Oh Yeah, Where IS the Outrage??

From FB post by a friend.

What Interests??

Something that has been rolling around in my thinking lately has been the phrase, "In the national interest..."

When I hear that now days I wonder what interests those would be in the case of wars we start (or just get into) or where we have Americans (not necessarily military personnel).  Increasingly I hear this "National Interest," thing when we have people threatened in some far away place.  What ARE our collective interests?

Often, I hear this when there is an oil supply line that is threatened.  We send war ships and personnel into harms way to secure a seaway or perhaps an airport overseas.  We are protecting a corporate interest... a profit source, or a "vital" resource needed to manufacture things.  Some of the things manufactured are for civilian use but often enough they would be to further the military use.  Rare metals are a national interest we have... no matter where they are found.  Food sources or medicinal crops are further national interest items.  We often mask this by talking about the creation of democracy and/or freedom elsewhere on the globe.

In any case, the translation for what a national interest is seems to come down to protecting something that may not necessarily be "ours" but, rather, something we want.  Or, think we need. 

What makes this important is that when something is deemed to be in the national interest we are then justified in spending a lot of money to secure that item, product or whatever, disproportionately to its "real" value.  That is, we don't have a final product cost (price) that reflects the resources to used to procure the item.  That is a tax dollar asset that is spent to secure a corporate need.  Then we allow the corporation, through tax loopholes as often as not, to pay less tax than individuals.  The argument that money is taxed twice if we charge the corporation for the monies made is often heard in this connection.  All money is taxed multiple times as moves through the economy but that has never stopped some folks from yammering away on this so-called point.  If we had to pay for the cost of protecting the national interest at the counter where we purchase the end product what would the price actually be??  How much tax would individuals actually need to pay for an item that included the cost of protecting the seaway and covering the pass through for taxes that corporations inevitably charge us?

Lately I have heard this, "national interest," stuff from Republicans when they feel any threat to the military budget.  Never mind that we spend more than any country (and many combinations of countries) on our military.  It is one of the primary purposes of the Federal government, under the Constitution, to keep us safe. 

It has been said that we are building things for the military that they haven't asked for and probably don't even need.  That large budget item is not reviewable either.  I have heard more than once that there is no way to get one's arms around the entire military budget because it has so many moving parts.  So much for civilian oversight.  Military entities are not generally designed to be efficient.  It is built into their nature to throw lots of resources into and expect big corresponding result.  We rarely get that sort of result.  We do, however, spend a lot of money for mediocre results.  Is it in the national interest to continue doing this?

Has this path helped in the pursuit of happiness?  Really?

Avoid the Sequester with Real Balance

The discussion around averting the sequester brought the following comment.

From elfish as a comment on Huff Post:

""Notably absent from the revenue component of the bill is a hike in the tax rate on carried interest, the income stream for financial managers."

If people really understood "Carried Interest" deductions, they'd demand that it be stopped.

It is gives a Big Tax break to people who don't deserve it and have done nothing to earn it:

1. CARRIED INTEREST. Carried Interest allows ordinary income from management fees to be taxed at the capital gains rate of 15% instead of the top marginal rate of 35%.

2. CAPITAL GAINS ENCOURAGES INVESTMENTS. Because investments are risky things to do, the government wants to encourage investment by lowering the tax rate on people who make money by investing. Normally, you get Capital Gains tax rates when you invest your own money and put your own money at risk.

3. FUND MANAGERS RISK NOTHING. But Fund Managers do not risk their money and neither do the companies they work for. The people who risked their money are the ordinary investors that put their money into the hedge funds. They are the ones who should get the deduction.4. CARRIED INTEREST TRICK. Fund Managers get the Capital Gains tax rate by using an accounting trick called "Carried Interest." The "Carried Interest" trick allows ordinary income from management fees to be treated as Capital Gains.

5. SUBVERTS THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAINS. Since Fund Managers are not risking their own money and instead are risking his clients money, their clients are the only ones who deserve the Capital Gains tax rate. Capital Gains rates are not meant to help fund managers because they aren't taking any risks and that doesn't encourage increased investment.

6. NO DOUBLE TAXATION. Fund Managers justify their the low rate of taxes because by saying that "the money is taxed twice." That simply not true.

A. First, the money that Fund Managers receivs uses another accounting trick called "Pass Throughs." "Pass Throughs" allow money to be funneled to managers without paying any corporate taxes.

B. Second, as the CBO points out, 60% of US Corporations pay no taxes. If a corporation pays no taxes, the money can't be taxed twice.

Companies like GE, Exxon, Coors/Molson, Liberty Media and Well Fargo paid 0% taxes on Billions in profits. Even those that do pay taxes, pay such a low rate that it might as well be zero. For example, Google paid 2.4% taxes on $8.68-billion profits.

7. DOESN'T ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT. Carried Interest doesn't encourage investment. In fact, just the opposite. It encourages the fund managers to charge higher fees. The higher the fees they charges, the more money he can shelter from the Top Marginal rates. That encourages HIGHER FEES."

There is more to it that the Dem's can do... first to do is to get a plan out there to counter the Idiotic Republican non-plan.

Get the Attention of Lawmakers

Sign the petition.

Gun Violence - re deux

Email to my representatives:

"One thing I will watch closely will be any and all votes on gun violence legislation.  We need far more than has been proposed thus far.  We need national gun registration and a complete halt to prior legislation limiting or denying the ability to study the problem.  Without registration there is no way to figure out with any certainty how guns end up in the wrong hands.  Without real study the forces of the NRA can shout down my first amendment rights. 

Before the amendments I have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and that trumps all the misstatements about what the 2nd amendment might mean."

My comment on a Huff Post article sums up the real underlying issue:

"Actually, the assault weapons ban is a nonstarter and does not matter nearly as much as some things that are not being discussed.  1.) Cancel prior legislation that prohibits even studying the issue.  The NRA has pushed for this sort of backward move.  2.) We actually need a national gun registration.  You can OWN any sort of weapon you want but it must be registered so that effective study of gun violence can be made.  While one can make all the misstatements about the second amendment they want, after all it's still free country, it should not be allowed to diminish my right to, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," which current levels of gun violence most certainly do."