Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming have no state income tax. New Hampshire and Tennessee come close - they only tax dividend and interest income.
Well, it looks like there is a good chance that ALL of us - including residents of those enlightened states - are going to wind up paying California taxes.
Our Federal Government is probably going to wind up supporting California. California spends money in ways that would have me camped out in my state legislator's office in protest. We non-Californians have absolutely no way to impact the way that state's legislature spends money, though, and our tax dollars are going to be spent on all of those California projects that we would never tolerate at home.
If that isn't TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, what is?
Monday, May 18, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
Where is the USA Going?
WOW! That’s a broad question!
But it’s the one that keeps running through my mind lately. Every day – even multiple times every day – things come to my attention that cause me to fear for the future of the USA as I have known and loved it through 65 years of being an American.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a conservative. I generally vote Republican, and I’m registered as a Republican, but that is not out of loyalty to a party. I generally vote Republican because the Republican candidates are generally more conservative than their Democrat opponents.
That is to explain that in observing the state of our nation, both politically and culturally, I really don’t look at it from a partisan point of view. I look at it from a conservative point of view, and from a point of view shaped by my own personal values. Consequently, I know there are many intelligent, well-intentioned people who will disagree with much of what I think and say because their own point of view is so different. I just hope that if you are one of those people you will read what I have to say with the same respect that I would grant to your point of view. We don’t have to agree to examine and respect an opposing point of view.
My concern of the hour is the bank stress test results that were released yesterday.
I started to go on to say that I can’t quite understand the reason for this set of stress tests being made public. My problem is that I DO think I understand.
First of all, bear in mind that these stress tests are really nothing new. The FDIC does them all the time. We never hear about them, and most people are completely unaware that they are a routine procedure.
So why did the government announce these? I believe this group of stress tests was announced because once they were announced there would be a public outcry to know the results. Our government wanted the information made public.
And why did the government want the information made public? Here is where my concerns rise.
Of 19 banks on which test information was released, 10 of them were deemed to require additional capital. A total of almost $75 billion among them. The top five were deemed to require the bulk of it - Bank of America Corp - $33.9 billion, Wells Fargo & Co. - $13.7 billion, GMAC LLC - $11.5 billion, Citigroup Inc. - $5.5 billion, and Morgan Stanley - $1.8 billion. $66.4 billion needed by those five banks.
June 8 is the deadline for the banks to develop a plan and have it approved by regulators. If they are unable to raise the money on their own, the administration has said it is prepared to dip into the bailout fund.
So what is the reality of the situation? These banks are almost certain to be unable to raise the money. To raise capital, they can sell off assets (not likely in the current economy to produce the capital required) or they can attract additional investor money. That is also unlikely, when the banks have been labeled by the government as being at risk.
Depending on how you might feel about the test criteria used for the stress tests, you might not even agree that these banks are at risk. The fact remains that our government saying that they are at risk poses a serious threat that the public perception of their stability. That hampers their ability to raise additional capital, and makes their need to go to the government virtually a certainty.
Trying very hard not to fall into the category of a “conspiracy theorist,” I am lead to consider where this is leading, what is at the end of the path, and whether that ultimate destination was planned all along.
First of all, simply borrowing money from the government doesn’t solve the capital problem. Add cash and add debt and capital is unaffected. The issue is not the amount of cash the banks have – it is their capital position. No, the government will have to invest in the banks.
The intro investment vehicle has been a preferred stock position. That makes the US government (you and me) owners of the banks. Owners with no voting rights, but owners nonetheless. The direction this is likely to go next is to convert that preferred stock to common stock. Then the government has a voting interest in the banks. In other words, our government has some level of control (how much control depends on how much ownership) over the operations of the banks.
That, my friend, is tantamount to nationalization of the banks. And nationalization of various industries is the hallmark of socialism. I’m not going on a rant here about Soviet Union style socialism (though one can certainly find reason to wonder just how far down this path the administration is prepared to go). I am talking about the garden-variety socialism rampant in Europe.
It is obvious that there are many Americans that don’t see that outcome as a terrible thing. My personal opinion is that they only feel that way because they don’t really understand what it is to live under socialism. A closer look at life in any of the world's socialist states might change their minds. But more about that another day.
But it’s the one that keeps running through my mind lately. Every day – even multiple times every day – things come to my attention that cause me to fear for the future of the USA as I have known and loved it through 65 years of being an American.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a conservative. I generally vote Republican, and I’m registered as a Republican, but that is not out of loyalty to a party. I generally vote Republican because the Republican candidates are generally more conservative than their Democrat opponents.
That is to explain that in observing the state of our nation, both politically and culturally, I really don’t look at it from a partisan point of view. I look at it from a conservative point of view, and from a point of view shaped by my own personal values. Consequently, I know there are many intelligent, well-intentioned people who will disagree with much of what I think and say because their own point of view is so different. I just hope that if you are one of those people you will read what I have to say with the same respect that I would grant to your point of view. We don’t have to agree to examine and respect an opposing point of view.
My concern of the hour is the bank stress test results that were released yesterday.
I started to go on to say that I can’t quite understand the reason for this set of stress tests being made public. My problem is that I DO think I understand.
First of all, bear in mind that these stress tests are really nothing new. The FDIC does them all the time. We never hear about them, and most people are completely unaware that they are a routine procedure.
So why did the government announce these? I believe this group of stress tests was announced because once they were announced there would be a public outcry to know the results. Our government wanted the information made public.
And why did the government want the information made public? Here is where my concerns rise.
Of 19 banks on which test information was released, 10 of them were deemed to require additional capital. A total of almost $75 billion among them. The top five were deemed to require the bulk of it - Bank of America Corp - $33.9 billion, Wells Fargo & Co. - $13.7 billion, GMAC LLC - $11.5 billion, Citigroup Inc. - $5.5 billion, and Morgan Stanley - $1.8 billion. $66.4 billion needed by those five banks.
June 8 is the deadline for the banks to develop a plan and have it approved by regulators. If they are unable to raise the money on their own, the administration has said it is prepared to dip into the bailout fund.
So what is the reality of the situation? These banks are almost certain to be unable to raise the money. To raise capital, they can sell off assets (not likely in the current economy to produce the capital required) or they can attract additional investor money. That is also unlikely, when the banks have been labeled by the government as being at risk.
Depending on how you might feel about the test criteria used for the stress tests, you might not even agree that these banks are at risk. The fact remains that our government saying that they are at risk poses a serious threat that the public perception of their stability. That hampers their ability to raise additional capital, and makes their need to go to the government virtually a certainty.
Trying very hard not to fall into the category of a “conspiracy theorist,” I am lead to consider where this is leading, what is at the end of the path, and whether that ultimate destination was planned all along.
First of all, simply borrowing money from the government doesn’t solve the capital problem. Add cash and add debt and capital is unaffected. The issue is not the amount of cash the banks have – it is their capital position. No, the government will have to invest in the banks.
The intro investment vehicle has been a preferred stock position. That makes the US government (you and me) owners of the banks. Owners with no voting rights, but owners nonetheless. The direction this is likely to go next is to convert that preferred stock to common stock. Then the government has a voting interest in the banks. In other words, our government has some level of control (how much control depends on how much ownership) over the operations of the banks.
That, my friend, is tantamount to nationalization of the banks. And nationalization of various industries is the hallmark of socialism. I’m not going on a rant here about Soviet Union style socialism (though one can certainly find reason to wonder just how far down this path the administration is prepared to go). I am talking about the garden-variety socialism rampant in Europe.
It is obvious that there are many Americans that don’t see that outcome as a terrible thing. My personal opinion is that they only feel that way because they don’t really understand what it is to live under socialism. A closer look at life in any of the world's socialist states might change their minds. But more about that another day.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Swine Flu - Hype or Genuine Crisis?
Swine flu is all over the news - based on about 65 cases confirmed around the country. Is all of the talk just a function of having a flock of cable news networks that have to fill up 24 hours of air time every day? Or is it the result of a genuine crisis that should concern us all?
I don't have an answer, and the result of my listening to a lot of talk about this topic is that I'm convinced no one else knows for sure right now.
An announcement that I heard within the last half hour might change the tone of the discussion. Up until now, only one of the confirmed swine flu cases in the US resulted in a hospital stay, and that was only for a few hours. I now hear (and it is unconfirmed at this point in time) that two people in California are thought to have died from swine flu.
From what I have heard about the disease and its course, within 7 to 10 days, the swine flu will be a quickly fading memory or it will all that we are talking about. No one knows which one - yet.
I don't have an answer, and the result of my listening to a lot of talk about this topic is that I'm convinced no one else knows for sure right now.
An announcement that I heard within the last half hour might change the tone of the discussion. Up until now, only one of the confirmed swine flu cases in the US resulted in a hospital stay, and that was only for a few hours. I now hear (and it is unconfirmed at this point in time) that two people in California are thought to have died from swine flu.
From what I have heard about the disease and its course, within 7 to 10 days, the swine flu will be a quickly fading memory or it will all that we are talking about. No one knows which one - yet.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Hate Crime Legislation - An Affront To Common Sense
When hate crimes legislation first appeared on the horizon I was outraged. But I was overcome with apathy in those days and said nothing.
As this class of legislation has come up from time to time, my outrage has grown until it has finally trampled all over my apathy. Now legislation is pending to add transgender persons as a protected class.
My anger at this point has nothing to do with transgender persons, gays, persons of color or jews. A violent crime against any of them is reprehensible and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
But … are any members of any of those groups more important to our society (simply because they belong to one of those groups) than I am? Or more important than my wife or my children or my grandchild? I certainly don’t think so.
If someone kills a gay person because they are gay, and someone else kills my child because she is in the wrong place at the wrong time, they are equally dead. I, and those that love the murdered gay person, would equally grieve over our lost loved ones. It is an insult to my child and to all who love her to assume that somehow more outrage should be expressed by our society – through our judicial system – over the death of one than the other.
The fact is, the ultimate purpose of hate crime legislation is not to punish one who perpetrates a violent crime against a member of a protected class more severely than one who perpetrates a violent crime against one who is not a member of a protected class. No, the ultimate purpose is to control speech. Free speech is in the crosshairs, and I fear it has already suffered a wound that will prove fatal in time.
The time will come (WILL, not MAY) when there are legal penalties for even being critical of either a protected group or a member of a protected group. Why? Because hate crime legislation is actually directed at thought more than action. If that were not the case existing laws, equally enforced regardless of the victim, would be sufficient. Hate crime laws address the thought behind the crime, and if we are punishing the thought behind the action we have begun the process of defining what is legal speech and what is illegal speech.
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, the day is soon coming when you will grieve over the day we started down the path of legislating Hate Crimes.
As this class of legislation has come up from time to time, my outrage has grown until it has finally trampled all over my apathy. Now legislation is pending to add transgender persons as a protected class.
My anger at this point has nothing to do with transgender persons, gays, persons of color or jews. A violent crime against any of them is reprehensible and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
But … are any members of any of those groups more important to our society (simply because they belong to one of those groups) than I am? Or more important than my wife or my children or my grandchild? I certainly don’t think so.
If someone kills a gay person because they are gay, and someone else kills my child because she is in the wrong place at the wrong time, they are equally dead. I, and those that love the murdered gay person, would equally grieve over our lost loved ones. It is an insult to my child and to all who love her to assume that somehow more outrage should be expressed by our society – through our judicial system – over the death of one than the other.
The fact is, the ultimate purpose of hate crime legislation is not to punish one who perpetrates a violent crime against a member of a protected class more severely than one who perpetrates a violent crime against one who is not a member of a protected class. No, the ultimate purpose is to control speech. Free speech is in the crosshairs, and I fear it has already suffered a wound that will prove fatal in time.
The time will come (WILL, not MAY) when there are legal penalties for even being critical of either a protected group or a member of a protected group. Why? Because hate crime legislation is actually directed at thought more than action. If that were not the case existing laws, equally enforced regardless of the victim, would be sufficient. Hate crime laws address the thought behind the crime, and if we are punishing the thought behind the action we have begun the process of defining what is legal speech and what is illegal speech.
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, the day is soon coming when you will grieve over the day we started down the path of legislating Hate Crimes.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Rightwing Extremism Report
By now, I’m sure everyone has heard about it. I suspect that few have actually read it in its entirety.
I come at this from the perspective of a "returning veteran." My return was quite a few years ago, though. I returned from VietNam 46 years ago last October.
There is plenty to be upset about – even beyond the profiling of Military Veterans as potential right wing extremist terrorists. I suggest you take a look at the report - http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/extremismreport.pdf - and then consider these questions:
Does the economic downturn upset you? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 2).
Does the prospect of new restrictions on firearms concern you? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 2).
Are you a returning military facing challenges in getting back into the swing of being at home and returning to a civilian job? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 2).
Are you a returning veteran with combat skills and experience? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 3).
Are you white? And did you vote against Barack Obama? You are surely racist and You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 3).
Are you concerned about the current administration’s stance on immigration and citizenship? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 3).
Do you question the wisdom of expanding social programs to minorities? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 2).
Do you think NAFTA might have been a bad idea and expanding it to a hemisphere-wide agreement would probably be an even worse idea? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 4).
Do you think that government actions might be infringing on our civil liberties? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 4).
Do you think we might be in the “end times?” You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 4).
Are you unemployed? Your child might become a Right Wing Extremist (p 4).
Do you think illegal immigrants might be taking jobs away from legal American citizens? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 5).
Do you think actually ENFORCEMENT of our immigration laws would be a good thing? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 5).
Do you actually OWN a gun? You probably are a Right Wing Extremist (p 5).
Do you think the United States is somehow threatened by other countries (China, India, Russia, some smaller oil-producing country)? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 6).
Do you think there are people in positions of power anywhere in the world that would like to see a "world government?" You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 7).
Do you think the stature of the United States relative to ANY other country in the world is being diminished? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 7).
Are you a returning veteran? (I repeat that because the report repeats it a LOT). You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 7).
HAVE YOU EVER SHARED YOUR CONCERNS WITH ANYONE VIA THE INTERNET? You PROBABLY ARE a Right Wing Extremist (p 8).
And of course if you answer YES to ALL of these – you need to be locked up immediately. Without trial. For life. For the safety of the United Ultra-Liberal States of America. (In all fairness, that isn't written in the report - it's just where it all takes us).
And of course “This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) [read that as “we don’t plan to let anyone know, even if they ask”]. It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DSH policy relating to FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know [read that as “who do not share our ideologies”] without prior approval of an authorized DSH official [don’t hold your breath]. State and local homeland security officials may share this document with authorized security personnel without further approval from DHS. (p 1).
I come at this from the perspective of a "returning veteran." My return was quite a few years ago, though. I returned from VietNam 46 years ago last October.
There is plenty to be upset about – even beyond the profiling of Military Veterans as potential right wing extremist terrorists. I suggest you take a look at the report - http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/extremismreport.pdf - and then consider these questions:
Does the economic downturn upset you? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 2).
Does the prospect of new restrictions on firearms concern you? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 2).
Are you a returning military facing challenges in getting back into the swing of being at home and returning to a civilian job? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 2).
Are you a returning veteran with combat skills and experience? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 3).
Are you white? And did you vote against Barack Obama? You are surely racist and You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 3).
Are you concerned about the current administration’s stance on immigration and citizenship? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 3).
Do you question the wisdom of expanding social programs to minorities? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 2).
Do you think NAFTA might have been a bad idea and expanding it to a hemisphere-wide agreement would probably be an even worse idea? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 4).
Do you think that government actions might be infringing on our civil liberties? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 4).
Do you think we might be in the “end times?” You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 4).
Are you unemployed? Your child might become a Right Wing Extremist (p 4).
Do you think illegal immigrants might be taking jobs away from legal American citizens? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 5).
Do you think actually ENFORCEMENT of our immigration laws would be a good thing? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 5).
Do you actually OWN a gun? You probably are a Right Wing Extremist (p 5).
Do you think the United States is somehow threatened by other countries (China, India, Russia, some smaller oil-producing country)? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 6).
Do you think there are people in positions of power anywhere in the world that would like to see a "world government?" You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 7).
Do you think the stature of the United States relative to ANY other country in the world is being diminished? You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 7).
Are you a returning veteran? (I repeat that because the report repeats it a LOT). You might be a Right Wing Extremist (p 7).
HAVE YOU EVER SHARED YOUR CONCERNS WITH ANYONE VIA THE INTERNET? You PROBABLY ARE a Right Wing Extremist (p 8).
And of course if you answer YES to ALL of these – you need to be locked up immediately. Without trial. For life. For the safety of the United Ultra-Liberal States of America. (In all fairness, that isn't written in the report - it's just where it all takes us).
And of course “This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) [read that as “we don’t plan to let anyone know, even if they ask”]. It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DSH policy relating to FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know [read that as “who do not share our ideologies”] without prior approval of an authorized DSH official [don’t hold your breath]. State and local homeland security officials may share this document with authorized security personnel without further approval from DHS. (p 1).
Check out this article:
http://townhall.com/columnists/MattTowery/2009/04/23/the_honoring_of_ignorance?page=1
It is an excellent comment on the sorry state of an informed citizenry in the USA today. I have read numerous articles on writing for younger Americans, and it concerns me to think of the writing style that must be employed to even hope to get (and keep) the attention of the younger reader today.
Worse yet is the fact that with a steady diet of television and the Internet even I, a lifelong avid reader, found my own attention span shortening. When I realized that, I took steps to reverse the trend and make sure it didn’t return. Things like actually reading books again. Going out of my way to read thought-provoking articles – even articles written by people whose point of view is diametrically opposed to my own. And occasionally sitting down and trying to put in writing my own attitudes and opinions.
I’ve long heard the saying, “If you want to learn something really well, attempt to teach it.” That applies to knowledge and thought in general. If you want to really come to grips with how you feel about a topic, try to write it down to express it or defend it to another.
http://townhall.com/columnists/MattTowery/2009/04/23/the_honoring_of_ignorance?page=1
It is an excellent comment on the sorry state of an informed citizenry in the USA today. I have read numerous articles on writing for younger Americans, and it concerns me to think of the writing style that must be employed to even hope to get (and keep) the attention of the younger reader today.
Worse yet is the fact that with a steady diet of television and the Internet even I, a lifelong avid reader, found my own attention span shortening. When I realized that, I took steps to reverse the trend and make sure it didn’t return. Things like actually reading books again. Going out of my way to read thought-provoking articles – even articles written by people whose point of view is diametrically opposed to my own. And occasionally sitting down and trying to put in writing my own attitudes and opinions.
I’ve long heard the saying, “If you want to learn something really well, attempt to teach it.” That applies to knowledge and thought in general. If you want to really come to grips with how you feel about a topic, try to write it down to express it or defend it to another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)