Conservative – Page 3 – Zombies Uncensored

Hey Rangel: Would You be for Simple Tax Laws Now?

Charlie Rangel faces several charges of ethics violations and dodging taxes.

A quick summary of the charges from The Washington Post article, “Rangel is alone in punishment but not wrongdoing”

The ethics committee scolded him for taking corporate-funded trips to the Caribbean, but has not yet ruled on claims about Rangel’s fundraising, his rent-controlled apartments, the taxes on his Dominican beach place, and even his storing of a vehicle without license plates in a House garage.

Here is another summary from NBC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSdvbKsaimM

Rangel claims to have done nothing wrong, that none of the acts were intentional and are simply matters of forgetfulness and sloppiness. I want to assume Rangel is telling the truth and that they were all unintentional, because it makes a really good argument for making tax rules simpler. When someone who oversees the writing of tax laws can innocently break them, it’s a strong indication the laws are too damn complicated.

From the Cato Institute article 10 Outrageous Facts About the Income Tax.

The U.S. “tax army” is bigger than the U.S. army in Iraq.
32 million IRS penalties assessed each year.
In 1913 there were only 400 pages in the federal tax rules, in 2003 the number of pages had risen to 54,846.

With fifty thousand plus pages of rules, anyone–even the person who writes the rules–could unknowingly violate the rules. I would not be surprised to find out all members in congress are in violation of at least one tax code. The tax code is to large to be comprehensible by a single person.

Expecting someone to not violate the massive amount of tax codes is comparable to a bad parent telling a child to behave, but not telling the child what constitutes good behavior. The bad parent only lets the child know the rules of good behavior once they have broken them.

The other reason I hope Rangel has done nothing wrong is that maybe Rangel will learn some compassion for others caught in the web he has helped weave. When an average citizen claims their were ignorant or forgetful or sloppy with the IRS, they have to prove their innocence. If those in congress feel the sting of being a mere mortal, then someday the tax codes might include an “innocent until proven guilty” clause.

Hey Rangel: Would You be for Simple Tax Laws Now?

Charlie Rangel faces several charges of ethics violations and dodging taxes.

A quick summary of the charges from The Washington Post article, “Rangel is alone in punishment but not wrongdoing”

The ethics committee scolded him for taking corporate-funded trips to the Caribbean, but has not yet ruled on claims about Rangel’s fundraising, his rent-controlled apartments, the taxes on his Dominican beach place, and even his storing of a vehicle without license plates in a House garage.

Here is another summary from NBC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSdvbKsaimM

From the Cato Institute article 10 Outrageous Facts About the Income Tax.

The U.S. “tax army” is bigger than the U.S. army in Iraq.
32 million IRS penalties assessed each year.
In 1913 there were only 400 pages in the federal tax rules, in 2003 the number of pages had risen to 54,846.

Unintended Consequence of Bailouts? More say its OK to Cheat on Taxes

DEMCAD asks, “If you knew someone was cheating on taxes, would you turn them in?”

DEMCAD mentions an IRS oversight board poll in which 13 percent of those surveyed believed cheating on taxes is acceptable, which is up from 9 percent the year before. Then DEMCAD questions if one of the unintended consequence of the big bailouts may be justification to cheat on taxes.

The IRS Oversight Board is independent from the IRS. The board has seven members appointed by the President of the United States. Of the seven, one must be a full-time federal employee or a representative of IRS employees. I’d provide a link to the boards site, but my shrewish fear of government has kicked in.

Even though the board is independent from the IRS, its not independent from the government and that makes its polling suspect. I think its safe to say even though its a government poll showing an increase in acceptance to cheat on taxes, that there really has been an increase because there is so much disappointment with DC.

I can’t say for certain the cause for the increase is the bailouts, but I think it’s probably one of many things the government has done that has weakened the public’s perception that it acts responsibly when spending tax dollars. The Air Force One flyover of New York still pops into my mind each time the subject of irresponsible spending comes up. The flyover was a grand public display of wasting tax dollars, or what government should not be doing.

The cheating the cheaters attitude has increased, and the don’t give money to addicts attitude is increasing also.

Ron Paul and Shameless Media Bias

Here is Ron Paul on CNN’s Broken Us Government with Jack Cafferty

The shameless bias is near the end when Cafferty tells Paul that he wishes he’d run again….and I loved every minute of it.

ObamaCare – You’ll be in control, except when you aren’t.

Out of morbid curiosity, I looked at the Presidents new health care proposal. I wanted to know if the word “mandate” was used in the proposal. Mandate is in there, but it’s not used in the portion describing what the cost is to each person. If you choose to remain uninsured you have to make a payment. In other words, buying health insurance isn’t mandatory, but paying for it is mandatory.

There are other carefully chosen words and phrases in this proposal, like the very first line:

The President’s Proposal puts American families and small business owners in control of their own health care.

Taking away control of choosing to purchase health insurance now puts you in control of health insurance. Just as forcing everyone to purchase a fitness club membership (or make a payment if they choose to remain unfit) puts them in control of their fitness. You will now be in control, except when you aren’t.

Health care costs are described as inevitable as in “make a payment to offset the cost of care they will inevitably need.” Using life insurance is inevitable; using health care insurance is not inevitable. Even using catastrophic health insurance is not inevitable. Not everyone will have an accident and not everyone spends the last year of their life under medical care.

The part titled Improve Individual Responsibility has two paragraphs covering the cost to each person; the cost is not described as a tax, fine, or a penalty. The choice of words to describe the cost is payment, alternative payment and assessment. It’s not a tax, fine, or a penalty; it’s simply a transfer of money from you to your government, and anyone who says otherwise is just itching for a fight.

The proposal mentions curbing insurance company abuses. Its pretty low when insurance contracts have ambiguous, difficult to decipher, or hidden intentions. I’m assuming thats what the President means abuses along the lines of technical language the layperson doesn’t understand or adding hidden meanings, terms, conditions, or unexpressed intentions. Only a lowlife like an insurance company would stoop to those shady tactics.

Below are the two paragraphs covering the transfer of wealth.

Improve Individual Responsibility. All Americans should have affordable health insurance coverage. This helps everyone, both insured and uninsured, by reducing cost shifting, where people with insurance end up covering the inevitable health care costs of the uninsured, and making possible robust health insurance reforms that will curb insurance company abuses and increase the security and stability of health insurance for all Americans. The House and Senate bills require individuals who have affordable options but who choose to remain uninsured to make a payment to offset the cost of care they will inevitably need. The House bill’s payment is a percentage of income. The Senate sets the payment as a flat dollar amount or percentage of income, whichever is higher (although not higher than the lowest premium in the area). Both the House and Senate bill provide a low-income exemption, for those individuals with incomes below the tax filing threshold (House) or below the poverty threshold (Senate).The Senate also includes a “hardship” exemption for people who cannot afford insurance, included in the President’s Proposal. It protects those who would face premiums of more than 8 percent of their income from having to pay any assessment and they can purchase a low-cost catastrophic plan in the exchange if they choose.

The President’s Proposal adopts the Senate approach but lowers the flat dollar assessments, and raises the percent of income assessment that individuals pay if they choose not to become insured. Specifically, it lowers the flat dollar amounts from $495 to $325 in 2015 and $750 to $695 in 2016. Subsequent years are indexed to $695 rather than $750, so the flat dollar amounts in later years are lower than the Senate bill as well. The President’s Proposal raises the percent of income that is an alternative payment amount from 0.5 to 1.0% in 2014, 1.0 to 2.0% in 2015, and 2.0 to 2.5% for 2016 and subsequent years – the same percent of income as in the House bill, which makes the assessment more progressive. For ease of administration, the President’s Proposal changes the payment exemption from the Senate policy (individuals with income below the poverty threshold) to individuals with income below the tax filing threshold (the House policy). In other words, a married couple with income below $18,700 will not have to pay the assessment. The President’s Proposal also adopts the Senate’s “hardship” exemption.

Would a Politician Mind Being Slimed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QbhfbLUtQs

On You Can’t do That on Television, slime was poured whenever someone said, “I don’t know.”

Politicians have no qualms about modifying citizens’ behavior, so it would only be fair to treat them likewise. There should be a political talk show along these same lines as YCDTOTV, but with these rules for when the slime flows:

Accuse opponents of being hypocrites.
Ignores questions to repeat the same talking points they’ve already spouted.
Make appeals to popularity.
Villainize those with differing opinions.
Preach about being a better parent, citizen, student, or spouse.

Saying, “I don’t know” would be perfectly safe on the show, because it’s refreshing when politicians admit they don’t have an answer for everything.

Shaping the Next Generation

Overweight children is only one area where American parents are failing their children. With parents doing such a poor job of raising children, I think it’s time for others to follow Washington D.C.’s example and step up to the plate to help. Bastions of self control and discipline–like Washington D.C.–can’t shape the next generation alone.

Here are some suggestions where others can follow DC’s example and pitch in to help parents raise their children.

John Edwards, Tiger Woods and Mark Sanford could tour schools together and explain the importance of fidelity.
Bernie Madoff could teach the importance of sharing.
John Stewart and Stephen Colbert could explain the harm caused by teasing.
Mary Kay Letourneau and Debra Lafave could warn children about sexual abuse.
Lindsay Lohan should scold children about underage drinking.
John Mayer and Mel Gibson could teach racial sensitivity.
Bristol Palin and Jamie Lynn Spears could explain the dangers of underage sex.
Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner can teach the importance of savings accounts.
A bipartisan group of Democrats and Republicans could let children know the damage done by name calling.
Andy Dick could explain good touch/bad touch.
President Obama could speak about the importance of keeping promises.
Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity could explain logical fallacies, such as the Straw Man and Appeal to Popularity.
Kanye West could talk about the importance of waiting your turn to speak.

Toyota recall – Would you turn over damaging information to competitors?

When U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Toyota owners should stop driving their cars, questions immediately emerged about LaHood’s motivations. There is no way to prove of disprove his motives; only LaHood knows for sure what motivated the statement. The perception that our government doesn’t have pure motivations is real, and this view will continue as long as they are tied to GM and Chrysler.

One question to bring up is why Toyota didn’t address the defect sooner; was it because they didn’t want to turn over damaging information to one of their competitors? Toyota could claim they were worried about the severity of the problem being exaggerated by U.S. officials, and can point to LaHood’s statement to back up those concerns.

If new regulations are put into place to protect consumers from the defects found in Toyota’s cars, Japan could start accusing the United States of regulatory misconduct and unfair trade practices. There is no guarantee a trade war will erupt from the recall, but it is a possible unintended consequence.

There might be calls for a congressional investigation of the transportation department to make sure nothing fishy has been going on. As much as I like keeping congress busy with innocuous distractions, an investigation will just be a waste of time and money because it is so difficult to prove pure or impure motivations.

The longer government motors is in existence the more the problem will grow. When GM or Chrysler wins a contract with the government, the conflict of interest problem will be brought up again. Ford will be able to claim the government is showing favoritism each time they don’t win a contract.

This story is another example of what can go wrong when one institution of society becomes too entwined with another. Hybrids work well in cars, but government and industry hybrids are accidents waiting to happen. The government should have stayed focused on its role of governing and not subsidizing industry. Staying focused on protecting liberty it is the best way to govern and avoid conflict of interests and the resulting unintended consequences.

Distractions for Washington DC Cause Increase in Productivity

Each time the economy slows down, it leads to micromanagement at work. When a company is making money, the people at the top are either taking it easy or looking for new ways to make money. When the money isn’t coming in as fast as they’d like, they start looking inside their company for savings and efficiency. It turns into a living hell for the people at the bottom because everything they do ends up being micromanaged.

Many workers are hoping and praying for the economy to turn around just because they are tired of explaining how and why they do some of the simplest tasks. A slow economy leads to the annoying time-sheets detailing every minute of the day. Pointing out the loss of productivity to management caused by keeping track of work rather than doing work falls on deaf ears. Workers catch on to being micromanaged and learn to fake time-sheets so they can get back to being productive.

In some work situations, the micromanaging turns into having a supervisor watching over the shoulder of workers. Having someone watching everything you do doesn’t mean you are going to do it any faster, because it’s a distraction from doing the job at hand. Pointing out the loss of productivity from excessive monitoring will once again fall on deaf ears. Workers also learn how to play this game by finding things to keep their managers busy. Workers start complaining about how other departments are run and how much the “defective” departments are making their jobs more difficult. With any luck, the managers will all be busy in meetings fighting with one another so you can get back to work.

The same workplace dynamic of the people at the top needing to do something is taking place in Washington DC. Just as workplace management can’t acknowledge the harm they do by interfering with the job at hand, the government can’t see the harm they are doing to the economy. Reforming health care and new regulations for business are examples of the government micromanaging the economy, and when the loss of productivity is pointing out, it falls on deaf ears.

Politicians have no qualms distracting the public so we aren’t focused on the job they are doing, so I have no guilt in suggesting we distract the government so we can do our jobs. The Obama administration is starting to look at the Bowl Championship Series and that’s a good thing; as long as you aren’t part of the BCS. We need to come up with more innocuous distractions like college bowl games to keep them busy. I’m calling on my fellow American’s that when they are involved in any polling to pick the least intrusive option. If asked which of the following is most important – the economy – heath care – sexting by teenagers, for the sake of our future please pick “sexting.”

Businesses can’t use the same tactics workers use with faking their time-sheets. Faking time-sheets might get a worker fired, faking the governments time-sheets can lead to big fines or prison terms. Businesses can fight back by lobbying congress with useful distractions such as, coming up with a way to keep copiers from copying genitalia or convincing congress businesses would be more productive if congress could tell them the absolute value of pi.

If we all put our heads together we can come up with some new distractions for Washington DC. Here are a few ideas–not exactly good ideas, but something to get the creative juices flowing:

Demand all of congress visit every site in the world impacted by global warming before taking any action. It’s expensive, but trust me–it’s worth it.

If enough people film street lights and email them to their representative, we can convince congress there is an imminent alien invasion.

Protest anything from France.

Start a rumor terrorists are secretly sending commands to operatives through 4chan.

Ask congress to find out how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood (stressing how important woodchucks are to the economy).

The number of sex scandals by elected officials is destroying our faith in government and should be investigated by congress.

Congressmen Ron Paul and Anthony Weiner On Massachusetts Election Results

Ron Paul “What the people are upset about is the government can no longer function”

Anthony Weiner on Ron Paul “I’m not sure he’s in touch with the mothership”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m36rzWr1JHU&feature=player_embedded

Weiner evidently didn’t understand the anger message from the election results. I’m sure the hounds will be released shortly.