Archive for ‘Partisan Politics’

November 14, 2011

Write the Rules, Take the Credit?

by Steve Dana

There’s been no shortage of media coverage for the expanding “Occupy Wall Street” protest movement across the country.  When it started in New York, you could tell that folks were angry, but interviews showed that many were gathered, but not to protest a common grudge.  Everyone seemed to have a beef, but more often than not, it was different from the next person.  That should have been a tip.

In an effort to justify protesting, the media tried to compare the O W Streeters to  TEA Party protesters but if you ever attended a TEA Party event, you never saw a spectacle like what has devolved in cities like New York, Denver and Oakland.  Certainly both sides have bad apples, but I can’t recall a significant TEA Party event where anyone got hurt, let alone be murdered.  TEA Partiers police their own events so the focus is only on the protest.  In spite of the fact that the TEA Party is not centrally organized; every chapter champions generally common goals; smaller government faithful to the Constitution, providing for the common defense, protecting personal liberties.

Not surprisingly, most of the media still insists the two movements are the same; in spite of the violence on the left.  I can’t help but wonder how they can spin that fiction even when confronted with the facts.

Some of the protesters given a chance to voice their reason for protesting, point to “fat cats” on Wall Street for their lack of jobs on the one hand but maybe the lack of opportunity to be “fat cats” themselves on the other.  Most of the interviewees complain about how they graduated from college with huge college loan debt expecting to be hired by some big company only to find they are unable to secure a job.  Few gave much thought to who might be their prospective employers as they were signing those loan papers but all have concluded it was a Wall Street conspiracy.  Unless they were planning on a public service career in which case they are angry for a different reason.

Occupy Wall Street protesters allege that robber barons with Wall Street addresses engineered the system that allowed them to get filthy rich(er).  Few of them really understand how the system works.  If they only knew. 

When I was a Snohomish city council member in the 1990’s I encountered a land developer who made the point so clear to me when he told me he had preferences but he really didn’t care what regulations we passed, he would analyze what the regulations allowed him to do, what they wouldn’t allow him to do and decide whether it made financial sense for him to invest in a project.  If it made financial sense to him, he would invest.

If that simple lesson doesn’t explain how business decisions are made and who/what is responsible for the debacle our country has endured over the past few years, then I guess I won’t get through to you.

Another thing, chiseling isn’t reserved just for capitalists.  If it were just capitalists gaming the system, they would have been driven away long ago, but then, who would have provided the jobs and the products and the tax revenue that pays for everything else?   Think about how you learn the rules in your world and interpret them to your own advantage.  Taking advantage of loopholes or stretching the truth or as a former accountant used to say, “venturing into the gray zone” is a behavior practiced by a good many of us.  Using poorly written laws and regulations to your advantage is not a crime, it isn’t even unethical.  In many circumstances, it’s thought of as being clever and ingenious.  That is of course unless it doesn’t benefit you. 

Being able to capitalize on a scale that might make you wealthy may be an advantage for folks who already have money, but it doesn’t deprive you or me from enjoying the same opportunity if we have a good idea and are willing to work really hard.

It’s clear to me that the burden for our dilemma lays clearly on the shoulders of those who pass the laws and write the regulations; City Councils, Legislatures and our Congress but don’t forget the regulation writing bureaucrats that work for them all.  Where would we be without our friends the bureaucrats?

If you are unhappy because General Electric exploited the tax code and ultimately paid no federal corporate income tax, look to the government that created the loopholes.  I have no great affection for General Electric but they didn’t write the rules, did they?

While I am singling out GE, can we really blame them for moving their jobs to foreign countries when our government eliminates incentives to keep jobs in America while at the same time telling them how important it is to develop a world economy by raising the standard of living in foreign countries.  Even if succeeding at that goal comes at the expense of jobs at home?  Ask yourself who promotes the “world economy” thing the most and if they are supporting a world economy are they doing so at the expense of our American economy.  Every manufacturing job that goes overseas in the name of world economy chips away at the middle class in America.

If you really want to blame someone because there are no new jobs in many industries still doing business in America, just look at the regulatory burden heaped upon those businesses and go back to the lesson I described above.  If it doesn’t pencil out to hire because of uncertainty or tax burden, blame the government not the business owners.  As much as you may not like it, share holders do look at profitability and the bottom line and sometimes make the choice to not invest in America.

Go ask your elected officials how they failed to propose, negotiate and pass legislation that either prevented middle class family wage jobs from heading overseas or created jobs in America by reducing risk and uncertainty  to a business thinking about locating in your town.

The answers the protesters are looking for will not be found in New York, Denver or Oakland but in Washington DC and every state capital in the land.

November 13, 2011

Chris Rock – Obama Second Term Gangsta Sh – – !

by Steve Dana

I heard celebrity comedian Chris Rock express his opinion the other day about the prospects of a second Obama term.  His comments were surprisingly accurate.  So much so that the rest of us better take notice.

Some celebrities may have soured a bit on President Barack Obama, but not Chris Rock. The comedian and actor told fellow comedian Marc Maron on the “WTF with Marc Maron” podcast that he’s “fine with the president,” if only because he understands that the president has to keep his most aggressive policies on the back burner until he earns a second term.

“There’s a f——— art to the first term because you’re always running for a second term the whole time. It’s like Clinton’s first term. You can’t really do your gangsta sh— until your second term. … Even Bush couldn’t really f—- up the world until his second term. That’s when he put the hammer down.”

But Rock understands a lot of the disappointment that Obama’s supporters have had thus far in his presidency.

“I’m like everybody, I want more action. But I understand that he’s trying not to piss off a lot of people. But I believe wholeheartedly if he’s back in, he’s going to do some gangsta sh—.”

For all Chris Rock’s comments click the link below.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67980.html

If there was ever a “heads up” warning that should be heeded, that’s the one.

The President hasn’t forgotten his core supporters and certainly hasn’t abandoned his core principles, but like Mr. Rock said, you have to tread lightly in your first term so you don’t scare off voters you will need to get through to your second term where you won’t have to worry about pissing off voters and you can do whatever you like.

Even though Obama has demonstrated repeatedly that he isn’t the leader voters hoped he would be, he and his appointees have shown they are very proficient at undermining our country and the principles upon which it was founded.

A year or two down the road, I can only imagine the possibilities; and none of them are encouraging.  Chris Rock is giving everyone plenty of time to think about it so what are we gonna do about it?

October 27, 2011

Flat Tax – No Chance

by Steve Dana

If 51% of our population is currently not paying Federal Income Tax, what reason would they have for supporting a flat tax candidate?

If you are not currently paying Federal Income Tax because of the quirks of the code, why would you support a candidate espousing a plan for a flat tax that would suddenly shift any tax burden to you?

How does the President justify saying everyone should pay their fair share but half the people in our country pay nothing?  If he thinks folks who pay nothing are paying more than their fair share, how can he say that those who pay everything don’t pay enough? What should a fair share be?  How does he quantify what a fair share should be?

Having said all of that;

The chances of the US Congress passing a Flat Tax in place of the current system is zero so I would suggest we focus on “reforming” the current law to eliminate the special interest deductions everyone seems to detest and adjust tax rates so lower income folks start paying something. 

Changes affecting deductions may change more quickly, but changes increasing tax rates on lower income “tax payers” should take place more gradually.  Big changes coming too quickly cause big protests.

I think we all agree that the current tax code is too complex and unwieldy.  But if the existing progressive system is so much more desirable, what has Congress done or what are they doing to strip away the exemptions that allow a company like GE to pay no Federal Income Tax? 

Americans are upset, but it’s likely that inaction by Congress is the most frustrating reason.  Let’s get the Super Committee working on deleting 2/3 of the 71,000 pages of the tax code for starters.  When the Simpson-Boles Report suggested a few changes, neither side of the political aisle stepped up and agreed because of their own sacred cows; that has to change.

In my view, our government uses the tax code to shape public behavior.  We create incentives for behaviors we like and penalties for behaviors we dislike. 

As an example, we want folks to buy homes so we give generous deductions for mortgage interest.  But, what happens to the housing industry in our country if that cash cow dries up?  So is that one is a keeper; if it is, then how about the next one and the next one?  

The Progressive Tax system is not an equal treatment system but it’s characterized as being more “fair” because it shifts a higher burden to folks who have been successful and a lesser burden on everyone else.  I don’t understand how the more you make the higher the rate is fair!  If we have to accept that application of the word “fair” as the true definition of fair, maybe that is part of the problem.

October 12, 2011

CAIN, a Candidate with a Plan

by Steve Dana

After the Republican “debate” last night everyone was piling on Herman Cain because he offered his 999 Plan but just like the Democrats in the Senate, none of the other candidates besides Gingrich have offered a plan of their own.

As soon as the other candidates roll out their own plans we can compare them and maybe pick and choose the best parts of each that we may or may not adopt.  What’s important is that the other candidates get a plan out there for the same level of scrutiny as the 999 Plan.  In the mean time, I like the fact that Cain had the courage to put a plan on the table recognizing that it would put a target on his back.

When the President’s Boles-Simpson Committee unveiled their plan it was panned too.  Every plan will be panned by someone.  Our country faces tough problems so the solutions aren’t likely to be easy, but solutions don’t come from hand wringing.

So how do we move forward in the selection process?

Newt Gingrich offers a very comprehensive plan to address the issues in the campaign, but I doubt Newt will be the candidate.  I like Newt, but that won’t get him elected.  Just because Newt can’t be elected doesn’t mean his ideas can’t be used.

Mitt Romney needs to offer his plan if he doesn’t like Herman Cain’s.  I can’t recall anything specific he’s put on the table to address any of the marquee issues other than his experience in both government and private sector business.  Where I certainly acknowledge that he is more qualified to manage the Federal Government than Obama, I’m not so sure he is much of a leader.  I don’t have much confidence in a guy that has switched sides on so many issues.  To me, that suggests either poor judgment or he has no core principles.

Rick Perry suggested that he has been successful in Texas, but can’t articulate the “plan” he used to achieve that success.  That troubles me a little.  If he’s claiming credit for creating economic prosperity in Texas it shouldn’t be hard to at least show us an outline.  

Then with the border security issue so high on our list, Perry’s answers don’t build confidence that he would do any better than Bush or Obama in dealing with ILLEGAL Immigration.  If National Security is important; border security in necessary.  Once we secure the border we can talk about other issues like paths to citizenship for current illegals.

(American consumers will have to adjust to the changes in food cost if farmers can’t plant or harvest without the Hispanic workers that appear to do the bulk of that work.  That will be one of those trade-offs we make for National Security.  Or there will be additional negotiation to re-establish a guest worker program.)

In spite of the fact that Herman Cain has no experience as an elected official I don’t necessarily view that as a negative.  The government experiences of some of the candidates on both sides of the aisle do not inspire confidence in their ability to lead. 

Herman Cain has extensive experience in managing a large bureaucracy and being accountable to shareholders and customers is a skill none of the other candidates can match.  The thing that differentiates Cain from Romney is the fact that he has been the same guy as he is today for his whole career.  That instills confidence that he will be the same guy tomorrow. 

Obama ran for President on a platform significantly different than his previous record would suggest.  Voters chose a guy with slick words but got a President whose record in office reflected his past performance in previous public office.  In Romney I see another candidate saying what he needs to say to get elected without previous public record to support his claim.

Few elected officials ever come to the presidency with foreign policy experience.  If the knock on Cain is that he doesn’t have foreign policy experience then let’s compare his record to the rest of the field.  Bill Clinton certainly didn’t come to the job with foreign policy experience unless working with illegal aliens counts.  I’m still waiting for those foreign policy résumés from the other candidates.

I’m looking for a candidate who can inspire people to follow him or her and have demonstrated the ability to recruit capable staff to manage a huge bureaucracy.  For me that person is Herman Cain in spite of his shortcomings.  I will know who he is and what he stands for after we elect him.