So, apparently a bunch of cities (NYC) and states (California) are raising taxes in the hopes of balancing budgets and raising state revenue. While this is a boon to me as a tax attorney (more taxes equals more work), I wonder where fiscal responsibility has gone.
While on an individual (i.e. non-government) basis we are having problems with spending more than we earn, I would venture to say most Americans are fiscally responsible. We tend to spend money that we've already earned and not spend more than we have. Although, again, this may not be the case anymore.
I wonder why the government cannot do the same as we do. If they are spending too much, why are they increasing revenue? Why are they not cutting programs? Why aren't California and New Jersey eliminating programs, which would drive down costs?
From a purely cynical (though righteous) standpoint, I would say that the government rarely, if ever, cuts programs because it would lose the control it has gained from those programs. Anyway, I wonder anymore if there are politicians left in this country who would not rather raise taxes than cut programs.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Evidence that this is all about politics
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-passes-bill-taxing-AIG-apf-14693850.html
This is blatantly unconstitutional. Long story short, in order to tax something, the tax must have been in effect when the something was paid... hence, there are no "Oh yeah, we want to tax that income you earned in 2005 at a higher rate."
So, more evidence that this is more about political posturing than anything else.
This is blatantly unconstitutional. Long story short, in order to tax something, the tax must have been in effect when the something was paid... hence, there are no "Oh yeah, we want to tax that income you earned in 2005 at a higher rate."
So, more evidence that this is more about political posturing than anything else.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
If Bush Was President - 3/18/09
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/pl_usnw/the_american_legion_strongly_opposed_to_president_s_plan_to_charge_wounded_heroes_for_treatment
As I understand the issue, currently the government (i.e. taxpayers) pay approximately $500 million in health care benefits to wounded veterans. President Obama wants to cut this program. This is deeply disturbing for a number of reasons - (1) veterans cannot generally afford health care and we should be taking care of them, (2) of all the things the President is spending money on, I believe this is one program that everyone, and I mean everyone, wants to keep in place, (3) it's stupid, politically, to cut it, and (4) I have heard no mainstream media outlet (CNN, Washington Post, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart) report on this. All of those things are disturbing.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Barack-Obama-Thanks-Himself-In-Teleprompt-Blunder-During-Address-With-Irish-PM-On-St-Patricks-Day/Article/200903315243932?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15243932_Barack_Obama_Thanks_Himself_In_Teleprompt_Blunder_During_Address_With_Irish_PM_On_St_Patricks_Day
This is self-explanatory - if Bush did this, we'd never hear the end of it.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-adminis-1.html
Apparently, President Obama says they did not know about the AIG bonuses until this month. However, according to all media outlets, a Democratic senator (Chris Dodd?) added an amendment to the AIG bailout package that guaranteed bonuses. So, the president didn't know? Hard to believe.
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2009m3d17-Obama-Received-a-101332-Bonus-from-AIG
I don't know if this is completely true or not, but apparently AIG's biggest contributions, politician-wise, went to President Obama and Senator Dodd. Again, this is disturbing, but also self-explanatory.
As I understand the issue, currently the government (i.e. taxpayers) pay approximately $500 million in health care benefits to wounded veterans. President Obama wants to cut this program. This is deeply disturbing for a number of reasons - (1) veterans cannot generally afford health care and we should be taking care of them, (2) of all the things the President is spending money on, I believe this is one program that everyone, and I mean everyone, wants to keep in place, (3) it's stupid, politically, to cut it, and (4) I have heard no mainstream media outlet (CNN, Washington Post, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart) report on this. All of those things are disturbing.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Barack-Obama-Thanks-Himself-In-Teleprompt-Blunder-During-Address-With-Irish-PM-On-St-Patricks-Day/Article/200903315243932?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15243932_Barack_Obama_Thanks_Himself_In_Teleprompt_Blunder_During_Address_With_Irish_PM_On_St_Patricks_Day
This is self-explanatory - if Bush did this, we'd never hear the end of it.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-adminis-1.html
Apparently, President Obama says they did not know about the AIG bonuses until this month. However, according to all media outlets, a Democratic senator (Chris Dodd?) added an amendment to the AIG bailout package that guaranteed bonuses. So, the president didn't know? Hard to believe.
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2009m3d17-Obama-Received-a-101332-Bonus-from-AIG
I don't know if this is completely true or not, but apparently AIG's biggest contributions, politician-wise, went to President Obama and Senator Dodd. Again, this is disturbing, but also self-explanatory.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Crazy? Maybe. Definitely Classy
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090317/D97021CO0.html
Unlike former President Clinton, former President GW Bush has refused to comment on President Obama. For the most part, at least in my un-expert historical opinion (I was a history major), the vast vast majority of presidents do not comment on their successors. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bush I did not criticize or comment on their successors. However, if you notice, former President Clinton constantly criticized and commented on the presidency of Bush.
I think this has more to do with former President Clinton's need to be in the spotlight than any malice aforethought. However, I always thought it was classy that presidents did not criticize their successors. I'm glad Bush is going to do the same thing.
Unlike former President Clinton, former President GW Bush has refused to comment on President Obama. For the most part, at least in my un-expert historical opinion (I was a history major), the vast vast majority of presidents do not comment on their successors. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bush I did not criticize or comment on their successors. However, if you notice, former President Clinton constantly criticized and commented on the presidency of Bush.
I think this has more to do with former President Clinton's need to be in the spotlight than any malice aforethought. However, I always thought it was classy that presidents did not criticize their successors. I'm glad Bush is going to do the same thing.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Anger Rising
This quote got me extremely angry:
Said Obama: "All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multimillion-dollar bonuses. And all they ask is that everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules."
It's from this article - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29714402
So, if I was a reporter, this would be my follow-up question (after I stop shaking my fist at the president... fyi, shaking my fist is my "angry face")...
"Mr. President, when you say that 'everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules,' and then continue to push for and give out bailouts, is that not hypocrticial? Which do you support - bailouts or everyone playing by the same rules?"
Like the title of this post says - anger rising
Here's another ridiculously hypocritical quote from the same article:
Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, earlier Monday charged that the move to pay bonuses amounted to "rewarding incompetence."
"These people may have a right to their bonuses. They don't have a right to their jobs forever," said Frank, a Democrat.
I was so angry, I stopped reading the article.
If the president and Mr. Frank are serious about these issues then STOP GIVING OUT DAMN BAILOUTS!!! However, I think they are not serious about these issues; rather, they are trying to appear popular (or populist).
Seriously, I'm extremely angry.
Said Obama: "All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multimillion-dollar bonuses. And all they ask is that everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules."
It's from this article - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29714402
So, if I was a reporter, this would be my follow-up question (after I stop shaking my fist at the president... fyi, shaking my fist is my "angry face")...
"Mr. President, when you say that 'everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules,' and then continue to push for and give out bailouts, is that not hypocrticial? Which do you support - bailouts or everyone playing by the same rules?"
Like the title of this post says - anger rising
Here's another ridiculously hypocritical quote from the same article:
Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, earlier Monday charged that the move to pay bonuses amounted to "rewarding incompetence."
"These people may have a right to their bonuses. They don't have a right to their jobs forever," said Frank, a Democrat.
I was so angry, I stopped reading the article.
If the president and Mr. Frank are serious about these issues then STOP GIVING OUT DAMN BAILOUTS!!! However, I think they are not serious about these issues; rather, they are trying to appear popular (or populist).
Seriously, I'm extremely angry.
Further Evidence Against Bailouts
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29714426
The gist of the article is that people are mad about AIG's bonuses and, therefore, by extension, mad about the federal bailout. No kidding.
One of the many problems with bailouts is that they award poor performance. So, AIG does a poor job (for whatever reason... maybe it's not their faults). With a bailout, they get rescued from bankruptcy and also get money to pay themselves bonuses. Without a bailout, they fail and there is no more money to pay themselves bonuses. Simply put, the only reason AIG is paying bonuses is because of the bailout. If AIG was not bailed out, they would not be paying bonuses, and no one would be angry.
To be cynical for a moment, what people don't seem to understand is that no matter what party a politician is from, that politician is receiving money from these companies. Microsoft, for example, has given money to both Obama and McCain during the presidential election. This means that Obama and McCain are beholden (is that a word?... it is now) to these corporations. Therefore, the bailout may not necessarily be to "save the economy." Rather, could it be that Obama and McCain (and Congress) want to help out the guys that gave them money so they could run for office? I happen to think that is part of the answer.
So, in a world where the government is telling you to spend more money, is raising your taxes, and is giving YOUR money to corporations so they don't go bankrupty and can pay bonuses to ineffective executives, I would venture to say that there is NOT ENOUGH anger towards the government. I would argue that people should be a whole lot more pissed off than they are.
You also have to ask yourself this little question: We are told on a regular basis that the bailouts are necessary because we'd all lose our jobs and the economy would go into the toilet without them. Here's the quesetion - Are we sure this is true, or are we being lied to? Food for thought.
The gist of the article is that people are mad about AIG's bonuses and, therefore, by extension, mad about the federal bailout. No kidding.
One of the many problems with bailouts is that they award poor performance. So, AIG does a poor job (for whatever reason... maybe it's not their faults). With a bailout, they get rescued from bankruptcy and also get money to pay themselves bonuses. Without a bailout, they fail and there is no more money to pay themselves bonuses. Simply put, the only reason AIG is paying bonuses is because of the bailout. If AIG was not bailed out, they would not be paying bonuses, and no one would be angry.
To be cynical for a moment, what people don't seem to understand is that no matter what party a politician is from, that politician is receiving money from these companies. Microsoft, for example, has given money to both Obama and McCain during the presidential election. This means that Obama and McCain are beholden (is that a word?... it is now) to these corporations. Therefore, the bailout may not necessarily be to "save the economy." Rather, could it be that Obama and McCain (and Congress) want to help out the guys that gave them money so they could run for office? I happen to think that is part of the answer.
So, in a world where the government is telling you to spend more money, is raising your taxes, and is giving YOUR money to corporations so they don't go bankrupty and can pay bonuses to ineffective executives, I would venture to say that there is NOT ENOUGH anger towards the government. I would argue that people should be a whole lot more pissed off than they are.
You also have to ask yourself this little question: We are told on a regular basis that the bailouts are necessary because we'd all lose our jobs and the economy would go into the toilet without them. Here's the quesetion - Are we sure this is true, or are we being lied to? Food for thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)