Holding Shares

A lot is made of large conglomerates and their impact on humanity. Whether its a multinational banking and investment firm, a big box retailer, pharmaceutical manufacturer, or a firm like Monsanto that has made it big in the genetic engineering of agricultural products, there's just something about businesses so big that we cannot grasp their enormity, nor can we find it in ourselves to accept them.

I think we have a basic class envy when it comes to successful companies. Like the proletariate of ancient Rome, we lack the where-with -all to be as prosperous and we see them as the enemy.

I'm not saying these companies are lily white in their dealings. The truth is any company that is beholden to its shareholders will behave in a dispassionate manner when dealing with the public and the planet. The bottom line takes precedent.

But why? Because unless they have no competition they must guard tooth and nail against falling behind and that means making decisions that do not benefit anyone but those stockholders.

Is Monsanto creating a cabal bent on controlling the world? Is Walmart bent on eliminating all mom and pop shops? I doubt either of these is true, but their business practices make such ends inevitable.

Ultimately, its stockholders that are letting this happen. And will until the money stops.

Incubating Hostility

Yes, its been a long time between postings.

The 2012 elections are only a memory. Obamacare is wriggling its way into our lives, both corporately and privately. The Fiscal Cliff has been sidestepped for the moment. The debt ceiling is proving to be as nimble as the Cheshire Cat.

And yet we survive.

The question is for how long? While special interests jockey for position in the buffet line that is the Federal teat, liberals and conservatives argue over increases in spending, cuts in spending, spending for the sake of spending.

And they kick the can a little farther down the road.

Sooner or later, someone's going to have to pay for all of this. Or, can we really get away with simply printing more and more money? Did it work for the Weimar Republic? Will Greece, Italy, and Spain ever prosper again without the EU printing more and more Euros?

In a perfect world, everyone would have plentiful health care, food, and shelter. Everyone would be in agreement and everyone would be happy to give to those who have not. But this is not the world we are developing.

Big government is an incubator.

Taking from those with more to give to those in need instills a sense of unfairness among those who are being taken from. This doesn't mean they are stingy, miserly, or mean spirited. It means they resent someone else deciding who should benefit from their hard work.

The intent is noble to be sure. And in some instances it takes a governmental institution to get something accomplished. But like everything else in our society we have let the pendulum swing too far.

Rather than encouraging hard working folks to reach into their pockets and give a helping hand to those in need, big government takes what it believes is its fair share and does the redistributing itself. This does nothing to engender philanthropy and everything to develop a bunker mentality when it comes to taxes of any kind.

Giving what it takes from others instills in those receiving a sense of resentment that they must accept handouts, presumably taken from those who are wealthy enough to have more than they need and who are forced through taxation to share. It creates animosity and class welfare. It creates anger in those who receive when they feel threatened at the thought of losing any of the handouts that they need.

Even the nomenclature instills animosity. Entitlements - This is not just needed, it is deserved. Rich- If you own more than I do you are rich and if you are rich you must have gotten that way on the backs of the poor.

Steadily, we are driving a wedge between these two groups.

For the last fifty years, the government has made itself the final arbiter in matters of conscience. We have driven God from the public arena. He cannot be mentioned in schools, courts, or other public venues. We are told this makes our schools, courts, etc, safer for all. We need not worry about someone trying to force their morality on us any longer.

But morality, like space, abhors a vacuum. The religious morality that sought to instill things like a sense of fair play, sharing with your neighbor, kindness to strangers, respect for others, has been replaced with the teaching of the good of the state. The state will tell you what fair is, who your neighbor is, what kindness is, who deserves respect.

We are the government. We have met the enemy, at it is us.

Voter Fraud Bias

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, at New York University Law School, 

Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare. Most citizens who take the time to vote offer their legitimate signatures and sworn oaths with the gravitas that this hard-won civic right deserves....Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic. There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible.

 So, if this is so, then as the Riddler would say, "Riddle me this,"

In February, the Pew Center on the States released a study called Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient showing that about 24 million U.S. voter registrations were no longer valid or had significant inaccuracies.

The research found: more than 1.8 million dead people listed as voters; about 2.75 million with voter registrations in more than one state; and about 12 million voter records with incorrect addresses, meaning either the voters moved or errors in the information make it unlikely any mailings can reach them. 

The Brennan Center for Justice calls itself 

...a non-partisan public policy and law institute that focuses on the fundamental issues of democracy and justice.

The Pew Center on the States says,

The Pew Center on the States provides nonpartisan reporting and research, advocacy, and technical assistance to help states deliver better results and achieve long-term fiscal health by investing in programs that provide the strongest returns.

And yet they have reached disparate conclusions regarding voter fraud.

From the September 16th, 2012, Columbus Dispatch, 

More than one out of every five registered Ohio voters is probably ineligible to vote. In two counties, the number of registered voters actually exceeds the voting-age population: Northwestern Ohio’s Wood County shows 109 registered voters for every 100 eligible, while in Lawrence County along the Ohio River it’s a mere 104 registered per 100 eligible. 

And yet we hear over and over again that voter fraud is not an issue. It has no impact on elections.

Ohio is crucial to the 2012 Presidential elections, and yet time and time again we are told that it would be unfair to require proper identification in order to vote.

We require a photo ID to buy a beer. Is that more important that voting?



http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/ 
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/09/16/voter-rolls-in-ohio-are-bloated-experts-say.html
http://www.pewstates.org/about/mission-85899372169
http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=85899370677

Voter ID Nonsense

Not too long ago, I went to a restaurant with my son. When he ordered a beer, the waitress asked for his ID. A few days back, I was at a convenience store when a young man asked the clerk for a pack of cigarettes. They carded him as well. When I picked up my prescriptions at the drug store they required a proof of identity before they would give the medicine to me.

With these facts in mind, I wonder. How do seniors and minorities manage to buy alcohol? How do get the store to give them cigarettes? And how do they get the drug store to give them their prescriptions?

Well, you say, they simply pull out a driver's license, or another photo ID, and voila!

Really? It's that simple? Huh. 

A judge in Pennsylvania just blocked a PA voter ID law because he thinks its too hard for seniors and minorities to get an ID in time for the elections. How do they get around? They must all take public transportation. And they don't smoke, and they don't drink.

Democrats say any law requiring voters to show proof of identity is an attempt to prevent minorities and seniors from voting for Obama.

With that logic,

Minorities and seniors must have the lowest lung cancer and alcoholism rates in the world.

Good thing too. They'll never be able to pick up a prescription.

Don't Judge the Player by the Team

I don't know the reasons behind the current strike by National Football Referees, but it sure has raised eyebrows and blood pressures. Officiating sporting events, professional or amateur, has never been an easy thing. Nor has it ever been without controversy.

I suspect that the majority of those who officiate professional sporting events receive hate mail, possibly even death threats. Players who commit errors that lead to their team's defeat do.

Fans gather after a game to scrutinize every play, every decision on and off the field, and every call made by every official. Heated arguments erupt between fan bases of opposing teams. Rivalries sometimes boil over into violence. Sports fans can be very devoted, spending a great deal of their time examining the statistics of an individual player and his or her importance to the game.

So why don't we see the same devotion and passion among people when it comes to choosing their political representatives?

I'm an Orioles fan. I like to know if Adam Jones can hit sliders down and away. I want to know how Matt Wietters bats against left handers.

Politically, I want to know if my congressman will support my views. I want to know my representative's stand on the issues. And, just as I will demonstrate my support for a good ballplayer and my lack of support for a poor one, I will support those who prove to me that they will represent my views in congress.

To do that, I need to understand the issues. I need to see how a given politician reacts to these issues. How else can I make an educated vote? I read the opinions of sports analysts from different organizations to better understand a play or player. I need to do the same with issues and politicians  before I vote.

Sadly, a great many people I know don't see past the party affiliations of the candidates. It's like rooting for a player on your home team regardless of his lack of hustle, his lackluster play on the field, or his inability to follow the manager's orders.

I appreciate ballplayers on many teams. I want my home team to win, but that doesn't stop me from acknowledging the fine play of a player on another team.

If we followed the issues and the politicians as strongly as we follow our sports heroes, we might not be in the fix we're in right now.

For Richer, For Poorer - Tax Equality?

Here are a few hypotheticals for you.

1. You're rich. It's tax time, and you can reduce your tax bill by simply following the opportunities written into the tax code. You don't have to break the law, just follow it.
2. You're middle class. It's tax time, and you can reduce your tax bill by simply following the opportunities written into the tax code. You don't have to break the law, just follow it.
3. You're barely getting by, living week to week, getting by on a minimum wage salary, subsidized housing and food stamps. It's tax time, and by just filling out the tax form properly you need not pay any taxes whatsoever.

What do you do? Is there any difference in your actions if you are rich, middle class, or in abject poverty?

Does being poor give you a righteous entitlement to take advantage of the law and thus pay no taxes?
What about being rich, or middle class?

Here are two more.

1. You own or run a multi-national corporation. It's tax time, and you can reduce your corporate tax bill by simply following the opportunities written into the tax code. You don't have to break the law, just follow it.
2. You own a small business. Your business barely survives year to year. It's tax time, and you can reduce your small business tax bill by simply following the opportunities written into the tax code. You don't have to break the law, just follow it.

Is there a difference? Should there be?

In order to function, any government, like any household, like any business, needs income. That's why we have a tax system. Over the years ours has become labyrinthine, full of deductions, loopholes, escape mechanisms. About 71% of all taxes in the United States are paid by 10% of the population. Nearly half of the workforce pays no tax at all.
After all, you can reduce your tax bill by simply following the opportunities written into the tax code. You don't have to break the law, just follow it.

So whose to blame for this situation? We are.

Both political parties have had opportunities, periods when they controlled both houses of congress and the presidency, even a super-majority. And yet, here we stand. We can blame "special interests," but the truth is we have had the power all along and have not acted. Everyone believes their Senator, their Representative, their President, is the one that will act in our best interest.

And guess what? They have.

Alexis de Tocqueville noted,

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. "

Every time we vote to extend tax breaks to businesses, that is what we are doing. But also, every time we extend the welfare net we are doing the same.

What do you think?

State of Stealth

A battle is being waged in the state of Maryland over the state's desire to expand casino gambling. Huge in the rhetorical arguments of both sides is the claim that more casinos equals more money for education.
History, and the state constitution, teach us one thing. The amount of money collected through the collection of taxes on gambling will equate to a commensurate rise in the total state budget, but the necessary funds for education would have been found regardless.
Look at it this way.
Suppose the state budget included $100 million dollars for education. The state tells us that we don't have sufficient funds to give our children a quality education. Okay, you say. The state promises to allocate the taxes collected from the casinos to education, so give me more gambling statewide.
The first year's tax collection nets $50 million in casino taxes, and you see the education budget rise by $50 million. Ah, you say to yourself, the state was telling the truth. The money did go to education.
But this is a half truth.
You see, the state is obligated to provide a quality education for our children. If that meant to raise the education budget by $50 million that would have occurred whether or not the casinos were taxed. Without the casino tax, either discretionary spending would have suffered, or other taxes would have been raised to cover those discretionary items.
Let's say you live on a fixed income and the cost of food goes up. What do you do? If you have no way to increase your income, you need to pull money from somewhere else in your budget to cover that increase. Maybe you give up going out to the movies. Maybe you cancel your cable subscription. But you still eat. Cable is discretionary, eating is not,(although you can do a better job with the cash you have for food by making better choices at the grocer.)
A less that ethical individual would go to the local food bank and ask for food but not reduce their discretionary spending, thus having their cake and eating while watching the movies too.
This is precisely what the state is doing.
I'm sure spending on education will rise.
But at what cost to the citizens? The casino money came from the citizens in the first place.
Can you say "Stealth Tax?"