Good Work Glenn!

Yesterday, Glenn Beck interviewed the Attorney General from Connecticut! Quite Frankly it was just embarrassing to watch. Glenn Beck only wanted Blumenthal to answer one question. That was: what laws did AIG break by giving out these bonuses? For several minutes the Attorney General hummed and hahhed and never answered the question. Why? BECAUSE THEY BROKE NO LAW! Good job Glenn Beck for exposing this hack for what he is.

On a side note it is interesting to see our congress preach about breaking out Constitution. Initially, they tried to go after AIG via legal avenues. Yet, that pesky Constitution stood in their way. Something about "No Ex post Facto" or saying that something is illegal after it was done legally. Hmmm. Funny how now they are going after these bonuses through taxes.

Wait a second... where did this come from?

I will have to admit... that at one time in my life I was an evil man. Yes, you guessed it. I used to smoke those evil things called cigarettes.

I quit for health reasons, but, I also quit because I wanted to. I don't believe in telling others to quit. If they so choose it is their right. It is not the right of others (whether it be a person or the government) to force a group to quit something that is perfectly legal.

So, to the real issue at hand. Today, I discovered that the federal tax on cigarettes is going to more than doubled from $0.30 a pack to $1.01 a pack. That's a $0.62 increase! This means that in Massachusetts alone a pack will now cost around $8.00. Its simply absurd.

Now why am I so upset? Besides I quit and I no longer buy cigarettes so this doesn't affect me. The reason why I am upset is how this tax came about. This tax was included in legislation for SCHIP. The idea of granting more health insurance coverage to children (even those whose parents can afford it). Nowhere was it discussed in the media as to how this would be funded and for some odd reason no one hears about this increase until days before its put in effect. Therefore, we live in a society in which the government can arbitrarily tax you without letting you know. I thought our president promised more transparency. I guess not!

The other issue I have is how laughable the double speak is here. On the one hand they want to punish those who smoke in the hopes that they will quit. Yet, they need people to keep smoking in order to pay for this legislation. So which is it? Do we need people to smoke or not? Does the government have a genuine interest in our health or do they just want money? I think they just want our money... which is horrible because we can no longer afford these taxes.

As a side note there was a government which did try to get everyone to quit smoking for the health of the nation. I believe it was those National Socialists under ummm what was his name... oh yeah... Hitler!

Where is our money going to?

Today, while reading the paper, a story caught my eye. In my hometown there is talk of laying off three (3) officers from our police force. This is truly sad because these are three families that will be affected. This, however, is not an isolated incident. My former hometown, a minor city, laid off over thirty (30) officers in the past few years. All throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts towns are being forced to make these decisions to cut security forces, firefighters, public workers, and teachers.

What I want to know is... how are we in so much debt that we are being forced to cut essential forces? We live in a state that taxes us for almost everything possible. In fact the governor is discussing raising more taxes to make up for the debt. What do we get for these taxes? Honestly, I have no clue! We are not getting the police and firefighters we need. We are not getting the funding for education and teachers we need. We are not getting quality roads to drive around on(because quite frankly the road maintenance is horrible).

So, I ask, what are we paying for? Some simply blame the economy is causing a rise in prices for programs which the government is responsible for. But, what are these programs? Why in a time in which we can buy less, afford less, and the dollar is becoming worth less is our government spending more and taxing more? In a time like this the government should cut all non-essential programs. The government should cut spending and maybe give the common man more money in his pocket. More money in the common man's pocket means that he is more likely to go out and buy something and, surprise, surprise, maybe this will help out the economy.

Where have these promises been, by both our governor and our president, to a) balance the budget and b) go line by line to cut wasteful spending?

Stop Yelling at AIG!

Within the past week we have heard an uproar over the $160 million in bonuses handed out to executives at AIG. People are in the streets protesting and our government has gone as far as to hold an open smear campaign against the company (which they sort of control). The other day the House of Representatives passed a law to tax these bonuses 90% (of course this raises the question of legality, but, hey its the government they can do anything). Even the media is covering the story as if it were the end of the world. Many stations have devoted a good portion to discussing how upsetting this is instead of covering real news. Needless to say, people are upset and feel the need to let their voices be heard over this outrage.

Now, don't get me wrong, the fact that AIG received taxpayers money in the form of a bailout upsets me. The fact that they then used taxpayer money to hand out bonuses infuriates me even more. However, should we be mad at AIG or someone else? Besides, this is just business as usual for the company. Had we not bailed them out they would have done this just the same.

Therefore, be upset with AIG, but, stop yelling at them! Who we should really be mad at and should be protesting are our representatives. Remember, it was our government who decided to bail this company out in the first place. Furthermore, believe it or not, our government knew about the bonuses in the first place. The bill which was passed contained the following section:

The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed

to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant

to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009,

as such valid employment contracts are determined

by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.

Yes, you did read that correctly. This section was added in a sub-committee (many say by Dodd D-Conn) by our government and the bill was signed by our president. So, when you hear these persons on Capitol Hill stating that they are surprised and shocked, ask yourself the following question. Did the really know about this and don't want to get caught or did they simply just not read the bill? Either answer is disturbing because it has fairly broad implications. We have a government which either no longer serves the people or we have one that has no clue what it is doing.

Yet, this is not the end. Another issue arises that I am curious about. How come we are only hearing about AIG? There are hundreds of more banks/companies that have received taxpayer money in the forms of a bailout. How come we are not hearing about them? What about SallieMae which operates in Biden's home state of Delaware? What about FreddieMac and FannieMae which are championed by Barnie Franks (D - Mass)? It makes one wonder why we are not hearing about these big companies. Are you telling me that they are not giving out bonuses to their executives? I feel that the government is using this issue with AIG to keep us distracted while they do something behind the scenes that we the people would not approve.

So, be upset at AIG, but, people, stop yelling at them and start asking questions. Look at your representatives and examine what they are truly doing. Yell at them because this is their mess to begin with.


*photo courtesy of http://news.stv.tv/assets/img/feedImg/83764-aig-protesters-take-connecticut-bus-tour-200.jpg

Tax the Wealthy?

Now, I am no economist, so if you feel that that makes me unqualified for this rant than stop reading now. In college I only took two classes in economics, micro and macro, and both were classes for non-majors.

So, recently we have been hearing about the latest plan of this administration to cut taxes to 95% of Americans and stop the tax breaks for the wealthy. It sounds great! I mean about time that the common person (like me) gets a break and the fat cats with milliions pay up. But, is this practical?

I say no! I think this has to be the stupidest plan; especially during a recession. There are two faults that I find with this thinking.

First, for the sake of the argument, lets assume that the rich (for the most part) are greedy. For years I have been hearing that the rich get richer and screw that common man. That all they care about is money and they will get it no matter what the cost. Ok, so... why is this an issue? Well, I ask you will this change once they are paying more taxes? Are they (meaning the rich guys) going to finally come to their senses and help out the common man? No! The rich will do what they have always been doing and that will be to get as much money as they can. How does this affect us? Well... this will mean that the consumer and the common man will suffer. Businesses faced with paying more taxes are going to pass on the cost to the consumer. This will mean that goods will cost more. At the same time companies will be cutting back on jobs. So, less jobs for the people who need it and more cost for the people who can least afford it.

Second, and I do not have the numbers, but, the richest 5% only have a certain amount of wealth. What happens when the government realizes that they need more money? Well they are going to start taxing more to the top 10% and then 15% and so on and so on. Furthermore, I can imagine that these people who can absolutely afford it will simply get tired of paying taxes and move out of the United States to some other country. What happens when our money moves overseas? Who are we going to tax then?

Overall, its just sad, really. I feel that our government (and I mean Republlicans and Democrats) are simply doing the wrong thing. Why are we spending so much money when we can least afford it? How about we cut spending for a few years? I have no problems with pork or earmarks in a time when we are not in a significant deficit. However, why are we paying for things we don't need during a recession? I don't know.

Another Day, Another Bailout?

I would like to start off by saying that I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I hate both parties (maybe the Democrats a little bit more than I should)! I am a Libertarian, but, that is besides the point here. I have just a few questions that I want to ask the government who day after day are destroying our economy (and yes it is our economy).

First, however, for those who are not a hundred percent sure as to why we find ourselves in the current situation we are in, I suggest watching this short video: http://www.crisisofcredit.com/ It gives one a good explanation as to why the economy is so poor.

So, today, once again, we find out that AIG is being bailed-out. Some argue that the insurance giant is too big to fail. Therefore, we are told that we the taxpayers should keep throwing money into the company to keep it afloat. How much? You might ask. Well all ready the company has been given $150 billion and could get up to $60 billion more. Why? Well, apperantly last quarter AIG lost $60 billion (a record for any business).

Now, in a free-market economy (which the United States claims to have), if a business fails it is considered a good thing. Businesses failing show that either a) they failed to adapt to the market b) there was an oversaturation of the type of business within the economy and therefore no need or c) that the consumer no longer relies or wants the service said business provides (I am sure there are many more). Therefore, the market adapts and thrives by shredding off the fat that serves no purpose.

Yet, we find ourselves now in a situation in which we are artificially holding up a business. Think of the market as a living organism and this business now as fat. What happens when there is an excess of fat? The organism dies. We are going about laying the road for our own destruction. Some might argue that there will be pains in the system if AIG fails. I argue, yes there will be pains and yes a company as big as AIG could have huge global ramifications should it fail. However, this change is just like working out. The change is painful, but, in the end we are in better shape and face a longer life.

So, explain to me why when we are in a situation in which, we, the average taxpayer, can afford less is our money going to things which are not neccessary?

Who Said This and Why is it So Scary?

Given the current status of the state in which we live in it is interesting to reflect upon different teachings I learned while in college. One that is so striking to me is the following statement translated into english from the essay Das Kapital (I believe).

"Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses, and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks which will have to be nationalized and State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism."

Some might ask who wrote this and I am quick to answer that it is a hero to many; especially (and scarily enough) to many in the United States. They are the words of a mid-nineteenth century thinker by the name of Karl Marx. Hmmmm... maybe he was right. I sure hope not.