Saving Health Care... From Us

We tax all the others and pass the revenue on to you

It took extraordinary bribes and payoffs to get 100% of our DemSens to pass a health care... make that a health insurance reform... bill in the face of 100% RepubSens opposition  Way different version than the House version but that's what conferences are supposed to fix so that the versions are compatible. 

Up jumps the devil, in the form of the Mass. special senate election tomorrow, Martha Coakley vs. Scott Brown.  Looks like Coakley might lose, which is throwing Congress into a tizzy. 

DemSens are making extraordinary efforts to pass something, anything, before Brown is seated, if he actually does win.  This, despite the fact that polls show that the measure is wildly unpopular unless you ask the question without mentioning how much it costs and who' going to have to pay the price.

They might not ram the health care/insurance bill through without that 60th vote, the one that makes it veto- and filibuster-proof.  The prez and everyone else of any Dem import are campaigning relentlessly for MarthaC.  Not much of that on the other side because Repubs are afraid of losing even more 2010/2012 cred if they are seen as backing a loser.  ScottB is pretty much on his own unless he wins, then lots of people who aren't him will be taking credit. 

MarthaC was ahead by 15 or so points a couple of short weeks ago.  Now ScottB is ahead in most polls by anywhere from 5-9%.  That's an almost unfathomable sea change (note the neat double nautical references). Even John Kerry resorted to a sports metaphor, just in case us plebs don't get it:  "This race is a jump ball."  And thanks for that, John.  That translates to "How the heck are we going to spin this disaster?"  Fox has a good story HERE.

No matter who wins, the losing side will spin it is not meaning all that much, being just a special election and all.  Except for that health bill thing.

* * * * *

A politician thinks of the next election.  A statesman, of the next generation. -- James Freeman Clarke

.

Someone Who Isn't You

We tax all the others and pass the revenue on to you

It makes some people feel good when taxes are imposed or raised on corporations.  People like the prez think taxes aren't about revenue, they're about fairness.  We addressed that quirky notion last year.  These are the same people who support Oregon's Props. 66 and 67 on tomorrow's ballot.  Their idea of raising revenue is "We'll just take it from someone who isn't us."

Corporations don't pay taxes.  Corporate taxes are added to the cost of goods sold and figured into prices.  That means buyers pay those taxes, not the corporations themselves.  Buyers = you.

If that's too hard to understand, let me illustrate it another way.  The WSJ reports that the Obama administration is contemplating new bank fees.  This is, of course, the same administration that recently excoriated the banking industry for the high fees it was charging customers.  Do they have no sense of irony or shame?


The prez wants to use the money to help repay some $170 bil that has been lost in TARP bailouts, money that they already know isn't going to be repaid.  This is no more than a trial balloon for increased fees but it's one to keep an eye on.  The underlying message is that someone who isn't us is going to pay for the government's bailouts.  That'll make it all OK, won't it?

The TARP bailout, in case you have already forgotten, was an outgoing Bush administration/incoming Obama administration program to purchase or insure non-performing real estate loans.  We bought bad loans in order to bail out the previous purchasers of those loans.  If you think about it for even a moment you'll know that was probably a bad idea.

The idea was so bad, in fact, that we (you, me and the rest of America) have already lost $170 bil or so from just that one bad idea.  That's more than $14 bil in losses a month.  To put that in another perspective, it's 8-1/2 times California's projected deficit.  We bailed out the RE loans and we're gonna bail out CA pretty soon and CA looks like the more attractive choice!  We shouldn't bail out anyone (except me, of course) but do you doubt that's the way things are headed?  But I digress.

You should be asking some questions about the proposed bank fees.  "How much is it going to cost bank customers?" is one good question.  The answer is, the entire fee plus admin costs plus a mark-up.  You'll pay it in higher bank fees of your own (disregarding prior remonstrations about those high fees), lower interest earned and higher borrowing costs.  Did you think the bank was going to pay it out of bonus money or retained earnings?  Not likely.

The banking industry is healthier today than it was a year ago and that may be partly due to TARP.  I have trouble imagining lending institutions not doing well if they get free money to lend and are absolved of their bad debt.  Check out the latest stories about bank bonuses before you disagree.

The banks that are left today, including the ones that have paid back their TARP bailout money, are going to get stuck for the money that other banks aren't going to repay.  Does that make sense to you?  Should you get stuck with the part of your neighbor's mortgage that he didn't repay?  If you did, he could correctly say "Someone who isn't me is going to pay my bills."  Same thing.

You're going to hear a lot of ideas about how our TARP bailouts should/must be repaid, mostly from the people who shouldn't have made TARP investments in the first place.  They are scrambling to find neo-kulaks to demonize, marginalize and rob.  Rich guys are such easy targets, too.  If we make rich and evil and criminal synonymous then it feels more like our duty to fleece them to help ourselves.  It's a lot easier on our consciences, too.

Do you recall (this goes all the way back to yesterday) our prediction that CA would imposing more arbitrary revenue-generating measures that wouldn't be called taxes... but are?  How could I have omitted predicting that this would happen on the federal level too?


Someone who isn't you isn't going to oppose these methods of paying for bad decisions.  Someone who isn't you isn't going to demand that your governments stop their reckless spending.  Nope, sorry, it's going to be up to you to do it... and someone who isn't you is going to fight you every step of the way.

* * * * *

If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem.  If you them $100 million, that's the bank's problem.

J. Paul Getty

2010 Predictions

We tax all the others and pass the revenue on to you

I made some bold predictions in the first half of '09.  Even got some of 'em right in the face of some skepticism and even derision.  I didn't do much prognosticating in the second half and I wish I had.

Here are some of the things I think we'll see in 2010, in no particular order:

• California will become an even bigger financial mess, requiring massive bailouts of its bloated entitlement economy.  There won't be a corresponding reduction in those entitlements because that would cost too many CA pols their legislative sinecures.
  
  
• As a predictable result, CA will suffer more arbitrary revenue-generating measures that won't be called taxes... but are.  There will be cut-backs in programs that they have come to take for granted, and increases in programs you've never heard of.
  
  
• Oregon will more and more resemble California.
  
  
• There won't be a significant overhaul of the Tax Code.  It's not much of a vote-getter these days and Congress won't have time or political courage for the hearings.
  
  
• The IRS will receive massive new funding in support of health care but there won't be a corresponding increase in revenue.
  
  
• We'll hear more about mileage taxes to supplement, not replace, gas taxes.
  
  
• There won't be any major Wall Street reforms.
  
  
• Iraq will end in a whimper, spun as a victory.  It will cost nearly as much to prop up their government as when the war was being waged.
  
  
• Afghanistan will suffer at least one major disaster, prompting the prez to convene a committee to "re-think our overall strategy and the price of our commitment."  The phrase "open-ended" will be repeated ad nauseum. 
  
  
• There will be more than one significant terror attack on American soil.  We will be unprepared and have no meaningful response.
  
  
• Iran will succeed in its nuclear arms development program.  We will not have a cogent response nor will we be able to convene an international one.
  
  
• Russia will resume its role as world bully and we won't push back. [See Ukraine and Georgia.]
  
  
• We will ignore China's offenses to mankind's sensibilities on the grounds that, well, we owe 'em too much money.
  
  
• When unemployment goes back to single digits it will be hailed as a vindication of the administration's economic plans.  The prez's promise that it wouldn't exceed 8% if Congress passed the stimulus bill we be ignored.
  
  
• There will be another stimulus package, even though it might be named something else.  It won't work, either.
  
  
• GM/GMAC and Chrysler will continue to be suppurating sores on the American body.
  
  
• The mid-term elections will be claimed as victories by both parties.  Only the American citizenry will lose.
  
  
• Hugo Chavez succeeds in delivering a death blow to whatever residual freedom still exists in Venezuela.
  
  
• Cap-and-trade will fizzle.  Same for climate change.
  
  
• Oregon goes to the Rose Bowl for the second straight year... and wins this time.

Got any predictions of your own?  Share 'em here

* * * * *

Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future.

Neils Bohr

Oregon Props 66 & 67

We tax all the others and pass the revenue on to you

Here in Oregon we're about to have a special tax election.  Props 66 and 67 would increase taxes on all corporations and on individuals in the very highest income brackets.  The most commonly cited reason for the increases is "Hey, they won't apply to you anyway, so why not."  Three straight pro editorials in the Eugene fishwrap. 

This is the real life version of my opening tag line.

I admit to one dog in this fight.  I help run a corporate charity from which I derive neither payment nor reimbursement.  Our corp tax will increase from $10 to at least $150.  That's $140 that won't be going to help disadvantaged children.  It will go to public service pensions, stuff like that, and none of it will return to us in the form of services that the corporation or children need.  Our tax will go up simply because we're an easy target.

I don't have a dog in the individual income tax fight.  Not nearly enough income.  Am I the only one who thinks we all lose if we marginalize selected groups of us for some nebulous political concept of the common good?  Must we invent neo-kulaks so that we can isolate them and steal what they earned and still feel good about ourselves?

We tax all the others and pass the revenue on to you.  Until it's your turn.  Like our charity, you're an easy target too.  Feel the cross-hairs yet?  You will.

* * * * *

Remember the proposal for taxing Wall St. transactions?  They are entirely untaxed now.  Didn't fly, that proposal for a 1/4 of 1% transaction tax.  Too oppressive.  How does that reconcile with Wall Street's massive bonuses?  Oops, pardon my impudence.

Another non-starter:  Repatriating untaxed overseas money. 

And how is it that tax cheat CharlieR hasn't been impeached?  Simple.  He gets special treatment.

* * * * *

What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue.

Thomas Paine

A Nation of Cowards

We tax all the others and pass the revenue on to you

That's what Attorney General Eric Holder called America earlier this year, "A nation of cowards." Do you agree?


Is there an American political topic that is more talked about, more beaten to death, than race relations? The race card is the Democrats' hole card, played as needed to obfuscate real issues that need public debate. Tawana Brawley was an example. BTW, did you know that her lawyer was disbarred for treating poor clients badly? (You mean clients like Ms. Brawley but without national notoriety?)


"Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we average Americans simply do not talk enough with each other about race...". -- Eric Holder


"I think it's fair to say that if I'd been advising my attorney general, we would have used different words." -- Barack Obama


But you're his BOSS, Barry. Gotta agree with the prez on this one, though. I even might have used the words "race-baiting coward", but that's just me.


* * * * *


Eric Holder's stewardship of the DoJ is open to some question. He doesn't want to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidated voters this year. I don't understand that so I impute nefarious race-baiting cowardly motives to what might be a simple matter of DoJ resource conservation. From here, it looks like Eric being a judge rather than an Attorney General. Or maybe that coward thing. Hey, those BPs had big sticks and, y'know, a guy could get hurt if had to stand up to big guys like that.


He dismissed the indictment of ex-AK gov Ted Stevens, the indictment that successfully convicted him of corruption charges, in order to avoid the potential stain of prosecutorial misconduct. He was convicted, Eric. Let the court decide if it was misconduct or not. You don't have to be Stevens' judge either. Eric cowardly imposed his values on your judicial system when he didn't like the system's results.


Today the murder trials of five Blackwater employees were thrown out. Turns out the DoJ promised them immunity for their statements, then relied on the statements in their prosecutions. I am NOT for letting murderers (if that's what they are) go but I AM for the government keeping its word. Eric knew all this but unlike in the Stevens case, he said nothing. Coward. The one guy who ratted out his fellow Blackwater-ites in return for a plea deal is probably wondering when his number will come up. Bad idea, ratting out guys with lots of guns. Nice touch, Eric. Gonna keep him locked up now? Coward.


Eric isn't a big fan of waterboarding, either. Well, who is? Certainly not the three guys the US has used that technique on. Eric might change his mind if it was his life on the line and not yours, I suspect. That's what cowards do, sell out their principles. Your life is expendable in his zeal for justice. His isn't, I speculate, because he's special... him being the AG and all, and you're not.


* * * * *


EricH is agenda-driven while the DoJ is supposed to be JUSTICE-driven. Thus the J in their name. Rather than list his agendas (agendae?) and risk missing a few, I'll just summarize them by saying his are anti-you and serve only to advance his personal political best interests.


Eric represented a big Swiss bank (UBS) in the private sector. I don't blame him for that. Money is money and banks, as bank robber Willie Sutton noted, are where the money is. As AG, when UBS was accused of American tax fraud Eric nobly recused himself from involvement in the prosecution, THEN... wait for it... held private meetings with the Swiss Minister of Justice. Agenda-driven? More like client-driven, but the AG's only client is... you. Guess he forgot.


* * * * *


I really can't close today without mentioning GMAC again. They make loans, right? Congress converted them to kinda-like-a-bank status in order to give them $13.5 bil in free money. Your money, true, but free to the gummint. Yesterday they gave GMAC another $3.8 bil. So, $17.3 bil and what did American taxpayers get in return? Some preferred stock that is supposed to pay 8%. The US now owns 56.3% of GMAC and all of GM and Chrysler.


GMAC, GM and Chrysler have one thing in common. They are victims of their own decisions and the gummint has chosen them, and a few others, to become captive quasi-gummint organizations, propped up (perhaps indefinitely) by capital infusions from... YOU. Is that really what you had in mind, gummint ownership of what used to be the biggest private entities in America?


* * * * *


Neither a borrower, nor a lender, be; for loan oft loses both itself and friend and borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry. -- William Shakespeare


* * * * *


Happy New Year, good and faithful readers.

Health Care, Bribes and JanieN

We tax all the others and pass the savings on to you

I can't write my end-of-year column yet. No one knows yet what's going to happen with the health care bill but what a farce it's been so far.

The health care bill (now the health insurance bill) is in a lot of trouble. Turns out that the Dems have had to bribe at least a few of their own in order to get their vote. $300 mil for Dem Sen. Mary Landreiu's Lousiana, complete exemption from Medicaid increases forever for Dem. Sen Ben Nelson's Nebraskans. Political hardball: Nelson says he will vote for the bill only if "nothing's changed".

This even irritates the NY Times, according to an editorial. Federally-subsidized vote-buying, they call it. Some doofus Dem strategist named Bob Shrum has the onerous job of trying to sell this as everyday politics, American style. I'm tempted to say "Don't believe it" but I already know you don't. No one does.

Don't get me wrong here. They would have bribed any Repub senators they needed to but they refused them admission to the talks in the first place. So it's all Dems all the time for this one. Stand by for a ram.

* * * * *

I've done a lot of international traveling over the past eight years or so, beginning in October, 2001, a month after the 9/11 attacks. I've had to endure everything you've gone through but probably a lot more times. I've missed flights and endured indignities that I couldn't have imagined beforehand. Still, I tried to grin and bear it because it was for the greater good. So did you. Now it turns out that Homeland Security failed in every detail regarding this week's terror attack on an American aircraft.

Janet Napolitano and her TSA employees have pulled me aside (no criminal record, no threats, nothing to indicate why) but they let a guy board who was on the terror watch list AND had been reported as a terror threat by his own father! Hey, JanieN!!! How's that $44 bil budget working for you? Need some more?

JanieN had the temerity to tell CNN (thus you and me) about this near-disaster that "The system worked." Oh, really, Janie? Then she told NBC it hadn't. She was for the system before she was against it. Hello, John Kerry.

JanieN thinks that "disgruntled" military vets might be a terror threat. I'm a vet and I'm hardly ever gruntled so that must include me, by definition. But cancel the visa of this guy after they had been put on notice, or even at least add him to the no-fly list? Well, no. It might offend some sensibilities, maybe even cost a political point or two. Might cost a couple hundred lives, too, but so?
* * * * *

JanieN doesn't like the term "terror attacks", either. Way too insensitive. She likes "man-caused disasters". You know, like global warming, distant and hard to define and therefore hard to assign responsibility for while still being urgent enough to throw money at. No use in telling us what our real risk factor might be. "I referred to man-caused disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur."

Ummm, would one of those risks be known terror threats being allowed to board flights to the US? We weren't prepared for that even though it had happened before and we knew about it this time? Hey, Janie! When did that stop being your responsibility? My kid could have gotten that one right.

It doesn't matter who your employer is, hasn't there always been someone around who was completely ignorant of what they were being paid to do? In government, they usually get kicked upstairs. Now we have a lawyer-politician in charge of Homeland Security, reporting to a guy whose biggest risk before becoming president was deciding to vote "Present" rather than yea or nay. Did we really imagine that it would be different with them?
* * * * *

"Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there."

Janet Napolitano

* * * * *

"Can't anyone here play this game?"

Casey Stengel

Christmas Story - The Original

Luke 2

The Birth of Jesus

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register.

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

The Shepherds and the Angels

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."

When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let's go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about."

So they hurried off and found May and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed as what the shepherds said to them. But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

From Matthew 1:18-2:12

Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place this way. When his mother had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means "God is with us."

When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.

In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, "Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage."

When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for so has it been written by the prophet: "And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel."

Then Herod secretly call for the wise men and learned from them the exact time when the star appeared. Then he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, "Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage."

When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy. On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they left for their own country by another road.

Too good to be true? To some, I suppose. To good to have happened? No, it really did happen. I believe.

Merry Christmas, good and faithful readers.