H O W A R D S B E N D

As summer draws to a close, President Obama asks his two girls, Malia and Sasha, to join him at the kitchen table to discuss some family policy…

President:  Girls, you know the summer comes to a close this weekend, and therefore I hope you agree that we cannot further extend the very late-night bedtimes that you enjoyed for the past few months.

Sasha:  Daddy, I have to disagree with your point.  These late nights are  very stimulative for our growth, as many great TV shows do not come on until late at night.

President:  Over the past summer, we have granted you the additional freedoms that come with early adulthood and instituted a very liberal bedtime policy. This bedtime policy was instituted to stimulate your non-academic endeavors.   However, Labor Day is the deadline for this policy, and we will not extend your late night privileges any longer.   I think that 9:30 is a fair bedtime given both your ages.

Malia:  Daddy, first and foremost, I am three years older than Sasha and will never consent to having the same bedtime as my younger sister. 9:30  is simply ridiculous! I am NOT budging from 12:30.

Sasha:  Daddy, there is no debate.  You are absolutely wrong.  I say 12:30 as well.

President:   Labor Day is our deadline, and this must be worked out by then.  I agree 9:30 might have been a little too early, how about 10:00 for Sasha and 10:30 for Malia.

Sasha:  Daddy, you are not neogtiating fairly and I don’t accept any of your premises.  I’m leaving!

President:  Sasha, please come back.  Come on, Sasha, please come back to the kitchen table.

Malia: I cannot believe you’re just sitting here as Sasha walks out.

Prsident:  I will deal with Sasha later, but I think 10:30 is fair for a 13-year-old.

Malia:  Dad, I am not giving up Jon Stewart who comes on 11:00. It’s the only way I get my news!  And you know I have to see the Letterman monologue! I always watch his first guest.  That takes us to midnight…and then Sasha and I usually have a little snack before bed.  By the time we brush our teeth and put on our pajamas it will be 12:30!

President:  OK, tell Sasha it is 12:30.  I am glad we had a chance to discuss the matter and come to a fair compromise.

Do you want to support farm subsidies? – $24 billion       Y___       N___

Do you want to support corn to ethanol subsidies? – $6 billion       Y___       N___

Do you want to support oil company exploration subsidies? – $40 billion       Y___       N___

Do you want to support the production of the new F35 fighter plane? – $30 billion       Y___       N___

Do you want to support the Program for Arts and Humanities? – $1 billion       Y___       N___

Do you want to support cancer research through the Department of Health? – $2 billion       Y___       N___

Do you want to maintain the corporate jet tax deduction? – $2 billion       Y___       N___

Do you want to support our space program through NASA? – $3 billion     Y___    N___

Do you want to continue our foreign aid and assistance program? – $10 billion     Y___    N___

Our representative form of democracy is failing in many ways, but most dramatically in establishing the federal budget.  Over the past number of years, Congressional members are serving more and more their corporate sponsors which results in either specific spending programs for these sponsors or very favorable tax breaks for these same companies.  Both result in a drain on our federal coffers. Today, all Congressional spending decisions are held hostage by a group of approximately 60 House Tea Party members, representing 15-18% of our population, who want to indiscriminately cut hundreds of billions, mostly in social programs and our traditional social support networks, form the federal budget.

There has to be a better way that will get people more directly involved in federal decision and not rely on their elected representatives that are at the “mercy” of their corporate sponsors.  I am proposing that each year we include with your tax form a menu 8 to 10 discretionary spending items.  We ask the people to chose if they would like to support the various programs.  For instance, we ask the public if they want to support farm subsidies for $20 billion per year.  If you select “No”, your tax payment for the year will be reduced by a pre-determined amount, say $1,000.  If you chose “No” for the ethanol subsidy, your tax payment is reduced say another $250.  The federal budget for this payment or tax subsidy is then adjusted for the percentage of people voting for the specific item.  If only 25% of the people support the farm subsidy, then the federal spending in this area has to be reduced from $24 billion to $6 billion.  If only half the people support the ethanol subsidy, then the federal budget is cut in half.

Congress would have to establish guidelines for this program.  For instance, our new “Super Congress” could pick the 10 items which will appear on the tax form.  Of course, these items will have to be chosen from the “discretionary” items of the federal budget.  Once an item appears on the tax form, it cannot appear again for 5 years so that if farms subsidies is reduced to $6 billion then that item cannot appear on the tax form  for the next 5 years.

This program does not really address the revenue side of the federal budget.  However, this program can be the first step in making our democracy more  “democratic” and less dependent on representative who are not really representing their constituents.   This program does not help reduce the federal deficit as all spending cuts are linked dollar-for-dollar  with tax-cuts.  This program begins the process in which the population of America begins to feel more tied in to the budget process and therefore in the long-run will work to get involved in reducing the federal deficit.

In February 2008, Michelle Obama, at a rally ironically in Wisconsin, proudly boasted that “for the first time in her adult life, she was proud to be an American”  (see link below).   No doubt that sentiment was a response to the country’s overwhelming support for a candidate who promised to bring about the long-awaited fundamental change to our political system.  The year 2008 seems like ancient history.

Well today I’d like to ask Michelle Obama a follow-up question:  “In the year 2011, are you still proud to be an American?”

Are you proud that the President capitulated to the Republicans’ demand to extend tax cuts for the richest Americans wreaking further havoc on the out-of-control federal deficit?

Are you proud that the President’s new budget inflates the $700 billion military budget by $22 billion while it simultaneously slashes $1 billion for financial assistance to seniors for their heating bills, and steals another $1 billion from food subsidies for impoverished children?

Are you proud that the President’s budget protects and preserves $20 billion in farm subsidies and $6 billion in ethanol subsidies, even though most experts believe that these very inefficient forms of energy production only lead to higher food prices?

Will you continue to be proud of America if the Republicans are successful in muscling through many of the $61 billion ANTI-regulatory, ANTI-environment, ANTI-nutrition, ANTI-education, ANTI-economic development and PRO-business budget cuts they are currently proposing?

Can you continue to be proud of America if Congress is successful in repealing the new healthcare law?  Will you be proud if the EPA, FDA, Planned Parenthood and PBS/NPR crumble in the new year?  Can you state that you are proud of America if the “hope” and change we can believe in” vanish with the passing of the new federal budget.

I believe that we are now at a tipping point in America wherein the Republicans want to turn back the clocks 50 years.   We need to fight for the changes that we heard about in the 2008 campaign which should bring about a better tomorrow.  Will you be able to state in 2012 that “you are still proud to be an American”?

The country is rapidly approaching a fiscal train wreck, the scale of which has only been seen in “Super 8”.  Most train wrecks are of a sudden nature and almost impossible to prevent at the very last moment.  The fiscal train wreck that is approaching has been coming down the tracks for a few months now and will not hit for almost another two months and yet nobody is doing anything to prevent the pending disaster.

The US federal government is rapidly approaching the maximum limit on its debt borrowings.  It is expected that the US debt will hit approximately $14 trillion in early August.  At that point, the federal government will not be able to borrow additional  funds to pay its obligations and will mostly default on its debt obligations.  The default on our federal debt is expected to wreak havoc on the world’s financial system.  The Republicans are holding the federal government hostage as they demand massive cuts in federal spending in order to approve an increase in the debt ceiling.

“It is deja vu all over again.”  I am beginning to see a very familiar pattern develop in the approach to legislative impasses.  The Republicans put out their position which is always an extremely conservative position and state that there will be no compromises.  The Republicans in both the House and the Senate are 100% behind this proposal.  The Democrats then publish their position which has most of the Democrats supporting this position, but of course never universal Democratic support.  This Democratic position is already compromised from a truly progressive position and the Democrats let it be know that they will negotiate even further.  As we know, the Republicans do not negotiate at all and an important deadline approaches.

It is at this point, that the “Lone Ranger” President jumps into the negotiations.  Missing in action up to this point, the President, like our masked childhood hero, now steps into the fray with the clock ticking down.  The President took this approach on the international scale as he arrived on the last day of the Olympic Committee’s decision for the site of the 2016 Olympic Games and tried this same approach when he arrived on the last day in Copenhagen at the International Conference on Global Warming.  One both these accounts he failed to persuade the appropriate body of his viewpoint and in both cases he was turned down.

In domestic politics, the Lone Ranger does not like to partake in the long drawn out battles to win public opinion which would involve an extensive road tours constantly outlining his position.  Also involved in this process of passing legislation favorable to the party’s platform would be strongly convincing reluctant members of  the Democratic Party to stand together through this fight.  This would entail confronting his own party members.  The President prefers to come in the last minute to the stalled talks and convince his party to give the Republican Party almost everything they want eking a small token of reform for his own party.  We saw this approach in the healthcare debate in which the President never got his party to go along with the public option.  The President again used this last minute entry into the budget debate last December with the President conceding the tax breaks for the wealth and no reduction in tax benefits for large corporations in order to get the budget passed as the deadline approached.

The President has been missing in action during the debt ceiling debate.  The Republicans have put out their position demanding hundreds of billions in cuts in federal spending in return for increasing the debt ceiling.  The Democrats have no cohesive policy and the President has not been leading the debate.  Therefore, we can expect the President to approach the legislative talks again at the last moment in the beginning of August.  At this point he will make it clear “that his hands are tied” as the deadline approaches and that although he does not support all these cuts he will go along with them “in the name of compromise.”  The Republicans will get massive cuts to social programs, support of education and most likely cuts to Medicare and Social Security.  We will hear that time just ran out and the President will promise that next time he will not support such massive cuts.  “Who was the man?”

As I see it,  the Miami Heat only have two problems to work out before game six of the NBA Championship Series.  The first is their offense and the second is their defense.

I will start with the defense as this appears to be the easier problem to address.  The Heat trap the ball on almost every possession which means that two Miami defenders are on the ball trying to take the ball or force a weak pass out of the double-team so that it can be intercepted by a teammate off the ball.  This has not worked to create turnovers as Dallas is too good and too well disciplined to be forced into rash mistakes.  Dallas has seen this same defense for five games now and has the timing to turn this aggressive defense into an ineffectual and counter-productive strategy.  The Dallas player with the ball quickly passes away from the double-team to an open teammate.  Generally the Miami defense can rotate quick enough to cover the first pass, but Dallas who spaces the floor perfectly makes a second and sometimes a third pass around the court until someone is wide open for a jump shot.  Dallas has too many players that can hit a wide open shot.  The Miami defense should play a “stay-at-home” defense in which every Miami player sticks to the one man he is defending.  It might be difficult to guard Dirk Nowitzki with one man and he will probably get 35 points.  However, none of the other Dallas players are skilled enough to create their own shot and this defense will absolutely eliminate the wide-opne threes that defeated Miami in game 5.  This defense would allow Dirk is 35 with the four or five other offense players averaging 10 points each giving Dallas a total score of 75 to 80 points for the game.

The offense will be much harder to fix.  First, the Heat must take the ball out of LeBron’s hands as he likes to hold the ball thirty feet from the basket as the shot clock winds down believing he will make the perfect pass for the score or hit a three pointer as the shot clock goes off neither of these happening recently.  Put the ball in a guard’s hands and let LeBron work to get open either running through picks or posting up his defender.  Making LeBron work for the ball will hopefully get him into the flow of the offense.

Dallas has been using the zone to prevent Miami from penetrating and getting to the basket.  Against this zone, Miami should go small with Wade holding the ball and Chalmers and  Miller set at the three point line and James on the baseline.  Haslem sets a pick that lets Wade penetrate into the zone and as the zone collapses around him he can kick the ball out to his shooters on the three point line or find James along the baseline for a dunk or pass to Haslem who goes to the free throw line.  Against, the man-to-man, the Heat have demonstrated their efficiency on using the pick.  These picks have created mismatches with James being guard by Jason Kidd or Jason Terry.  James must take advantage of this mismatch and go to the basket instead of passively passing away from this key opportunity.  Also the Heat worked the pick-and -roll to perfection during the forth quarter of Game 5.  I would repeat this until it does not work anymore.

And finally, I might hang a big sign from the rafters stating, ” Michael 6, Magic 5, Kobe 5, Lebron  0.”  Let LeBron mew over what greatness is about.

Remember the “Golden Age for Democrats” when they controlled the Presidency, the House of Representatives and the Senate – three branches of government all at the same time.  This wonderful and glorious period lasted all the way from January 2009 up to and including December 2010.  What a fantastic period for the Democrats.  Although no really significant piece of legislation passed, unless you want to count the Healthcare Reform bill, it was still fun to be able to boast to our Republican friends that the Democrats controlled  three branches of government.

Well, the Republicans have handed the Democrats the opportunity to usher in the Second Golden Age for Democrats.  On April 15 of this year, 235 Republicans in the House voted in favor of the Ryan budget which would replace our traditional system for Medicare with a voucher system in which the federal government would pay a fixed sum to a Medicare recipient and this individual would have to go out to the private insurance marketplace and try to secure medical health insurance at whatever premium was then available.  They quickly learned at their town hall meeting during the Easter break that the American people might be for smaller government but not at the expense of their Medicare.  Harry Reid, moving with as much speed as he could muster, brought the same Ryan budget proposal to the Senate floor for a vote where 40 Republicans voted in favor of the bill that would end “Medicare as we know it.”

The Republicans are on the ropes.  They are being pounded in the polls where recent surveys should that 70% of Americans oppose the Ryan Plan.  They are being pounded in special elections as voters resist Republican candidates that support the Ryan budget.  Now is the time for the Democrats to provide the knockout punch.  The Democrats in the Senate  should immediately pass a bill that converts the medical coverage for members of the House and Senate to a voucher system.  Then the House members, especially the Republicans would then have to vote for a bill that converts their “Cadillac” health insurance program to a voucher system.  I would love to see Paul Ryan voting for a program that puts him on a medical insurance program that is paid for with a fixed voucher.  I guarantee we will see many House Republicans voting against a system that they recently supported. “First they were for it and then they were against it.”

The Democrats in the Senate should next bring up a bill that would offer the “voucher” program to all seniors starting today on a voluntary basis.  Seniors today, on voluntary basis, could chose to receive $800/month from the government and they would be responsible to secure private health insurance on their own.  The House Democrats who do not have the power to bring forth legislation could embarrass the House Republicans to pass a similar bill as this is the plan that they envisioned to save Medicare and have boasted would cut federal spending.  However, the plan to start will be on a voluntary basis with the voucher available today for and any senior deciding to go this route.The Democrats would claim that if this concept works, the program could be expanded.

The passage of such a bill would drive home the false nature of these Republican promises.  First, we can assume that this program will have very little interest to the overall senior population.  We will see what percentage of the senior population opt for this program and we will see which income levels this plan might appeal to.  Second, we will be given exact costs for a private healthcare plan for a senior with pre-existing conditions.  There will be no more hypotheticals.  We will be able to see what the monthly premium will be for a senior with diabetes and high blood pressure.  We will see if a senior with a history of cancer can secure private health insurance which would cover all the costs of his treatment.  We will see what major medical procedures are allowed and those that are disallowed by the private health insurance company.  We will also be able to compare costs and customer satisfaction between the public and the private plans.

The Republicans like to claim that the American people want choices and that the private market is the fairest judge of pricing services.  Therefore, I believe that if the Democrats in both Houses move to pass a Republican styled voucher system for healthcare, but on a voluntary basis, all the flaws and shortcomings of such a system will be exposed and as a result all the 235 House Republicans and 40 Senate Republicans would be questioned on their understanding of the country’s problems.  It will be clear that these Republicans are hypocrites and do not have real solutions for Medicare.  These pieces of legislation should result in total defeat of the Republican Party in the 2012 elections.

Well, I never thought that these words would come from my mouth.  I might be banished from all the liberal websites and progressive blogs.  I might shunned by left-wing friends.  But, there is no denying that it is time to cut the federal corporate income tax to zero percent.

Historically, corporate federal income taxes would amount to almost 30% of federal revenue.  Last year, the federal government collected approximately $2.2 trillion and corporate income tax revenue amounted to about 6% of this total.  This is a whopping $130 billion.  When the likes of GE and Exxon pay no taxes and in fact receive a tax refund, something is wrong with the system and needs to be fixed.  There should be a better way to raise tax revenue that does not wreak of hypocrisy and does not tie up billions of dollars and thousands of hours seeking to avoid this necessary evil.

Although the US corporate tax rate is 35%, the average tax rate actually paid by a US corporation is in the mid-20% range due to a host of tax advantages offered to corporate entities.  For illustrative purposes, let’s say that a corporation earns $100 million before taxes.  With an average corporate of 25%, this would equate to $25 million in federal tax revenues.  However, if the federal government has a 0% corporate tax rate, the company would have $25 million of excess cash.  What are the options for this company with this excess cash in its coffers?  First, the company might use the excess cash to pay additional salaries and bonuses.  Or, the company might pay out additional dividends to its shareholders.  In both these instances, the lost federal revenues would come back to government in the form of the personal income tax for those receiving the additional funds.  The tax rate on dividends would have to be increase from the current level of 15% to 35% to keep the federal government revenue neutral.  The other choice for this corporation with $25 million, or some portion thereof, in its coffers would be to invest in its own growth through acquisition of capital equipment or the acquisition of another firm that might make it more competitive in the future.  Although this investment portion of the might represent a loss in direct federal revenues, the federal government might recoup lost revenue if the acquisition is from a domestic firm in which case the profits go to the employees and shareholders and again would be recouped from personal income taxes.  As this $100 million net company grows from this capital expenditure, the federal government would recoup more taxes from employees as salaries increase or from shareholders as dividends are increased as the company increases its profits.

There are many benefits to a zero percent corporate income tax rate.  First, it makes our US manufacturing firms more competitive with foreign manufacturers.  As companies have more cash in their coffers, they have more funds to invest and to increase their competitiveness in the global economy.  Second, the  0% tax rate might draw foreign manufacturers to our shores. Foreign multi-nationals look for competitive environment to locate new manufacturing.   a few years back, Ireland cut their corporate tax rate to 12% and a number of multi-nations moved their operations there.  A 0% rate would draw new manufacturing to the States creating jobs for US citizens and generating more tax revenue for the federal government.  Also, corporations spend billions of dollars and thousands of man-hours on tax avoidance whether through the tax lawyers and accountants that are hired or through the numerous tax havens they must create and maintain just to avoid taxes  One Fortune 500 company has over 200 off-shore tax havens to shelter income from the US federal government.  All this time and money lost would be eliminated with a 0% corporate tax rate freeing up additional funds to invest in the company’s growth.

And finally, one of the most active forms of lobbying efforts in Washington DC, is tax avoidance.  Corporations use their lobbyists to petition Congress for tax breaks for their industries or for certain projects.  The passing of new laws to include these new tax deductions or tax credits take-up a good portion of legislative time and energies.  In addition, this process perpetuates the “money” influence in Washington as receptive Congressmen are rewarded for their efforts with campaign contributions from their corporate benefactors all the time perpetuating the corporate influence over these legislatures.

In conclusion,  this is not a traditional “liberal” proposal.  As the federal deficit soars, the talk amongst “lefties” is to reduce the tax shelters for corporations to bring more revenues to the federal coffers.  This has not worked in the recent past and I do not believe that it will work in the immediate future. .  I believe that by eliminating corporate income taxes the government can earn the same amount of revenues.  A 0% corporate tax rate will allow corporations to become more competitive and will hopefully draw new multi-national manufacturing companies to the US and create more jobs here in the States.

Believe it or not, Scott Walker had me confused.  I knew the governor’s plan to cut public employees’ salaries and benefits was not about a budget shortfall since he recently signed into law a $130 million in tax breaks for corporations.  I could not fathom an elected official being against education which is one of the pillars of the American dream.

Of course, there is the popular argument that Republicans want to privatize education.  The  new”budget crises” would allow states to cut funds for education reducing public schools to babysitting facilities.  This would give momentum to private schools and school voucher programs where people are given vouchers to help offset the cost of tuition at the private schools.

But not everyone can afford a private education even with a state voucher.  The economically challenged public schools would fail to provide a quality education and fail to provide the skills and knowledge required to succeed in today’s high-tech world.  At that point, I realized that this is what these Republicans want.  The poor public educational system will produce under-skilled and uneducated graduates.  Poorly educated people will accept poorer working conditions and not look for advancement and of course accept lower wages with no benefits.   This is the same reason that Republicans do not support unemployment benefits for those out of work.  As the pool of unskilled graduates and unemployed workers without benefits grows the pool of cheap labor expands and wages drop and benefits are cut.  This is the the ideal pool of labor  for America as more and more of the skilled and highly qualified jobs are shipped to cheaper labor sources overseas.

One more lesson from Wisconsin  with the constant battle against the unions and their right to exist.  All of the sudden I realized the reason why several Republican governors have refused federal money for high-speed rail despite the fact that it will bring immediate jobs to the states as construction starts and will continue to provide jobs as the new high speed trains are operational.  Also, this rail should improve commerce and business in the area.  So why should a governor refuse these funds?  Scott Walker gave me the answer.  It is because the high-speed rail would most likely bring union jobs to the state.  The construction jobs would most likely be union jobs and the rail jobs would also most likely be union jobs.  As we learned from Mr. Walker and his supporter David Koch, unions are an anathema  to the Republican politicians and their ultra-rich supporters.  It is more important to keep unions out then bring jobs to a state with high unemployment.  This is not the state of Wisconsin, this is the state of the Union.

I think that we all can take away a few big lessons from the recent turmoil in Wisconsin – it is time to end public school education!

First, there is no fair way to pay for public education.  The system is rigged for those families with many children living in small homes or, even worse, renting apartments.  These families pay no or just a small amount of real estate taxes that are used to fund our schools.   Why should two families living side-by-side in identical homes pay the same real estate taxes when one family has five children and the other couple a single child?  Why should people with no children have to pay school taxes at all?  We need to find a more equitable system.

Second,  the hope and dreams that a quality education are suppose to provide are myths in today’s world of few job opportunities.   Today’s curriculum is burdensome and irrelevant for providing the skills and knowledge to succeed in the world of today.  We teach two years of pre-Algebra and then a year of Algebra I  followed by Algebra II.  I have yet to use the “x” and “y” to help solve a problem in the real world.  How about trigonometry?  We can sine that one to the dumpster, too.

And science education, where has that gotten us?  We produce a bunch of liberal scientists that take federal grant money only to try and convince us that there is global warming.  Or we pay scientists, again with federal and state grant money, to study the behavior of rats and monkeys and then try to educate our children with the theory of evolution.  Science got us to the moon and what did we get for those billions of dollars spent?   Tang.

History?  Forget about it.  We spend more time teaching American history in our schools than we do teaching Algebra.  American History is taught every year in grades 1 through 8, although much of that time focuses on Thanksgiving.  Our kids are taught social studies , whatever that is, in the ninth grade maybe one year of world history in tenth and then back to American history for the junior and senior years.  And what do we get for it?  We have politicians  who you would think would be experts on American history, and yet nationally recognized politicians stumble as they try to recall history to make a point.  John Boehner tells us he is reading the Constitution and then reads from the Declaration of Independence.  Michelle Bachman tells us that the Founding Fathers, led by John Quincy Adams (who we know was not a Founding Father) eliminated slavery.  Sarah Palin cannot recite a single decision handed down by the Supreme Court which she might disagree with.  I can bet that both these politicians got A’s in their history classes.

We, as a society, must move to a system of home schooling.  Only the parents really know what is essential for their children to learn and they can be responsible for passing along this knowledge.  We do not need elected school boards dictating that kids learn subjects that we see as totally irrelevant or contrary to our beliefs.  No one will tell us we cannot teach the Bible in our homes.  I can assure you there will be much fewer discipline problems with home schooling and we will not have to hire a police force to guard the doors of education.  Think of the savings on the federal school lunch program.  Of course, those families that are apathetic to their own childrens’ education can waste their hard-earned dollars sending their kids to private schools.  That is what we mean by ” free choice”.

By ridding ourselves of public education, we immediately go along way in solving the state and local budget problems. We immediately make education more relevant and give control back to our kids to the family.  And finally, we will not have to deal with the divisive teachers’ strike in our community every two years.