist attacks against Israel, as the Israeli government would have us believe but because Israel is conducting the attacks.
Israel has a strong army and one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. Much of the Middle East is wealthy with oil yet not Israel. So how does this country pay for an army, for nuclear weaponry and for such a high standard of living?
We pay it. The United States gives the state of Israel more than two billion dollars a year. This is not a loan. This is money that hard working Americans pay as taxes that are then given away to a country that refuses to work in good faith toward peace. Because they don't have to. They can continue to support their army and build nuclear weapons because we are paying for them.
This needs to stop. We need to stop all foreign aid to Israel and put that country in a financial position where it will have to work with its neighbors. Force the Israeli government to sit down and fairly deal with the Palestinians. Force Israel to return the land that they stole from the Palestinians. Return the borders of Israel to what they were in 1948 when the country was first declared independent.
Further, the United States needs to work with the United Nations to grant statehood to Palestine as well. By putting Palestine on an equal footing with Israel, it gives further encouragement to Israel to finally make peace.
Our nation has demonstrated that it is possible for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Atheists and all other religions to live and work together. We have shown that black, white, yellow, brown and red can all live in harmony. We need to spread that message to the world and at the same time, stop paying other countries to kill those they don't like.
Our country did not become the most powerful nation on the planet solely by the works of the White Anglo Saxon Protestants who first arrived here. It was the influence of many groups of people who all brought something to the table that make this bountiful banquet. That first began with the Native Americans who continually get the short end of any negotiations with our government.
When countries throughout the world have hard times, some of their people come here and by welcoming those people, we open our doors not only to those yearning to breathe free but also to some of the most incredible minds that help to shape our country and make it better. Those minds are not restricted to one race or nationality or gender. Brilliance comes in many shapes and sizes and by welcoming so many different people to this country, our nation has become great.
Trayvon Martin has shown us that not all Americans respect the diversity of our country but this does not mean that we, as a people, do not respect each other. This type of killing was commonplace at one time and the fact that it has been so newsworthy shows that our thinking toward each other has changed. We have learned to get along and the outcry against Zimmerman (the man who killed Trayvon) is not restricted to the black community. Those of us who are white are just as outraged by this action.
We should be taking our political ideology beyond our own borders. We should be showing other countries that even though they have people living within their country with whom they do not get along, they can overcome their differences if they try. Our nation went through a terrible civil war because of the issue of slavery and even when the blacks were freed, it was still decades before they finally achieved full civil rights. To this day we still have individuals who do not believe in those rights but the majority of us do. The majority of us proudly elected our first black president to lead this country.
We need to help other countries to achieve this and the first place we should start is in the Middle East. Ever since declaring statehood in 1948, Israel has continually fought with the Palestinians who live within her borders. For more than 60 years the bloodshed continues not because of terrorist attacks against Israel, as the Israeli government would have us believe but because Israel is conducting the attacks.
Israel has a strong army and one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. Much of the Middle East is wealthy with oil yet not Israel. So how does this country pay for an army, for nuclear weaponry and for such a high standard of living?
We pay it. The United States gives the state of Israel more than two billion dollars a year. This is not a loan. This is money that hard working Americans pay as taxes that are then given away to a country that refuses to work in good faith toward peace. Because they don't have to. They can continue to support their army and build nuclear weapons because we are paying for them.
This needs to stop. We need to stop all foreign aid to Israel and put that country in a financial position where it will have to work with its neighbors. Force the Israeli government to sit down and fairly deal with the Palestinians. Force Israel to return the land that they stole from the Palestinians. Return the borders of Israel to what they were in 1948 when the country was first declared independent.
Further, the United States needs to work with the United Nations to grant statehood to Palestine as well. By putting Palestine on an equal footing with Israel, it gives further encouragement to Israel to finally make peace.
Our nation has demonstrated that it is possible for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Atheists and all other religions to live and work together. We have shown that black, white, yellow, brown and red can all live in harmony. We need to spread that message to the world and at the same time, stop paying other countries to kill those they don't like.
Highest Corporate Taxes in the World
The United States is once again number one but not in an area where it is a matter of pride. Thanks to a recent move in Japan to lower their corporate tax rate, the United States is now the highest corporate tax rate in the world. This, of course, has many people screaming about the need to lower these taxes. And I mostly agree.
I say I mostly agree because I think that before we just lower the tax rate, the corporations need to do their fair share. Many industries in this country have been making record profits. These industries include financial institutions, insurance companies and oil companies. If they make record profits on our (the consumers) money, then they should certainly pay their fair share in taxes. Many are now arguing that they are paying more than their fair share.
I would suggest that we revise the tax rate but only for those companies that meet two criteria. The first is that if they are a company that is headquartered in the United States, no part of their operation can be outsourced to a foreign country. They can certainly have offices in other countries but their IT department for America must remain here. Their Human Resources for America must remain here. Their Customer Service for America must remain here. If any part of their operation services American consumers, it must be done on American soil. This would also apply to any company that is not headquartered here but has operations here. Any service provided to Americans must be provided here.
Why should we lower taxes on a corporation that is sending jobs overseas? We need to get Americans working and rewarding companies that take jobs away from Americans is not something this country should allow.
Second, no one in the company can make more than twenty times what the lowest person in the company earns. This amount includes their entire compensation package; salary, overtime, bonuses, benefits, pension payments, stock options and any other part of their compensation.
Tax breaks would certainly help the corporations make more money, which would allow their stock to rise and allow them to hire more people but the truth is, many companies already spend far too much of their earnings on executive salaries. The gap between the rich and the poor in this country is growing wider and the middle class is continually being pushed downward. That trend needs to stop. There is no reason why our government should reward a company that pays its workers under $50,000 a year and then pays $15 million to an executive.
We, the American people who buy the products and services of these corporations are ultimately the ones who pay these taxes. It's our money. I, for one, do not want my money going to companies that send jobs overseas or pay exorbitant salaries to a small group of individuals.
I say I mostly agree because I think that before we just lower the tax rate, the corporations need to do their fair share. Many industries in this country have been making record profits. These industries include financial institutions, insurance companies and oil companies. If they make record profits on our (the consumers) money, then they should certainly pay their fair share in taxes. Many are now arguing that they are paying more than their fair share.
I would suggest that we revise the tax rate but only for those companies that meet two criteria. The first is that if they are a company that is headquartered in the United States, no part of their operation can be outsourced to a foreign country. They can certainly have offices in other countries but their IT department for America must remain here. Their Human Resources for America must remain here. Their Customer Service for America must remain here. If any part of their operation services American consumers, it must be done on American soil. This would also apply to any company that is not headquartered here but has operations here. Any service provided to Americans must be provided here.
Why should we lower taxes on a corporation that is sending jobs overseas? We need to get Americans working and rewarding companies that take jobs away from Americans is not something this country should allow.
Second, no one in the company can make more than twenty times what the lowest person in the company earns. This amount includes their entire compensation package; salary, overtime, bonuses, benefits, pension payments, stock options and any other part of their compensation.
Tax breaks would certainly help the corporations make more money, which would allow their stock to rise and allow them to hire more people but the truth is, many companies already spend far too much of their earnings on executive salaries. The gap between the rich and the poor in this country is growing wider and the middle class is continually being pushed downward. That trend needs to stop. There is no reason why our government should reward a company that pays its workers under $50,000 a year and then pays $15 million to an executive.
We, the American people who buy the products and services of these corporations are ultimately the ones who pay these taxes. It's our money. I, for one, do not want my money going to companies that send jobs overseas or pay exorbitant salaries to a small group of individuals.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Financial Loss in the Movie Industry due to Piracy
There has been much in the news recently on the high cost of piracy to our nation. It was stated that for the year 2011 the movie industry lost $25 billion to these crimes. While it is obvious that something must be done to eradicate this crime, it is also important to know whether or not the claim is justified. Where does the figure of $25 billion come from? Apparently, from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).
As near as I can tell (since the MPAA does not state on their site how they arrived at this number), the MPAA takes the number of illegal downloads and multiplies that by the cost of seeing a movie to arrive at their number. There are several problems with this calculation; in the first place, what is the price? The average price of a movie ticket in the United States is $8.00. Note that this is an average. Here in Los Angeles, this would be a bargain price. Our tickets generally cost from $10 to $12. The top ten pirated movies in 2011 totalled 75 million downloads. Assuming that there were another 75 million of all other movies downloaded (not in the top ten), we have 150 million downloads. Add to this the number of illegally copied movies, for which we do not have a number. Let's use a very large number and say it's the same as those downloaded. We have a total of 300 million pirated movies. Multiply this by the $8.00 per movie price and we have $2.4 billion in pirated movies.
That's a far cry from $25 billion.
Perhaps we have to add in the cost of parking, popcorn and a drink. Let's say each of these costs $5, for a total of $15 plus the cost of the ticket ($8) for a grand total of $23. If we multiply this by the 300 million pirated movies, we have $6.9 billion. Still not $25 billion.
The average cost of a DVD is $25. If we take the 300 million pirated movies and multiply them by the $25 cost of a DVD, we have $7.5 billion. Close but still not near $25 billion. Maybe the MPAA felt that the proper amount was the cost of the movie with parking, popcorn and a drink and then the viewer purchased the DVD for a total of $48. This gives us $14.4 billion total. Still not the $25 billion that the MPAA claims.
Of course, this scenario does not take into account rental of DVDs (currently an average of about $3 per title). Even if you assume that the consumer first watched the movie at the theater (after parking the car, and buying popcorn and a drink) then rented it and finally purchased it, the total per film would be $51. Multiplied by the 300 million titles brings us to a total of $15.3 billion.
Just how does the MPAA get this $25 billion amount? Without seeing their raw data, it's impossible to know.
A second (and more pressing) problem with their claim is that they state that the industry "lost" this amount. This is completely untrue. You cannot lose that which you do not have. In order to lose this money they must first have earned this money and they did not. Their calculation makes the assumption that IF the viewer had not viewed the pirated video, they would have purchased it outright. This is not true. Many people who watch pirated videos do so because they cannot afford to pay the $8 for a movie ticket or the $25 to own the DVD. By dowloading it for free (or very low cost) they are able to afford it. If this title were not available to them, they would probably simply turn on the television or play a video game. There is nothing to prove that they would ever pay for this film.
As an example, the most downloaded video of 2011 was Fast Five. This movie was downloaded 9 million times. At the cost of a movie ticket, this would account for $72 million. The film made $200 million at the box office and another $50 million in DVD sales. To claim that the film "lost" $72 million is untrue. The filme MADE $250 million. Were those 9 million downloads never to happen, that does not add one penny to the total the film has already made.
Further, Fast Five was not the highest grossing movie of the year. That title belongs to Harry Potter at $381 million. But Harry Potter was only downloaded 6 million times making it the tenth most downloaded film of the year. Apparently, the movies that do best in the theaters are not the movies that people pirate and therefore they are not the movies that people would pay to see.
If the movie industry wishes to make more money, they need to price their product so that more people can afford to buy it. The $8 movie ticket is a little high, especially if you have a family but it's probably not an unfair price. The $25 DVD price, however, is ridiculous. Since the movie does not come out on DVD until after its run in the theaters, this price should be lower than the cost of a movie ticket. If the cost of a DVD was $5 the studios would still make money. Additionally, sales would increase resulting in more profits and there wouldn't be a need to pirate the film.
So why doesn't the industry lower their prices? The studios would rather pay $10 million annually to belong to the MPAA and use that organization to try to change existing legislation. And how can the MPAA do that? Ask the head of the MPAA; Christopher Dodd, the former Senator from Connecticut who is paid $1.5 million annually. This former senator is heading the same organization that claims that their industry loses $25 billion per year.
Are you beginning to see the problem here?
As near as I can tell (since the MPAA does not state on their site how they arrived at this number), the MPAA takes the number of illegal downloads and multiplies that by the cost of seeing a movie to arrive at their number. There are several problems with this calculation; in the first place, what is the price? The average price of a movie ticket in the United States is $8.00. Note that this is an average. Here in Los Angeles, this would be a bargain price. Our tickets generally cost from $10 to $12. The top ten pirated movies in 2011 totalled 75 million downloads. Assuming that there were another 75 million of all other movies downloaded (not in the top ten), we have 150 million downloads. Add to this the number of illegally copied movies, for which we do not have a number. Let's use a very large number and say it's the same as those downloaded. We have a total of 300 million pirated movies. Multiply this by the $8.00 per movie price and we have $2.4 billion in pirated movies.
That's a far cry from $25 billion.
Perhaps we have to add in the cost of parking, popcorn and a drink. Let's say each of these costs $5, for a total of $15 plus the cost of the ticket ($8) for a grand total of $23. If we multiply this by the 300 million pirated movies, we have $6.9 billion. Still not $25 billion.
The average cost of a DVD is $25. If we take the 300 million pirated movies and multiply them by the $25 cost of a DVD, we have $7.5 billion. Close but still not near $25 billion. Maybe the MPAA felt that the proper amount was the cost of the movie with parking, popcorn and a drink and then the viewer purchased the DVD for a total of $48. This gives us $14.4 billion total. Still not the $25 billion that the MPAA claims.
Of course, this scenario does not take into account rental of DVDs (currently an average of about $3 per title). Even if you assume that the consumer first watched the movie at the theater (after parking the car, and buying popcorn and a drink) then rented it and finally purchased it, the total per film would be $51. Multiplied by the 300 million titles brings us to a total of $15.3 billion.
Just how does the MPAA get this $25 billion amount? Without seeing their raw data, it's impossible to know.
A second (and more pressing) problem with their claim is that they state that the industry "lost" this amount. This is completely untrue. You cannot lose that which you do not have. In order to lose this money they must first have earned this money and they did not. Their calculation makes the assumption that IF the viewer had not viewed the pirated video, they would have purchased it outright. This is not true. Many people who watch pirated videos do so because they cannot afford to pay the $8 for a movie ticket or the $25 to own the DVD. By dowloading it for free (or very low cost) they are able to afford it. If this title were not available to them, they would probably simply turn on the television or play a video game. There is nothing to prove that they would ever pay for this film.
As an example, the most downloaded video of 2011 was Fast Five. This movie was downloaded 9 million times. At the cost of a movie ticket, this would account for $72 million. The film made $200 million at the box office and another $50 million in DVD sales. To claim that the film "lost" $72 million is untrue. The filme MADE $250 million. Were those 9 million downloads never to happen, that does not add one penny to the total the film has already made.
Further, Fast Five was not the highest grossing movie of the year. That title belongs to Harry Potter at $381 million. But Harry Potter was only downloaded 6 million times making it the tenth most downloaded film of the year. Apparently, the movies that do best in the theaters are not the movies that people pirate and therefore they are not the movies that people would pay to see.
If the movie industry wishes to make more money, they need to price their product so that more people can afford to buy it. The $8 movie ticket is a little high, especially if you have a family but it's probably not an unfair price. The $25 DVD price, however, is ridiculous. Since the movie does not come out on DVD until after its run in the theaters, this price should be lower than the cost of a movie ticket. If the cost of a DVD was $5 the studios would still make money. Additionally, sales would increase resulting in more profits and there wouldn't be a need to pirate the film.
So why doesn't the industry lower their prices? The studios would rather pay $10 million annually to belong to the MPAA and use that organization to try to change existing legislation. And how can the MPAA do that? Ask the head of the MPAA; Christopher Dodd, the former Senator from Connecticut who is paid $1.5 million annually. This former senator is heading the same organization that claims that their industry loses $25 billion per year.
Are you beginning to see the problem here?
Monday, December 26, 2011
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:
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.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
