I recently listen to some experts talk about job creation. I have thought for some time that most of what is offered about job creation is naive nonsense. Here's why.
First a bit of history. Consider farm jobs. Today there are less than half as many farm jobs as there were in 1900. That's fact. Why? It turns out that two factors drove that change. Better farming practices, better seeds, better fertilizer, a better understanding of how to farm had a major impact. The other and more significant driver was automation, better farm machinery. This is an example of jobs where there is no realistic possibility of bringing these jobs back. Farmers are simply not going to abandon the machines that make modern farming work. Those jobs are gone and are not coming back.
The impact of automation can be seen elsewhere in the economy. Consider that over the last 25 years US manufactured goods exports have more quadrupled! Meanwhile the portion manufacturing jobs to all jobs in the US has dropped by more than 50%. Simply put, automation has meant that fewer people produce much more product. Manufacturers are simply not going to abandoned efficient competitive practices to create new jobs. The manufacturing jobs replaced by automation are simply gone and are not coming back. That said it should be noted that manufacturing jobs are in fact growing particularly among small manufacturers as manufactured goods exports continue to grow particularly among free trade partners.
To date, automation has substituted machinery for human labor as in farming or sell structured activity as in assembly lines. We are now starting to see automation impact less well structured jobs. Machine shops are a good example. There are several machine shops near my home that now employ less than half as many machinist as they once did since adopting CNC machine tools that allow a single person to do the work of many even when that work is both highly skilled and less well structured. Those jobs are gone. Work in that segment will require new skills in CNC tool use and growth in the demand for low volume CNC manufacturing.
There is a new and dramatically more disruptive automation on the horizon. Several firms are testing self driving cars. The impact of this technology goes well beyond professional drivers in two ways. First it promises to be disruptive of the transportation infrastructure generally. Why should I take a train when I can use a self driving car to go directly from where I am to where I want to go? For that matter why should I even own a car when one will come for me when I need it?
Second, and more importantly, it is an example of automation of a highly unstructured activity! If you can make a self driving car operating in a mixed ill structured world what then can not be automated?
All of this raises the issue of what happens when there are simply not enough jobs for those that want or need to work? Society has been organized around work for almost all of human history. What happens when work as an organizing principle is no longer essential?
With a nod to Thomas Paine, Baron d'Holbach, and "Captain Obvious" perspectives on what should be, but remarkably often isn't, obvious common sense.
Showing posts with label Social Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Justice. Show all posts
Thursday, December 15, 2016
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Senator Bernie Sanders, VT, and some common sense on corporate taxes
I'll admit it, Common Sense is a fan of Senator Bernie Sanders and his, well, common sense approach to government. Here's an interesting fact sheet from Bernie that should be required reading in the next act of the Congressional Follies.
Corporations Must Pay Their Fair Share
Today corporate profits are at an all-time high, while corporate income tax
revenue as a percentage of GDP is near a record low.
In 1952, 32% of all of the revenue generated in this country came from large
corporations. Today, just 9% of federal revenue comes from corporate
America.
At 1.6%, corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP is lower than any other
major country in the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development) including Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Norway,
Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and
Iceland.
In 2011, corporations paid just 12 percent of their profits in taxes, the lowest
since 1972.
In 2005, 1 out of 4 large corporations paid no income taxes at all even
though they collected $1.1 trillion in revenue over that one year period.
Large corporations and the wealthy are avoiding more than $100 billion in
taxes every year by setting up offshore tax shelters in places like the Cayman
Islands, Bermuda and the Bahamas.
In 2009, Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits. Not only did they not pay
any federal income taxes, they actually received a $157 million rebate from
the IRS.
In 2010, Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS,
even though it made $4.4 billion in profits. Bank of America operated 371
subsidiaries in offshore tax havens in 2010. 204 of these subsidiaries are
incorporated in the Cayman Islands, which has a corporate tax rate of 0%.
At 15.7%, revenue as a percentage of GDP is at or near the lowest level in
sixty years.
'via Blog this'
Corporations Must Pay Their Fair Share
Today corporate profits are at an all-time high, while corporate income tax
revenue as a percentage of GDP is near a record low.
In 1952, 32% of all of the revenue generated in this country came from large
corporations. Today, just 9% of federal revenue comes from corporate
America.
At 1.6%, corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP is lower than any other
major country in the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development) including Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Norway,
Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and
Iceland.
In 2011, corporations paid just 12 percent of their profits in taxes, the lowest
since 1972.
In 2005, 1 out of 4 large corporations paid no income taxes at all even
though they collected $1.1 trillion in revenue over that one year period.
Large corporations and the wealthy are avoiding more than $100 billion in
taxes every year by setting up offshore tax shelters in places like the Cayman
Islands, Bermuda and the Bahamas.
In 2009, Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits. Not only did they not pay
any federal income taxes, they actually received a $157 million rebate from
the IRS.
In 2010, Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS,
even though it made $4.4 billion in profits. Bank of America operated 371
subsidiaries in offshore tax havens in 2010. 204 of these subsidiaries are
incorporated in the Cayman Islands, which has a corporate tax rate of 0%.
At 15.7%, revenue as a percentage of GDP is at or near the lowest level in
sixty years.
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans
PolitiFact | Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans:
As noted in an earlier post, societies with disproportionate wealth distributions, as is now the case in the United States, are subject to social instability and occasional revolution. Tax policies that result in a handful of families with more wealth than over 100 million families violates any sense of fairness and common sense. Yet, a segment of the radical right believes that tax policies that favor the wealthy will lead to more wealth for everyone. Never mind that that hasn't worked the last two times it was tried. Common Sense thinks that policy needs to support the poor and grow the middle class not make the wealthy wealthier. That's just common sense if you want a healthy society.
As noted in an earlier post, societies with disproportionate wealth distributions, as is now the case in the United States, are subject to social instability and occasional revolution. Tax policies that result in a handful of families with more wealth than over 100 million families violates any sense of fairness and common sense. Yet, a segment of the radical right believes that tax policies that favor the wealthy will lead to more wealth for everyone. Never mind that that hasn't worked the last two times it was tried. Common Sense thinks that policy needs to support the poor and grow the middle class not make the wealthy wealthier. That's just common sense if you want a healthy society.
Monday, July 2, 2012
When ideological purity trumps common sense
Republicans’ repeal push: Is it the right move? - The Washington Post:
Florida says no to two U.S. healthcare law features | Reuters:
And so the games begin. Lets try some common sense.
Mitt Romney, the man who would be president, who believed in the principal provisions of the Affordable Care Act when he was governor of Massachusetts, now believes that these are, and here I'll quote Mr. Romney, "bad law." Curious that and certainly not common sense.
John Boehner and Mitch McConnell want to repeal the law in its entirety. Thus it follows that they object to elements of the law that prohibit insurance company abuses involving preexisting conditions, insurance cancellation if you become sick, extended coverage for minors, insurance exchanges so those who must buy their own insurance can get a better price. Clearly the ideology of the radical right trumps what is good for United States citizens. Certainly not common sense.
Radical right wing ideology extends to governor's offices, at least in Florida, Wisconsin, and Louisiana all of whom object to extending medical care for the poor and setting up insurance exchanges.
In the matter of Medicare the choice is simple, we can provide Medicare insurance to the poor so they are less sick less often or, as the governors seem to believe, we can allow them to become more sick, more often, and then go to Hospitals, the most expensive form of medical care where the cost is ultimately covered by the cost of insurance on everyone else. Certainly not common sense.
The nonsense with insurance exchanges is equally wrong headed, aka just plain dumb. By not setting up exchanges these governors require citizens without employer provided insurance to buy as individuals. Such insurance is, and here I speak from my own experience, much more expensive and consequentially leads many to become uninsured. The result is as above, more sick, more often, care in much more expensive hospital settings, cost born by everyone else. Certainly not common sense.
Ideological purity leads to bad government. It's time for Congress and Governors alike to look to the "general welfare" of United States citizens. That's one of the principals of our form of government. That's just common sense.
“I will act to repeal Obamacare,” said former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney on Friday.
“We will not flinch from our resolve to make sure this law is repealed in its entirety,” House Speaker John Boehner said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation”.
“If I’m the leader of the majority next year, I commit to the American people that the repeal of Obamacare will be job one,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) on “Fox News Sunday”.
Florida says no to two U.S. healthcare law features | Reuters:
(Reuters) - Florida will not implement two provisions of the U.S. healthcare law involving an expansion of Medicaid for the poor and creation of a private insurance exchange, Governor Rick Scott said on Sunday.
Two other states with Republican governors, Wisconsin and Louisiana, opted out of the two provisions last week in the wake of the Supreme Court decision upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
And so the games begin. Lets try some common sense.
Mitt Romney, the man who would be president, who believed in the principal provisions of the Affordable Care Act when he was governor of Massachusetts, now believes that these are, and here I'll quote Mr. Romney, "bad law." Curious that and certainly not common sense.
John Boehner and Mitch McConnell want to repeal the law in its entirety. Thus it follows that they object to elements of the law that prohibit insurance company abuses involving preexisting conditions, insurance cancellation if you become sick, extended coverage for minors, insurance exchanges so those who must buy their own insurance can get a better price. Clearly the ideology of the radical right trumps what is good for United States citizens. Certainly not common sense.
Radical right wing ideology extends to governor's offices, at least in Florida, Wisconsin, and Louisiana all of whom object to extending medical care for the poor and setting up insurance exchanges.
In the matter of Medicare the choice is simple, we can provide Medicare insurance to the poor so they are less sick less often or, as the governors seem to believe, we can allow them to become more sick, more often, and then go to Hospitals, the most expensive form of medical care where the cost is ultimately covered by the cost of insurance on everyone else. Certainly not common sense.
The nonsense with insurance exchanges is equally wrong headed, aka just plain dumb. By not setting up exchanges these governors require citizens without employer provided insurance to buy as individuals. Such insurance is, and here I speak from my own experience, much more expensive and consequentially leads many to become uninsured. The result is as above, more sick, more often, care in much more expensive hospital settings, cost born by everyone else. Certainly not common sense.
Ideological purity leads to bad government. It's time for Congress and Governors alike to look to the "general welfare" of United States citizens. That's one of the principals of our form of government. That's just common sense.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
When is privacy not privacy
Recently I received this email from TurboTax.
By way of setting context, TurboTax is a great product, witness their market share. I've used it for several years and been reasonably satisified.
But is this reasonable privacy? On first reading it might seem OK but what it doesn't say raises some issues. This policy doesn't say that TurboTax will not sell my data, only that it will not explicitly identify it as belonging to me. It doesn't say that TurboTax will not sell my email address. It doesn't say that TurboTax won't aggregate my data to identify the town I live in or the street I live on as appropriate for some purpose.
Common Sense wonders, when is privacy not private?
| |||||
and we want to share our privacy statement with you.But is this reasonable privacy? On first reading it might seem OK but what it doesn't say raises some issues. This policy doesn't say that TurboTax will not sell my data, only that it will not explicitly identify it as belonging to me. It doesn't say that TurboTax will not sell my email address. It doesn't say that TurboTax won't aggregate my data to identify the town I live in or the street I live on as appropriate for some purpose.
Common Sense wonders, when is privacy not private?
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Court and Health Care
Worth some time to hear - A Moot Court: Health Care on Trial. Interesting Moot Court on health care debate. Definitely worth a listen.
Friday, March 2, 2012
The Associated Press: Maine GOP Sen. Snowe won't seek re-election
The Associated Press: Maine GOP Sen. Snowe won't seek re-election:
When a center Republican is so fed up that she quits things in Congress are clearly not good for the majority of Americans.
When a center Republican is so fed up that she quits things in Congress are clearly not good for the majority of Americans.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
An argument for social justice
Common Sense has a cousin with a decidedly off center sense of humor. From time to time he sends interesting and humorous emails around. Now, before getting upset, take a moment to think about if/why this might be funny or perhaps sad.
You're a sick senior citizen and the government says there is no nursing home available for you. So what do you do?
Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun and 4 bullets. You are allowed to shoot four Politicians. Of course, this means you will be sent to prison where you will get three meals a day, a roof over your head, central heating, air conditioning and all the health care you need!
Need new teeth? No problem. Need glasses? That's great. Need a new hip, knees, kidney, lungs or heart? They're all covered.
|
As an added bonus, your kids can come and visit you as often as they do now.
And who will be paying for all of this? It's the same government that just told you that they cannot afford for you to go into a home.
Plus, and because you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income taxes anymore.
Is this a great country or what?
And who will be paying for all of this? It's the same government that just told you that they cannot afford for you to go into a home.
Plus, and because you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income taxes anymore.
Is this a great country or what?
Friday, February 10, 2012
Radical Politics and Government
One might think that there isn't much connection between the Keystone Pipeline, Birth Control Insurance coverage, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau controversies. One would be wrong.
In each of these cases Congress passed a law and the Executive branch implemented it. But some in Congress, particularly the radical right, didn't like the execution. They thought that a minority in Congress (recall that the laws were passed by a majority) elected by a portion (recall that congressmen represent districts in individual states not the entire country) should exercise both legislative and executive authority in government.
Our Constitution explicitly provides for separation of powers. It explicitly provides for a legislative branch composed of representatives of relatively small segments of the country. In principle these representatives are to work together compromising to pass laws to address the needs of the whole country. Those laws, in turn, are to be implemented by the President elected by the whole country to head the Executive branch.
Congresses and the President are often at odds, particularly recently as some in Congress seek to impose their will on the entire government. It's time that Congress with a 9% to 10% approval rating understand that the country is beyond fed up with their unwillingness to compromise and effectively address the countries real needs. It's time that Mr Boehner and his radical colleagues in the House come to grips with the notion that insurance coverage for birth control is about, well, insurance coverage for birth control. The Catholic hierarchy and bishops continue to be free to hold a religious belief inconsistent with the vast majority of Catholic women. However, they are not free to impose that belief on their employees in businesses that are not essentially religious in nature. It's time that Mr McConnell and his radical colleagues in the Senate come to grips with the reality that the Consumer Protection Agency law was passed by Congress and it is patently unreasonable for a handful of Senators to block the appointment of a clearly qualified head because they don't like the details of a law that they do not have the votes to change. It's time that radical Republican elements in Congress understand that there are existing laws governing approval of projects such as the Keystone pipeline designed to protect the environment. No amount of money from big oil should change that.
The President's approval rating today is 53%. Congress's is 10%. Notwithstanding all the vitriol from the Republican nomination campaigns, it is radical "my way or the highway" politics that underlies the public's profound dissatisfaction with government. Common Sense thinks it's time to replace Congress. That's just common sense.
In each of these cases Congress passed a law and the Executive branch implemented it. But some in Congress, particularly the radical right, didn't like the execution. They thought that a minority in Congress (recall that the laws were passed by a majority) elected by a portion (recall that congressmen represent districts in individual states not the entire country) should exercise both legislative and executive authority in government.
Our Constitution explicitly provides for separation of powers. It explicitly provides for a legislative branch composed of representatives of relatively small segments of the country. In principle these representatives are to work together compromising to pass laws to address the needs of the whole country. Those laws, in turn, are to be implemented by the President elected by the whole country to head the Executive branch.
Congresses and the President are often at odds, particularly recently as some in Congress seek to impose their will on the entire government. It's time that Congress with a 9% to 10% approval rating understand that the country is beyond fed up with their unwillingness to compromise and effectively address the countries real needs. It's time that Mr Boehner and his radical colleagues in the House come to grips with the notion that insurance coverage for birth control is about, well, insurance coverage for birth control. The Catholic hierarchy and bishops continue to be free to hold a religious belief inconsistent with the vast majority of Catholic women. However, they are not free to impose that belief on their employees in businesses that are not essentially religious in nature. It's time that Mr McConnell and his radical colleagues in the Senate come to grips with the reality that the Consumer Protection Agency law was passed by Congress and it is patently unreasonable for a handful of Senators to block the appointment of a clearly qualified head because they don't like the details of a law that they do not have the votes to change. It's time that radical Republican elements in Congress understand that there are existing laws governing approval of projects such as the Keystone pipeline designed to protect the environment. No amount of money from big oil should change that.
The President's approval rating today is 53%. Congress's is 10%. Notwithstanding all the vitriol from the Republican nomination campaigns, it is radical "my way or the highway" politics that underlies the public's profound dissatisfaction with government. Common Sense thinks it's time to replace Congress. That's just common sense.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Birth Control and Religious Freedom
There is much ado now about the recent Department of Health and Human Services decision to require employers that provide health insurance to include birth control coverage. Controversy arises because the new rule applies to religiously affiliated institutions such as hospitals, universities, etc. The current rule includes an exception for religious institutions proper.
Those that oppose the rule cite religious freedom arguing that requiring religiously affiliated institutions (not churches proper) to provide birth control coverage (not birth control itself) it is a violation of their religious rights and beliefs and violates the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
It is worth noting what the Federal Constitution actually says. Herewith the entire text:
Now comes the matter of birth control as an element of health insurance. Is it reasonable, even under the protection of the First Amendment, for a religiously affiliated institution such as a university or hospital to deny birth control coverage in their health insurance policy?
Common Sense says no for several reasons. First, such institutions are not inherently religious in their operation since their principal purpose is other than religious practice. Simply put, they are not churches. Second, such institutions routinely employ people who do not subscribe to their religious beliefs. Moreover, the law already broadly prohibits employment discrimination based on religion! Thus an institution claiming a religious exemption to the provision of health insurance coverage for birth control contains significant elements of belief imposition on citizens that do not share those beliefs. Finally, notwithstanding insurance coverage, those who do not believe in birth control remain entirely free to forego birth control services.
Common Sense recognizes that an argument might be made that requiring a religiously affiliated organization to pay for birth control coverage is a violation of the practice of their religious beliefs. But, as pointed out previously, some abridgments are in fact allowed.
Common Sense notes, for Catholics, the principal source of the current controversy, birth control in the form of abstinence is in fact permissible. This birth control is not inherently wrong and the issue is about the technical means of birth control Moreover, a significant majority of Catholics already practice non-sanctioned birth control. Thus any issue is not between Catholics and DHHS but between the Catholic hierarchy and DHHS.
Common Sense believes that government at all levels should with very rare exception not get into religious beliefs. Just as importantly, religious organizations should not get into government. Mixing religion and politics is a highly toxic brew that almost invariably poisons democracy and freedom. That's just common sense.
Those that oppose the rule cite religious freedom arguing that requiring religiously affiliated institutions (not churches proper) to provide birth control coverage (not birth control itself) it is a violation of their religious rights and beliefs and violates the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
It is worth noting what the Federal Constitution actually says. Herewith the entire text:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Surprisingly, the Federal Constitution actually provides a rather limited set of religious rights. Fortunately, over the years various courts have materially extended those rights to provide an extensive set of religious rights. Even so, and notwithstanding the free exercise language of the First Amendment, religious rights are not absolute. Polygamy is illegal even though it is a belief in several contemporary religions. Churches are exempt from some but not all taxes and labor laws. Churches are bound by drug laws. While our laws provide for many religious freedoms they do not allow absolute religious freedom.
Now comes the matter of birth control as an element of health insurance. Is it reasonable, even under the protection of the First Amendment, for a religiously affiliated institution such as a university or hospital to deny birth control coverage in their health insurance policy?
Common Sense says no for several reasons. First, such institutions are not inherently religious in their operation since their principal purpose is other than religious practice. Simply put, they are not churches. Second, such institutions routinely employ people who do not subscribe to their religious beliefs. Moreover, the law already broadly prohibits employment discrimination based on religion! Thus an institution claiming a religious exemption to the provision of health insurance coverage for birth control contains significant elements of belief imposition on citizens that do not share those beliefs. Finally, notwithstanding insurance coverage, those who do not believe in birth control remain entirely free to forego birth control services.
Common Sense recognizes that an argument might be made that requiring a religiously affiliated organization to pay for birth control coverage is a violation of the practice of their religious beliefs. But, as pointed out previously, some abridgments are in fact allowed.
Common Sense notes, for Catholics, the principal source of the current controversy, birth control in the form of abstinence is in fact permissible. This birth control is not inherently wrong and the issue is about the technical means of birth control Moreover, a significant majority of Catholics already practice non-sanctioned birth control. Thus any issue is not between Catholics and DHHS but between the Catholic hierarchy and DHHS.
Common Sense believes that government at all levels should with very rare exception not get into religious beliefs. Just as importantly, religious organizations should not get into government. Mixing religion and politics is a highly toxic brew that almost invariably poisons democracy and freedom. That's just common sense.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Foxconn, Apple, Microsoft, and American Manufacturing Jobs
CNN had a report on Foxconn, US Jobs, and Apple and Microsoft. Briefly the report notes that Foxconn, a major supplier for Apple and Microsoft, has very poor working conditions. Apple and Microsoft, as one would expect, released statements that trivialized the report. Of course, it's easy enough to release corporate statements. Undoing facts is a much more difficult proposition.
It's easy for companies to ship jobs to low cost Asian suppliers is the only criteria is cost. But is that the only criteria a company should have? The short answer common sense answer is no it's not. Corporations are creations of society licensed by government and given certain extraordinary rights in law. They are not a law unto themselves or created from on high. Consequently, corporations have responsibilities as well as rights. There was a time in the United States when corporate social responsibility was much more common. Perhaps it's time we, through our government, require more from our corporations.
There is another reason to avoid the trap of low cost as the only criteria. By manufacturing in China Apple creates jobs in China at wages that do not support sales in China. Apple damages the US middle class the principal driver of consumption and economic growth. Apple destroys the very market it depends on for sales! While offshoring jobs may work short term, it guarantees long term market failure.
Common Sense wonders should US consumers and businesses continue to do business with companies that have suppliers with near slavery working conditions? The short answer is no we shouldn't. It's time to stop buying Apple and Microsoft products and turn to products made by suppliers with reasonable working conditions that pay living wages. Made in America is a common sense idea if you would like to see the return of the American middle class, improved economic growth, and jobs.
Related articles
It's easy for companies to ship jobs to low cost Asian suppliers is the only criteria is cost. But is that the only criteria a company should have? The short answer common sense answer is no it's not. Corporations are creations of society licensed by government and given certain extraordinary rights in law. They are not a law unto themselves or created from on high. Consequently, corporations have responsibilities as well as rights. There was a time in the United States when corporate social responsibility was much more common. Perhaps it's time we, through our government, require more from our corporations.
There is another reason to avoid the trap of low cost as the only criteria. By manufacturing in China Apple creates jobs in China at wages that do not support sales in China. Apple damages the US middle class the principal driver of consumption and economic growth. Apple destroys the very market it depends on for sales! While offshoring jobs may work short term, it guarantees long term market failure.
Common Sense wonders should US consumers and businesses continue to do business with companies that have suppliers with near slavery working conditions? The short answer is no we shouldn't. It's time to stop buying Apple and Microsoft products and turn to products made by suppliers with reasonable working conditions that pay living wages. Made in America is a common sense idea if you would like to see the return of the American middle class, improved economic growth, and jobs.
Related articles
Friday, December 23, 2011
There's a tax "cut" deal ... NOT. Time to change Congress.
So the news today is that there's a tax cut deal. Really? The expatriation of the temporary tax cut has been avoided for two months. Point one - there never was a permanent tax cut, just a temporary one. Neither democrats or republicans ever proposed a permanent reduction in the payroll tax! The deal, such as it is, provides a two months extension of the temporary cut and (here's the important part) provides for a republican/democratic conference committee to work on a one year extension of the tax cut. Still no permanent tax cut, just a 12 month extension. More interesting still is who is on the conference committee. So far what we know is that of the 5 of the 8 house members have already said that they oppose a one year extension!
Common Sense thinks that what we have here is more of the same from our Congress. Just the most recent round of partisan posturing and gamesmanship without any concern for you or me. It's time to change your congressional representative.
Common Sense thinks that what we have here is more of the same from our Congress. Just the most recent round of partisan posturing and gamesmanship without any concern for you or me. It's time to change your congressional representative.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
This week in your failed Congress
Act 1, pizza is a vegetable! Your Congress properly lobbied by various food industry groups and faced with some common sense from the Agriculture Department who set standards for publicly funded school lunches has declared that pizza is a vegetable for purposes of school lunch standards since it includes two tablespoons of tomato paste. OK, Common Sense likes pizza and ate one last night. They are tasty and are high on the comfort food list. They are also, as anyone with any experience and a lick of common sense knows, mostly bread and when not well made starchy beyond belief. On a positive note it's good to see that congress did something even if it's plainly stupid and not in the interest of good nutrition for school students that need good nutrition.
Act 2, a not so super "Super Committee." Lets start with a bit of history. Some months ago House Republicans created a crisis refusing to raise the nations debt ceiling. After much political posturing it was raised and a Super Committee created to cut spending and raise revenues. As anyone with a lick of common sense should have expected given the committee makeup the committee Republicans refused to raise taxes (Common Sense notes that it is NOT a tax hike when a temporary tax cut passed to soften the recession is allowed to expire on its planned expiration date) while the committee Democrats proposed a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. The committee failed to reach any agreement. As a consequence a number of social and military tax cuts will automatically take effect in 2013. The House Republican response is to propose a law with would undo the military cuts.
Common Sense is beyond fed up with Congress. Congress seems to be able to engage in "pizza is a vegetable" foolishness to support the interest of the commercial food industry, it is utterly unable to address the single most serious issue facing the United States government. It's long past time when each of us needs to act to change Congress, particularly those Representatives that block reasonable revenue increases and expense cuts. That's just common sense.
Act 2, a not so super "Super Committee." Lets start with a bit of history. Some months ago House Republicans created a crisis refusing to raise the nations debt ceiling. After much political posturing it was raised and a Super Committee created to cut spending and raise revenues. As anyone with a lick of common sense should have expected given the committee makeup the committee Republicans refused to raise taxes (Common Sense notes that it is NOT a tax hike when a temporary tax cut passed to soften the recession is allowed to expire on its planned expiration date) while the committee Democrats proposed a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. The committee failed to reach any agreement. As a consequence a number of social and military tax cuts will automatically take effect in 2013. The House Republican response is to propose a law with would undo the military cuts.
Common Sense is beyond fed up with Congress. Congress seems to be able to engage in "pizza is a vegetable" foolishness to support the interest of the commercial food industry, it is utterly unable to address the single most serious issue facing the United States government. It's long past time when each of us needs to act to change Congress, particularly those Representatives that block reasonable revenue increases and expense cuts. That's just common sense.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Inside Job - See it and understand what the Occupy movement is all about
If you've not seen the documentary Inside Job you should! Wikipedia provides the following description
If you've ever wondered what the Occupy movement is all about, this film is a must see.
Inside Job is a 2010 documentary film about the late-2000s financial crisis directed by Charles H. Ferguson. The film is described by Ferguson as being about "the systemic corruption of the United States by the financial services industry and the consequences of that systemic corruption."[3]In five parts, the film explores how changes in the policy environment and banking practices helped create the financial crisis. Inside Job was well received by film critics who praised its pacing, research, and exposition of complex material.Common Sense has posted on these matters previously. This outstanding film provides a comprehensive summary of the outrageous conduct of large financial services firms, the corruption of government regulators, and the malfeasance of elected and appointed government.
If you've ever wondered what the Occupy movement is all about, this film is a must see.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Class warfare and social inequality
Common Sense commented on class warfare in a post yesterday. This mourning's news had Rep. Boehner nattering on about class warfare. A bit of research lead to this very interesting and relevant presentation on Ted Talks: "Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies." Mr Wilkinson provides some compelling data on the health of a society and inequality. Here's the video:
Monday, May 9, 2011
Cairo, the US, and hatred.
Clashes in Cairo Leave 12 Dead and 2 Churches in Flames - NYTimes.com: "A night of street fighting between hundreds of Muslims and Christians left at least 12 people dead and two churches in flames on Sunday in the latest outbreak of sectarian tensions in the three months since the revolution that ousted President Hosni Mubarak."
Related articles, courtesy of Zemanta:
Creating a civil society is far more difficult as recent events show. Egypt and much of the world is riven by long standing devisive hatred. In this case it's religious. In other cases it's ethnic, think Tutsi v. Hutu. Sometimes it's historical, think Cyprus. Whatever the supposed justification, it is always simply destructive of the society. Such hatreds are a fundamental cause of the poverty and systemic dysfunction in those societies.
In the United States we are largely spared this curse. But we are not completely free of it. Consider these recent news items:
But systemic divisiveness goes beyond such patently offensive behavior. Indeed, Common Sense thinks that much of the heated and distorted political rhetoric is simply a reflection of divisiveness. It's about us versus them. The left versus the right. It's about victory over the others.
But we, all of us, are the others. No matter how often our side or your side wins, we all live in the United States. It's time, long since past time, that all Americans grew up and recognized that we succeed or fail as a nation not as Republicans or Democrats. It's time to understand that politics is about what's good for the governed, all the governed, not just the wealthy or business.
Rodney King said it well, "Can't we all just get along." That's just common sense.
- Mobs set Cairo churches on fire amidst Muslim-Christian clashes, 190 arrested
- Sectarian Clash In Egypt Leads To Multiple Deaths
- Egypt sectarian deaths slammed amid civil war fear
Creating a civil society is far more difficult as recent events show. Egypt and much of the world is riven by long standing devisive hatred. In this case it's religious. In other cases it's ethnic, think Tutsi v. Hutu. Sometimes it's historical, think Cyprus. Whatever the supposed justification, it is always simply destructive of the society. Such hatreds are a fundamental cause of the poverty and systemic dysfunction in those societies.
In the United States we are largely spared this curse. But we are not completely free of it. Consider these recent news items:
- Muslim group: two imams pulled from plane bound for North Carolina
- 'I heard about your uncle': Texas teacher suspended for mocking Muslim girl over Bin Laden
But systemic divisiveness goes beyond such patently offensive behavior. Indeed, Common Sense thinks that much of the heated and distorted political rhetoric is simply a reflection of divisiveness. It's about us versus them. The left versus the right. It's about victory over the others.
But we, all of us, are the others. No matter how often our side or your side wins, we all live in the United States. It's time, long since past time, that all Americans grew up and recognized that we succeed or fail as a nation not as Republicans or Democrats. It's time to understand that politics is about what's good for the governed, all the governed, not just the wealthy or business.
Rodney King said it well, "Can't we all just get along." That's just common sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)