The Irony Board: Why Not Walk the Talk?

Back in October, Politico broke a story about text messages shared by several young antisemitic, racist Republicans.

The Republican texters were leaders in their state parties; they were the up-and-comers, the future of the party structure. They call Kansas, Arizona, Vermont, and New York home. 

In case you missed the reporting, or if you've forgotten what all the fuss was about, here's a graphic showing examples of the delightful thoughts they shared, from the linked Politico article, including an admission from one person involved that "if we ever had a leak of this chat, we'd be cooked fr fr." That means for real, x2

House Speaker and FOTUS flunky Rep. Mike Johnson (R-MAGA) spoke to reporters about the text controversy. You can watch his comments in this video. If you have a hard time watching and listening to him, as I do, here's a summary: he doesn’t know any of them, and while there was a photo of him standing with one or more of them, they were all wearing tuxedos, so it had to be from the Inauguration and they probably just wanted a selfie, like tons of others.

Johnson also doesn’t know anything about the Nazi flag or symbol that appeared in the background of a Congressional office, other than that it didn’t belong to the congressman, it was a staffer or something, and that’s being investigated, as it should be.

And the point of all of this, he said in the video, was that whatever was said, or shown, and whoever said it or showed it, “obviously” doesn’t represent what the Republican party stands for because “We stand for the founding principles of America. You want me to articulate them for you right now? Individual freedom, Limited Government, Rule of Law, Peace through Strength, Fiscal Responsibility, Free Markets, Human Dignity… the things that lead to human flourishing.”

I can't tell you how many times I've watched him deliver those ideals, but I've moved from scratching my head when I do to outright laughter. The thought of 'human dignity' and MAGA Republicans in the same sentence is really mindboggling. 

Think about what we've seen over the past several months (and before), and reflect on what today's Republicans stand for, either proactively, through state and federal legislative efforts, or passively, by sitting idly by while the FOTUS, the Heritage Foundation, and others put things into motion.

Individual freedom? How about bodily autonomy? Being able to peacefully protest in favor of or against issues that matter to you, even when it involves Gaza and Palestinians, or immigration? Not having another religion’s iconography and beliefs forced upon you, in public buildings, or children in public schools? Not having the federal government intrude into your voting records? Being able to peacefully protest without being shot with pepper balls fired by federal agents from the rooftops above you? Being able to move about freely, speaking whatever language you want, without being interrogated by federal agents?

Limited government? Does this include having the government dictate hiring, research subjects, curricula, tuition, and admission practices at private colleges and universities? The president killing programs that were approved and funded by our elected legislators before he was elected, just because he doesn't like them? Withholding funding, services, or supplies because he doesn't like the voting patterns of a state or municipality? Elevating one religion over another in public K-12 schools? Trying to interfere in the Constitutionally-guaranteed right of states to manage elections? Renaming bodies of water? Imposing the ideas, name, and tastes of the president on the country by executive fiat?

Rule of law? Oh, my goodness! Bald-faced lying to judges in all levels of the court system? Sending the National Guard into places without the approval of the governors who command them? Declaring "emergencies" to justify all kinds of nonsense, from sending in troops to murdering foreigners in open waters, to ignoring the Constitutional requirement for due process, to imposing tariffs when that responsibility belongs to another branch of government? The myriad examples of defying Court orders? Using the government - and our tax dollars - to exact retribution against personal enemies?

Peace through Strength? Hmmm... demanding we get something in return for foreign aid, unless of course it's aid to Israel, which always goes with no strings attached? Working on negotiations with other countries, while allowing Israel to bomb areas in those countries without a response? Offering to give up Ukraine's territory to Russia? Actively seeking regime change in another country through military actions, CIA involvement, and financial incentives?

Fiscal Responsibility? Two words: Qatari jet. You know, the $400M 'gift' that’ll cost us as much as a billion dollars. The entire DOGE fiasco, with bold lies about how much money is being saved, teenagers granted access to the government’s secrets, the repeated firing, rehiring, refiring, and rehiring across the whole of government? More of the same lousy and irresponsible handling of personnel during the recent government shutdown? Allowing millions of dollars of paid-for food and medical supplies to go bad or sit unused, instead of distributing them, selling them, or giving them to Americans in need? Countless gratuitous and tone-deaf trips to sporting events, hugely expensive trips to the president’s properties, including during the government shutdown, and let’s not forget the birthday parade… the jets for Homeland Security… and so much more.

Free Markets? Is that what we call it when the government demands a percentage of the profits American companies make? Demands stock ownership, including a 'golden share' of American companies? Kills subsidies for wind and solar power and electric vehicles (while lamenting how far ahead of us China is with all of those), while adding subsidies for oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy, and providing tax credits and incentives for coal and other mining programs? Bails out farmers when ‘emergency’ tariffs make a mess of things? There’s more, of course. And no, free-market intervention is not unique to this administration; it’s been going on for decades, across multiple administrations. But that’s not a free pass to claim you're for free markets when it's demonstrably untrue.

Human Dignity? Isn’t it Republicans who enacted legislation offering bounties to folks who spy on their neighbors' menstrual cycles, medical appointments, and medications? Who ignore the dignity of patients in favor of the personal beliefs of practitioners? Who hope to deny people the right to marry a same-sex or mixed-race partner? Who find dignity in forcing pre-teen girls to have babies, and in denying people the treatment they desire or need? Who ignore the expressed wishes of patients and/or their families in end-of-life and other situations, and instead impose the government's wishes? Who purposefully misgender a colleague?

It's almost laughable, isn't it, the irony of standing in front of cameras talking about "the things that lead to human flourishing" with a record like that above?

I took more than my fair share of leadership and communication classes in my career, and so I understand the value of having an 'elevator speech' that can be shared when someone asks what you stand for. And I understand that having someone like Johnson who can deliver the message on your behalf without skipping a beat is a gift.

But actually standing for what you say you stand for is much more important than having a speech you can deliver before the elevator doors open one floor up from where you got on. 

And as an unaffiliated voter, I'd love to see both parties walk their talk.

Thoughts on Burger Flipping

So we're a dozen or so days post the announcement that Miami-based Burger King is buying Canada's Tim Hortons, for about $11 billion, and the merged company's headquarters will be in Canada.  How many times have you heard "you want fries with that, eh?"

When the deal was leaked, and then finally confirmed, there was a lot of traditional media chest-thumping about how this was another in a string of corporate mergers for 'inversion', a process where American firms become foreign firms in order to reduce their US tax burden, er, I mean to foster growth and expand their global footprint and improve shareholder value.

On Facebook, Burger King had this message of inversion denial front and center on August 26th, the date the deal was announced; by that time, there was a groundswell of complaints on social media, which began after the news leaked that a deal was in the works:

In some respects, we probably should have been mad at Burger King for a long time. According to this report, Reuters did some digging around in corporate filings and found out that BK's tax rate is "among the lowest in the industry," some five percent less than McDonald's, Starbucks or Dunkin' Donuts. But there's also this:

Burger King generated almost 60 percent of its revenues in the United States between 2011 and 2014, regulatory filings show, but the chain reported just 20 percent of its profits in the country over the period. 

Hmm. And:

Turns out Burger King has created tax structures that allow it to operate nearly tax-free in German and British markets... (and) has also channeled income through Switzerland, which has enabled it to pay an effective tax rate of fifteen percent on foreign income over the past three years. 

Almost comically - I kid you not - as I'm typing this, there's an ad on the radio from a firm specializing in tax law noting that Albert Einstein once said "the hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax" and yet, it seems like Burger King and lots of other companies have managed to get a grip on this difficult topic, doesn't it?

Now, I confess when this news broke, like lots of people my initial reaction was to say that I would no longer spend any money at Burger King, which would save me all of about $20, since we almost never go to fast food places of coffee chains. I freely admit I get frustrated when companies don't pay taxes, or use loopholes they purchased from entrenched politicians (from both major parties) to avoid what we currently define as their fare share.

So we're threatening not to patronize them, and what is Burger King doing? They're back to posting photo-shopped food and people on their websites, as if to say "move along, nothing to see here." The negative comments continue, and probably will for some time, because people have seen and felt the power of social media campaigns in affecting change. 

Some of the comments have called for total boycotts, some for passing legislation to get Burger King off US military bases, and even a few calling for sanity.

Why sanity?  Well, there are actually a number of reasons. 

A significant number of Burger King restaurants are not corporate-owned, they're franchisee-owned, maybe by people you know, employing people you know, supporting and paying taxes in your community. For example, Syracuse is the headquarters of the Carroll's Corporation, which operates 570 Burger King outlets and employs over 17,000 people in thirteen states. I wouldn't really want to boycott them - they do a lot of good in our community, and they have all of those employees... Perhaps, instead of blindly boycotting all Burger Kings, we should ask if they're a corporate outlet or franchisee-owned before we take a stand?

Boycotting, too, if it's successful, would hurt the corporate bottom line, which of course is the intended outcome.  The unintended outcome, however, is that they'll pay even less taxes under those circumstances,  making the situation even worse. 

On removing the restaurants from US military bases, the thinking is that if you're not interested in paying taxes here in America, we're not interested in having you feed our soldiers on our property; those soldiers are the ones who, by their very (tax-supported) existence, protect you and your right to pack up and move your headquarters out of dodge.  Seems reasonable, I guess - however, doing that may in fact take jobs away from military spouses and children, income they may desperately need to stay above water.

Others have pointed out that damaging the company's bottom line only hurts us in the end, because our pensions and 401(k) plans probably have stock in these places, and we wouldn't want to shoot ourselves in the foot, would we? 

So what are we to do, beyond social media bashing and boycotting corporate restaurants? 

An inversion, by definition, is a change in the position, order, or relationship of things so that they are the opposite of what they had been.  We need an inversion of our own, starting at the ballot box.  We need to elect people who will, among other things:

• support and abide by term limits
• support and work for real campaign finance reform and election reform, starting with refusing to accept corporate, union, lobbyist and PAC money and contributions from outside the district they represent
• support and work towards real tax reform for people and corporations, allowing people to keep more of what they earn and making it less necessary and/or attractive for corporations to make moves like this
• support (and work towards) the elimination of the countless redundant and overlapping services (and agencies) that exist within all levels of government, and to adequately support and fund efforts to combat the fraud that occurs within government programs, including Medicare
• refuse to vote for or submit a bill that has an unrelated rider, amendment, or language not directly tied to the purpose of the bill; for example, if you're trying to fund the military, leave the SNAP program for another piece of legislation

These are the kind of things that will restore reason, bring fairness across the entire playing field, and might actually make a difference. The rest of it? Our knee-jerk reactions make us feel good, and there's nothing like blasting off a Facebook post or a tweet, but in the end, if we don't change the players, we can't change the rules. And we can't change the rules if we don't vote.

If we don't vote, well, we might as well be flipping burgers.

Flatter is Better

As I noted the other day, I'm a proponent of a flat tax, because it's the only sure-fire way to treat all of us equally when it comes to income taxes. I also believe that the flat tax should apply to the breathless people too -- corporations -- that are the darling of politicians across the land

Assuming we can figure out the percentage that we would need to collect from people and corporations (and there's likely an app for that), it seems there would be some obvious benefits, including:

• Increased "certainty," something we've been told countless times over the past few years we're lacking. Without it, businesses and people can't invest, can't save, and can't spend money on goods and services. Businesses can't grow. The flat tax is nothing if not certain.
• No more scrambling in the spring to see if you can get a deduction or credit. No more trying to determine if you should file singly, jointly, or some combination of that. No more marriage penalty. No more having to pay a tax service. Just a tax on the income you earn.
• If your bracket says your tax rate is 25%, but you pay 15% because of all the gimmicks, are you paying your fair share? Most companies (and people) pay a rate less than what their bracket says they should pay. If we had a legitimate flat tax rate, one that was fair across the board, we wouldn't need all this other tinkering around. And we wouldn't have it. And we'd all be paying our fair share.
• Having our money in our hands all year long gives us freedom to do what we want with it. More money for more purchasing means more goods and services to purchase, which means more jobs, which means more income, which means more taxes. Not higher taxes, but more people contributing to the tax base, because they would have jobs. In theory, that could allow the tax rate to actually go down.

Perhaps equally important, though are the other benefits we could gain by completely reforming the tax code (closing tax loopholes, eliminating the social engineering components, etc.) and implementing a flat tax

What drives our political system? Money. Where does that money come from? Lobbyists, PACs, 501(c) organizations, unions, political parties, trade associations, corporations, and even some people. Why do those organizations donate money? Because they want something - they want lower taxes, or they want special tax credits, or they want fewer regulations (many of which call for fees, which are just like taxes, or the call for changes, which cost money), or they want special treatment (which usually means they want to pay less money one way or another).

So, if you're a politician from either party and you are getting boatloads of financial help from the organizations above, or you want to get boatloads of financial help, what do you do? You work with them or on their behalf to craft regulations or legislation that work to their advantage. You dream up bills that help reduce the tax burden on businesses, by setting up tax free zones, for example, or create other 'zones' which benefit specific sets of accountants and lawyers who get their clients into the programs, often leaving other businesses (and their employees) behind. You sign tax pledges or otherwise sell your soul for the money.

The problem with all of this, which is a purposefully cynical outlook on politic, is that because of money and its influence, people who think they are paying their fair share actually end up paying more than that. Why? Because the taxes that don't get paid by the people with influence end up getting paid by everyone else.  And not only that, all of these special programs, special rules, special tax deductions and credits and gimmicks serve to create separation and division between us.

We all know someone who complains about welfare programs, lobster-buying SNAP users and all of those baby-popping-out women that are embedded in the safety net. Well, those same complaints can also be made against companies and people who benefit from the special stuff, whether it's flexible spending plans covering day care, parking and public transportation, or tax credits for charter schools or higher education, or deductions for charitable contributions, or chosen types of interest, or even deductions for additional children that people choose to have, which we find so distasteful under other circumstances.

The list could go on and on, but at the end of it, like a rainbow, there's always the promise of a pot of gold - in this case, filled with our tax dollars. Crony capitalism, special tax breaks, are just as 'bad' as any other type of handout.

And if the money was not in the picture, would the ethical landscape improve? Would it be less appetizing to a politician to consider a bribe, to do a favor, to craft and pass a bill, if they knew that there was no wiggle room in the income tax laws? I would have to think yes.

Two years ago when he was Mitt Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan repeatedly said we needed to close tax loopholes, put an end to corporate welfare, and stop treating wealthy people differently. Here's one version of that sentiment:

And what we're saying about taxes is take the tax shelters and the loopholes away from, from the well connected and the well off so we can lower tax rates for everybody.

I'm not a huge Ryan fan, but on this, he was right. Close the corporate and personal loopholes, even the ones near and dear to us; stop the social engineering; stop the cronyism; reform entitlements for the 'haves' with equal gusto as for the 'have nots' and in the process, let's get some of the money out of politics. 

Andrew Cuomo's Sense of Humor

Earlier this summer, our Sonova Governor Andrew Cuomo, working with legislative leaders, got approval to create the Financial Board for Restructuring for Local Governments, announcing that:

Localities across the state are facing a growing financial crisis of soaring retirement costs while their populations stagnate and property values drop.The only options for struggling municipalities cannot be bankruptcy or being subject to a financial control board. This legislation would create a Financial Restructuring Board for fiscally distressed cities to turn to in difficult times. By helping localities to make tough decisions and manage their finances now, the State as a whole will benefit in the long term because we simply cannot afford to kick the can down the road any longer.

The Board includes 10 members, including four state government bigwigs (the State's Budget Director, Comptroller, Attorney General, Secretary of State) and six others appointed by the Sonova:

Of these six appointees, one will be recommended by the Temporary President of the Senate, and one will be recommended by the Speaker of the Assembly. At least one of the Governor’s appointees will have significant municipal financial and restructuring experience.  

Cuomo's relationship with Syracuse's current mayor, Stephanie Miner, is somewhat strained. Miner, who co-chairs the state Democratic Committee, has made no secret of her disagreements with Cuomo on the state's role in helping cities, specifically Cuomo's proposal allowing cities to spread their pension payments out over several years, something Miner considered kicking the can down the road.  

She also disagrees with a key provision of the legislation that created the new Restructuring Board, the part dealing with arbitration on municipal contracts.  The way the law was worded keeps certain contract talks out of the new arbitration process -- including the current 'at impasse' negotiations with the Syracuse firefighters.Why is that important?

Before calling an impasse, Local 280 of the International Association of Fire Fighters had asked the city for 6 percent raises for two years, plus no increase in health-care contributions, according to personnel director Robert Stamey. Firefighters now pay $45 a month for individual health insurance and $75 for family coverage.

That's quite a break for the union; in the new process, the Board must consider a city's finances and ability to pay for the contract as the major components in their decision. It's hard to imagine any upstate New York city being able to sustain this type of contract, or any Board of arbitration agreeing to it.
 
Back to Cuomo -- just last week, he failed to endorse Miner in her primary against Pat Hogan and Alfonso Davis, although she won handily anyway.

So, with that backdrop, now that the time has come to get the new Board up and running, guess who Cuomo tapped for the FRB? None other than Matt Driscoll -  former bar owner and former mayor of Syracuse. Here's the logic behind his appointment, according to the press release issued a couple of days ago:

Matthew J. Driscoll is the President and CEO of the Environmental Facilities Corporation. Prior to his appointment in 2009, Mr. Driscoll was the Mayor of Syracuse where he spearheaded multiple environmental, energy and sustainability initiatives; instituted a performance-based accountability program for city government which saved millions of dollars for city taxpayers; and also helped make the City of Syracuse the first city in the country to offer free college tuition to every student who graduates with a Regents diploma. After serving from 1998-2001 as the President of the Common Council, Mayor Driscoll led comprehensive planning and development of downtown and neighborhood housing development, as well as an action plan for the modernization of the city school buildings.  

Some of the things in Driscoll's resume have been continued or expanded under Miner's administration, including Say Yes and the school modernization plans.  And what about that 'performance-based accountability program' that Driscoll instituted? That's SyraStat, which the city is no longer using. 

In a 2009 article looking at the Driscoll legacy, The Post-Standard noted that the city figured the program saved taxpayers about $50 million over eight years -- no small potatoes there. It's easy to wonder what SyraStat or similar programs would point to as opportunities for our city now, if Mayor Miner went before this board for help. 

Do you think that's what Cuomo is thinking? Or does he just have an odd sense of humor?

Knock knock. Who's there? Airline passengers

Airline passengers who?
 
Airline passengers who are now complaining about Sequesterman, the evil superhero sent across the land by Congress to wreak havoc on government programs large and small.

Congress and the President wouldn’t do their jobs and cut spending on programs that they themselves had authorized, or sponsored, or promoted as what America needed to move us forward into the next blah blah, to prepare us for the next wave of blah blah, to save us from the coming onslaught of blah blah, to blah blah blah us into submission.

They tried everything, but were so unwilling to make the hard choices that they created Sequesterman, a cold, uncaring emotionless guy who would implement harsh, across-the- board budget cuts in all areas of the federal government. They made him just in case they needed an incentive (more inspiring than their dismal single-digit approval rating) to force action "in the best interests of the country" to solve our debt and deficit problem. Which they also made.

They heard speeches and pleas, arguments and suggestions, ideas and proposals to not let Sequesterman loose on the country,  of what would happen if they did allow the arbitrary cuts to go in; they heard it for days and weeks and months on end. And as they do so well, Congress pretended to act. The deliberated, and wrung their hands, and rattled their sabers and each other’s cages, and voted on some stuff that they all knew would not pass -  and ultimately they allowed Sequesterman out of the box.

Fast forward to this week:   Sequesterman has started furloughing air traffic controllers as part of the mandatory spending cuts.  And so people living outside the rarefied air in Washington (they’re called voters) are starting to be hurt by those furloughs, as flights are being delayed with fewer controllers manning the towers. (Of course, I think some folks would think that a flight delay is not such a hurt compared to say, losing pay because of Congressional gridlock.  But as usual, I digress.) 

The airlines, no dummies --they’re announcing to passengers that the flight delays are caused by Sequesterman.  Republicans in the House, they’re blaming the President. Democrats in the Senate, they’re blaming the Republicans in the House.  Anyone surprised here that the most action we get out of these people is finger-pointing?

Congress, after blaming the FAA for mishandling the across-the-board cuts made necessary by Congressional inaction, found somewhere in their pocket Constitutions the right to on-time air service; it must be right up there with free speech, corporations are people too, and a well-regulated militia.

Unanimously and without debate, the Senate approved a bill that allows the FAA to move freely about their own budget to find the necessary cuts, making the furloughs unnecessary. Over in the House, 41 people pretended to have the courage of their convictions and voted no; however, since passage by a huge margin was a forgone conclusion, a no vote was completely meaningless.

In the end, everyone caved, and those pesky voters can now get where they’re going with only the normal, non-Sequesterman delays in front of them. (Mother Nature, the ball is back in your court.)

All I can say is I am extremely fortunate that my Congress can act so swiftly when voters get angry about something as trivial, in the overall scheme of things, as delayed flights, particularly ones that impact the NY-to-DC corridor.  Because that quick, decisive action will be what gets us well prepared for the blah blah blah of the future, which will come as soon as our do-nothing Congress gets back from their vacation.

Knock knock.

For the GOP, 'Winning' Isn't Everything

Yesterday in The Hill's pundits blog, Armstrong Williams offered what was headlined as 'forward-thinking advice for the GOP'. He suggested that, for the Republicans to be relevant,

They need to carefully build a coalition between themselves, independents, blacks and single and suburban women, and make inroads regarding the Latinos. This can happen by the Republican leadership abandoning trying to legislate religion and instead creating an immigration policy that makes sense.

Williams' point is similar to that expressed by the rest of the pundit class: that failing to expand the GOP beyond the core angry white male demographic will doom the Rs to losing to the tax-and-spend Democrats forever, and the only way to expand the base is to come up with some kind of immigration plan that gives Latinos - the fastest growing demographic - a warm fuzzy feeling so they'll start voting Red.

bleachernation.com

Compare that attitude and goal  - winning, a la Charlie Sheen - with this approach taken by some folks in my neck of the woods, conservative Rs who put forth a very different path to victory.  Instead of looking for ways to help the R's take back the White House, Kevin and Kristin Curtis from Central New York have a much better approach. I had intended to include excerpts from their letter, published Tuesday in The Post-Standard here in Syracuse, but instead am including the entire thing, with a little added.

Dear President Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. John Boehner:

My wife and I are moderate Republicans. Our hope is that Republicans and Democrats will now do their best to find common ground. As moderate Republicans, we have crossed party lines to support Democrats when some Republicans are too extreme.

We could be defined as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. We believe that gay marriage is a civil rights issue and support those rights. We support strong families as foundational to the health of the country. Single parenthood is the driving force of most poverty in the United States. We share a deep faith, but we believe in the separation of church and state. We believe that the private sector should grow at a higher annual percentage rate than the government sector.

We believe in a strong, efficient military. We are spending too much and have too many bases, globally. Jobs in health care are just as important as jobs in the military and defense industries. Work to get our allies on board to address potential regional conflicts. Lead others to liberty.

We have supported Planned Parenthood for three decades. Every global problem, from reducing pollution to feeding the hungry, would be more manageable with effective family planning. By telling over 54 million American women who have terminated pregnancies since 1973 their doctors, and anyone who helped them, that they are criminals, extreme Republicans drive them away from the party. Can we all agree that better availability of effective contraception will decrease the need for abortion and work together on accomplishing that?

Strengthen Social Security. Neither of us have pensions. We are counting on this program. Broaden health care access while finding ways to lower costs. We pay for our own health care. It is expensive. Identify and address government program abuses wherever they are found. Stop the cheating. Reform overly generous public pension programs. We support education, but it needs to be more efficient at all levels. Subsidizing tuition and student loans has helped more students attend college, but also generated salary, staff and benefits bloat in academia. Simplify the tax code and make sure that folks at the top are paying the same percentage tax rates as folks in the middle.

We are counting on you to work together to move America ahead.

We are counting on you to work together. Not, we are counting on you to cobble together some weird coalition of voting blocs that can be pandered to, that the world can be promised and then not delivered to, so that we can win the next election.

We should be listening to Mr. & Mrs. Curtis, not to Armstrong Williams.

Paul Ryan: Just Stop Subsiziding Wealthy People

Lordy, the experts are having a blast now that Mitt Romney has finally chosen a running mate, and particularly that it's Wisconsin's Paul Ryan, he of the Republican budget road map.  

I've seen stories ranging from the clandestine process of getting Ryan nailed down as the choice and having him mysteriously appear in Virginia yesterday, to the importance of their respective attire at the announcement (Mitt: tie, no jacket; Paul: jacket, no tie); there are even some discussions on the policies that may come out of the ticket, if you have the patience to wade through everything.

I appreciate that NBC's Meet the Press offered transcripts of their conversations with Paul Ryan in one easy link - very generous of them, and fun.   I went through a few of them and found an interesting Ryan theme that I hope gets some traction with his new BFF.

In October of last year, when we were still in the thick of the GOP's primary season, Pizza Magnate Herman Cain made this comment regarding the Occupy Wall Street movement:

Don't blame Wall Street.  Don't blame the big banks.  If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself.

When pressed by MTP moderator David Gregory if that was the Republican message, Ryan responded with the expected rhetoric about eliminating barriers to success, offering economic opportunity, and the like. Pretty standard stuff, but he added this gem:

...I have a better idea.  Instead of job-killing tax increases, why don't we just stop subsidizing wealthy people?  I mean, let's go after the crony capitalism, the corporate welfare in the tax code, in spending.  And why don't we income adjust our spending programs so that we don't subsidize wealthy people as much. 

He said the same thing on MTP in February:

It's just not good economic growth policy and we've already sort of proven that these temporary, sugar-high economics, these stimulus effects just don't work to grow the economy and they're a very poor substitute for lowering tax rates, for having predictable regulations, for getting rid of crony capitalism

And a second time: 

 --we already proposed closing loopholes so, for economic growth. There's a bipartisan consensus that the best way on tax policy for growth is to lower tax rates by closing loopholes and doing our entitlement reforms in a gradual way...

And, he said the same thing again on MTP in May:

And what we're saying about taxes is take the tax shelters and the loopholes away from, from the well connected and the well off so we can lower tax rates for everybody.

I gotta tell you, I sure hope Paul Ryan still believes that this is what we really need to do.

And I hope that Mitt, the man with the overseas accounts, and the undisclosed tax returns, and the IRA worth between $20 and $100 million, the man who knows that his private-sector donors are doing just fine, listens.

And guys, let's try this -- do the crony capitalism elimination first, to prove you can accomplish something, then go and tackle entitelement reform.

To Attract and Retain Good People...

...we need to have salary increases for politicians and government appointees.  

How many times have you heard that, and what's your reaction when you do?  Do you cringe, like I do?

I just heard it again the other day, while watching Capital Tonight, the show devoted to all things NY politics brought to us courtesy of YNN, Time Warner's news station. The discussion centered on whether or not it was time that New York's legislators, as well as other folks in state government, deserve a raise.  

It's been 13 or 14 years for the Legislature, according to published reports, which I admit is a long time to go without a pay increase, even when you're making $79,500 plus a $170 per diem for days spent in Albany, plus an additional $10,000 - $40,000 for 'leadership' roles, which most of them receive - all for a part-time job that they volunteer for.

Now don't get me wrong, I know that trying to decide the direction and fate of the Empire State's 19,000,000 or so people can be hard work; and if I were working for the same money now that I was making 14 years ago, I'd be pretty annoyed too. The part-time job of a legislator is pretty lucrative, compared to other legislatures (and compared to many New York families), and in these difficult economic times, it's hard to want to give them a raise for any reason.

But what really gets me is this whole concept of 'attracting and retaining good people'.  What does that really mean?

• Are our current legislators not 'good people'?
• Would they all leave, and make room for really 'good people' if we raised their pay?

And what would be different?

• Would we be able to get real campaign finance reform and real ethics reform, from the new 'good people'?
• Would the new 'good people' do something about mandate relief and the buck-passing down the legislative line to counties, cities, towns and villages?
• Hopefully they'd stop sending me mail telling me how wonderful they are -- because of course, they're 'good people' so that goes without saying, right?

Unless the 'bad people' we have no problem retaining now are willing to step aside for these mysterious new 'good people', I think we can continue paying them just the same as we do today.

What do you think?

To PILOT, or not to PILOT: the $64,000 question

Courtesy Cameron Group LLC,
published in the Post-Standard

This afternoon, at a special meeting of the Syracuse Common Council, there will be a vote on whether to give a developer a 30-year payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) deal on a project to build a new mixed-use facility housing a new Syracuse University bookstore, a fitness center, and a handful of retail outlets. 

Given the angst we're going through after our last (and only) 30-year PILOT, for Carousel Center/Destiny USA, there's quite a bit of consternation surrounding this one.

Here are the key players:

• The Cameron Group LLC, a Syracuse developer whose management team includes a number of Pyramid Companies alums.  Pyramid, of course, is the Destiny USA mall developer.
• Syracuse University, owner of the half acre lot on which the complex will be built; SU will lease the land to the developer for $1 a year, and will also pay $1.48 million annually to lease the building for its bookstore and the fitness center.
• Syracuse Industrial Development Agency (SIDA), the gang that handles financial incentives and bonding for Syracuse economic development projects, and who narrowly approved the PILOT which now comes before the Common Council.

Needless to say there are lots of opinions on this. Many feel that getting $64,400 per year, roughly $1.9 million over the 30-year life of the PILOT, is worth it to the city, which is hampered by a significant portion of properties city having not-for-profit tax exempt status. 

And, maybe developing this little lot on the SU hill will help open the door for other creative development projects in the area. And, if SU were to independently develop the building, the entire property would be tax exempt and the city would get nothing. Editorial writers at the Post-Standard, back in March, suggested that the Common Council saying no to the deal would be the equivalent of cutting off their nose to spite their face.

On the other hand, there's a legitimate question as to why the PILOT needs to be so long - why 30 years, why not 20 or 15? And what about the impact to other businesses on the Hill, those who have to compete with the SU bookstore and also pay full property taxes?  Should we be offering better deals to new businesses, and leave existing ones in the lurch?  And is $64,400 enough to cover the cost of basic city services for the building? Is it fiscally responsible for a city with our issues?

The last time the PILOT was to be voted on by the Common Council, it was pulled at the last minute when it was clear that it would fail. This time, there's a special session for the vote, which under Council rules means that the majority for passage is only five votes instead of six.  I can only imagine supporters on the Council think they have the votes, otherwise I'm surprised they'd bring it forward again.

If I had to vote today, boy I don't think it would be easy. Previously I've suggested that developers should show us theirs - build something, open something, hire some people, make a go of it -- before we show them ours -- PILOTs and other incentives -- as we've been burned several times in the past. We've seen lots of pretty pictures of pretty buildings, and have had our share of developers promising pie-in-the-sky projects that never amount to anything.  Or, like Destiny USA, amount to less than what we were promised - but still deliver something.

In this case, there's nothing for the developer to show us.  So we're asked to approve a 30-year deal, on a project that is not be viable without the PILOT?  How would you vote? 

McConnell's debt 'plan'

When is a plan not a plan?  When it comes from Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky).  His idea, a 'plan B' for solving our debt problem, offers zero compromise and zero leadership. 

Here's how the plan works:

• Both houses of Congress must pass (and Obama must sign) a bill allowing the debt ceiling to be raised on an installment basis.  Then Obama immediately requests a $700B increase in the debt ceiling and must submit a list of spending cuts equal to the increase.  This is to get us past the August 2nd deadline. 
• If Congress chooses to pass a ‘resolution of disapproval’ it goes to Obama for signature. He vetoes the resolution, and it goes back to Congress to override the veto. The Republicans don’t muster the 2/3 majority needed to override the veto, and so the debt ceiling increases take place.  Or, if Congress doesn’t do the disapproval resolution, the increase takes place automatically. 
• Then he has to ask for $900B this fall, and then another $900B in June of next year. If this were a shampoo bottle, the label would read 'Lather, rinse, repeat.'  

So, what does this do for the Republicans?  Well, they get to vote against raising the debt ceiling six times (three resolutions plus three veto votes) between now and the next election. They get to force the President to outline spending cuts equal to $2.5 trillion.  They get to completely ignore the spending cuts they demand the President give them. And they prevent the president from putting any revenue increases on the table to help alleviate the debt (the Plan does not incorporate revenue increases). 

What does this do for the Democrats? It forces them to take 100% of the responsibility for defining  spending cuts and for raising the debt ceiling, or for failing to do so. Sounds like a pretty good deal, right? 

Can you tell this came from the Senator who declared “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” ?

Boehner's Job Creators

When I listen to John Boehner these days, I’m reminded of a dinner table conversation from when I was a kid. 

My brothers and I, at times, were not always interested in eating everything that my mother had cooked for dinner.  Don't get me wrong, Mom was a good cook, but sometimes what she made was not anything that got us excited.  When we were fidgeting at the table, pushing food around our plates but not eating anything, it was customary for my Dad to say something to the effect of “there’s lots of starving children in (India, or China, or some other country) who would love a nice hot meal like this.”  Well, one day, after hearing Dad’s standard comment for the umpteenth time, my brother fired back with “Name one!”  

Needless to say, my other brother and I were aghast, but Mom and Dad both fought with all their might to keep from laughing out loud. I remember Dad holding his napkin in front of his face, his shoulders shaking silently as he tried to regain control.  And that’s the position I find myself in listening to Boehner.  Here’s a sample from his press conference today:  

The president and I agree that the current levels of spending, including entitlement spending, are unsustainable. The president and I do not agree on his view that government needs more revenues through higher taxes on job creators.

He went on to say this:

“I agree with the president that the national debt limit must be raised, and I’m glad that he made the case for it today. But the American people will not accept – and the House cannot pass – a bill that raises taxes on job creators.”

Seriously, Mr. Speaker?  The American people will not accept a bill that raises taxes on these mysterious job creators that are so important that you feel the need to protect them in any deal to solve the debt crisis?

All I can say is, name one!

Sunday School 4/3/11: GE pays no federal tax (but I do)

By now pretty much everyone has heard that corporate giant GE paid no federal taxes on their $5.1 billion in US profits (about 36% of their $14.2B world-wide profit), and I think even the most jaded of us had to be at least a little shocked when the story appeared in the NY Times last month. 

How did GE do it?  Well, based on the article, it's a combination of aggressive lobbying; brilliant hiring (of former IRS and Treasury officials); expanding their mission-driven tax department to almost a thousand employees; shifting the company's focus from primarily manufacturing to a manufacturing/financial services combo; moving a lot of business to other countries; and of course, helping to write the rules that they live by. 

And clearly they're good at it, having realized a net tax benefit of $4.1B on American profits of $26B in the past five years.  They're also good at spinning their positions. Here's John Samuels, head of GE's tax department, speaking about our largest corporation's overseas success:

“We believe that winning in markets outside the United States increases U.S. exports and jobs,” Mr. Samuels said through a spokeswoman. “If U.S. companies aren’t competitive outside of their home market, it will mean fewer, not more, jobs in the United States, as the business will go to a non-U.S. competitor.”

In the past several years, GE has increased its offshore profits by some $77 billion, so that would seem like they're pretty competitive in markets outside the US. But at the same time, they've cut about a fifth of its domestic workforce. So, that means they're not competitive? Or do they just need to pay less taxes?  I'm so confused.

What's even more dismaying than the fact that GE's effective tax rate is less than zero is that, at the same time companies are enjoying this kind of tax management success, leaders in Washington are very focused on reducing the corporate tax burden even more. Here's what my Representative, Ann Marie Buerkle (R-Onondaga) had to say in a recent interview:

But we also need to reduce corporate taxes in this country. We are second (to Japan) in our corporate rate ... We’ve got to do things that are going to entice businesses to stay here, and work with them, and create certainty and not regulate them to death and not tax them to death.

And never mind the fact that businesses are sitting on oodles of cash, just waiting for the "stability" that will come from more business-friendly legislation, including tax code revisions.  Rep. Buerkle, again:

Right now we know businesses are sitting on billions of dollars because they are so uncertain as to what’s coming down the pike, they don’t spend it. They don’t expand, they don’t hire.

So, to recap today's lesson: huge businesses are paying very little federal tax, moving jobs and profits offshore, sitting on boatloads of cash, and feeling uncertain. 

And then there's me and millions of Americans like me: paying our taxes, sitting on our small nest eggs, hoping we'll be able to keep our American jobs, praying we can retire before we're 80 (or 90), and that there'll be some return on the money we've paid into Social Security, our pensions, our 401(k)s, and our IRAs.

Well, here's a thought, Washington: before you "create any more certainty" and stop "taxing them to death", what commitments are you going to get from companies like GE that they're actually going to put Americans to work, and help get us our of our uncertainty?

Sunday School 3/13/11: Nuclear Reactors and Budget Reactions

Most of the shows had segments on the evolving situation in Japan, with a focus on the nuclear reactors losing power and possibly facing meltdowns, the expanding evacuation zone (now officially twelve or 13 miles but maybe as many as 50 miles according to some reporters there), and what it means for any expansion of nuclear facilities here.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) spoke with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press.  Asked about whether his cautious support for nuclear power changed, Schumer noted "Well, we're going to have to see what happens here...the bottom line is we do have to free ourselves of independence from foreign oil...Prices are up; our economy is being hurt by it or could be hurt by it (the situation in Libya). So I'm still willing to look at nuclear. As I've always said, it has to be done safely and carefully."

On the budget, Schumer offered that "We should make significant cuts, absolutely, we need to, but we can't cut into our seed corn. We can't cut into the things that help America grow and great jobs like education or cancer research or food safety, things like that." And, in reference to the White House, he noted that "...I talk to the White House every day...we're not always on the same page, but we usually are. And the overall goal, again, cutting waste, using a smart short scalpel but not a meat axe."

Seed corn?  Meat axe?  I'll be looking for these two to make their way into our growing political lexicon.

Others talking about the Japanese nukes were the folks at ABC, on This Week with Christiane Amanpour. Ploughshares Fund expert Joe Cirincione pointed out that "Nuclear reactors are built to withstand crises, and even multiple crises. But it's very hard to build a nuclear facility than can withstand this", pointing to the massive earthquake, the aftershocks, and the tsunami. 

Reporter Jake Tapper noted that "...if this crisis had happened here in the US, the government would be turning to Japan for help. These are the top people in the field" but he also mentioned that in cases like this, sometimes what the government says isn't all that there is to say.  

ABC's Martha Raddatz noted a conversation she had with a “senior administration official (who) said that's one of our major concerns, how this will affect nuclear power in the future. I think there were already demonstrations in Germany. I think you'll see here in the US, we will surely take a look at our nuclear facilities and have Japan as a - as a bad model there in what can happen that you haven't planned for." 

Geographically, I think our situation is different, or at least I hope so – we wouldn’t like consider building reactors on a fault line, or in low-lying coastal areas. I hope.  

The sanity of the morning was surprisingly on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.  Among his guests were Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Mark Warner (D-VA), who discussed their plans to help solve our budget problems.  Here's a sampling:

• Chambliss: "It's imperative that we put everything on the table for discussion. I don't know where we are going to wind up. We're not there yet. But if you look at the debt commission report, you have to address spending... You've got to address entitlements...And you've got to look at revenue and reform our complicated tax code in a major way. And when you do that, everybody does have that skin in the game and everybody gets their score just a little bit."  
• Warner: “You've got to put everything out. That means Saxby and I are probably going to take some arrows -- ...because we're taking, willing to take on reforming some of these entitlement issues. But every day that we punt, every day that we don't act, we add $4 billion to our national debt. At some point, we're going to have to pay that back.”
• Chambliss: "Well, Chris, first of all, what we've got to do is when we see an increase in revenues coming in to Washington, we've got to make sure that Congress doesn't have the ability to spend that, because history dictates to us if we have revenues coming in that are uncontrolled, that's what's going to happen.”  
• Warner: "We've been saying, listen, we've got to do this. We shouldn't allow this work of the debt commission, the so-called Simpson-Bowles commission to go for naught. We're willing to kind of link arms and we have other colleagues who are working with us. I think you are seeing a whole lot of other members in both parties say we need this long-term solution. “

I share these thoughts, also Warner's, in response to Wallace's question about when they might get some action on their proposals. "If we get into next year, you get into a presidential year and this whole issue would probably be punted until 2013."  

Sadly, that's fair and balanced. We cannot afford to wait.

Sunday School: 1/23/11

We’ll start with This Week on ABC.  The comment of the day comes from George Will, the baseball historian and conservative curmudgeon. Discussing  State of the Union addresses, Will noted that at times presidents have delivered their report in writing, but that “now we’ve turned this (SOTU) into this panorama in which – in an interminable speech, every president, regardless of party, tries to stroke every erogenous zone in the electorate.” Makes me want to slip into something more comfortable when I watch Obama's address on Tuesday.

NBC’s Meet the Press offered us Eric Cantor (R-VA), the House Majority Leader. He believes that Barack Obama is a US citizen, but didn't express much interest in shutting down discussion on this in the House. Cantor also spent some time trying to explain whether or not they’re going to meet the $100 billion savings this year, and whether or not everything’s on the table in terms of cuts. I think his answer to the second question is yes, but on the first I’m not sure if he said yes or no. He did say this about Social Security: “Anyone 55 and older in this country has got to know that their Social Security benefits will not be changed.  It is for all the younger people, those 54 and younger, we're going to have to have a serious discussion.”  Um, that means me.

Over on Fox News Sunday, another member of the Congressional leadership, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), echoed Cantor’s sentiment that everything’s on the table, saying that he’s told constituents “don’t assume that we can tackle this without impacting something you like.”  When asked about spending cuts, he indicated that they’re going to try and “reduce domestic discretionary spending as much as we possibly can that will get a signature by the President”, I think starting early to point fingers in case they don’t come close to what the Tea Party is interested in, which is a return to 2006 levels. Does anyone really remember what they spent in 2006?

Last this week, let’s check in with CBS News and Face the Nation. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) were guests. McCain, after saying some nice things about Obama, talked about spending cuts and I think did a perfect job of illustrating how hard it’s going to be to get anything done.  Host Bob Schieffer referenced Eric Cantor’s statement about cancer research being on the table, and pointed out that he (Schieffer) and McCain are both cancer survivors. Schieffer asked “Do you think that’s something where we can cut back?” and McCain answered “…And frankly, cancer research I think is one of the last things I’d go after.” Imagine that - not wanting to cut something that's personally significant. That kind of attitude is what got us where we are today. 

For his part, when asked the cancer research question, Schumer pointed out that the Republican Study Committee only focused on one part of the budget; logically, if you need to get all of your cuts from one place, you end up cutting thing like cancer research.  He didn't say he wouldn't but there, but it did note that “everyone knows there’s waste and inefficiency in the military budget” and “waste in the military is no better than waste in domestic spending.” Good for Chuck.

Rep Buerkle: Why Repeal PPACA?

Dear Representative Buerkle:

I’m writing you to let you know that I do not agree with your position on repealing or defunding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as PPACA, and referred to by some as the Job-Killing Health Care Law. 

While I’m not thrilled with PPACA in its entirety, I do not believe that killing this bill is the right decision. I am however interested in understanding why you believe it IS the right decision. 

I’m also interested in what Republicans would offer instead?  What specific coverage benefits would you provide, if you succeed in taking away the ones that became effective last year? What specific job-creating or job-preserving provisions would you include in a health care reform bill? 

If you do not believe in mandating that everyone have coverage, can you explain to me why you think it’s acceptable and necessary for me to pay for other people’s health insurance, through higher premiums, fees and taxes paid directly by health insurance companies such as my employer, or through claim payment surcharges? 

Last, I’m concerned that the vote to repeal PPACA is specifically excluded from the pledge that all new bills will either reduce spending, or if they raise spending, they have to be accompanied by equal spending reductions elsewhere. How will you make up for the projected $230 billion impact repealing this Act will have? And why was this bill carved out? 

Thanks for your consideration and response.

Sunday School: 1/2/11

A mixed bag (three Reps and two Dems) appeared on CBS’ Face the Nation this morning. On Republican unity, Michele Bachmann (R-MN) indicated the Reps are fairly unified even if they won’t agree on everything. Speaking on bipartisanship, NY Dem Anthony Weiner indicated that it's a means, not an end – legislation has to meet the values of his constituents, not just be bipartisan for the sake of it. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) pointed out that the trick now is for the Reps to not squander the progress that’s been made in moving the economy forward.

Tea-partier Mike Kelly babbled quite a bit about having been living in the real world and having to pay his own way; now that he’s only a couple of days away from being sworn in to serve in the 112th Congress, spending our money instead of his own, he didn’t have much to offer.

Darrell Issa (R-CA) takes over as chair of the House Oversight/Government Reform Committee. He spent much of his time talking about Medicare fraud. Best line? “We can save one hundred twenty five billion in simply not giving out money to Medicare recipients who don’t exist for procedures that didn’t happen.” Everyone, regardless of political stripe, should be able to get behind that one.

He also advised that his boomer wife is collecting Social Security now, and he plans on collecting himself when the time comes. Hope there’s money left. 

On NCB’s Meet The Press, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) misstated the ‘mandate’ of the last election as Americans rejecting Dem policies because of too much debt and too much government growth. Voters actually said this, but we’ll forgive the Bachelor from SC. He indicated that we have to get Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae ‘in a more privatized environment’ and on healthcare, he’s in favor of allowing states to opt out of the individual mandate, the employer mandate, and Medicaid expansion.

He’s also in favor of raising the retirement age and looking at means testing for Social Security. Darrell Issa, beware.

Graham’s candidate for President in 2012? “The most electable conservative.” He meant Romney; but the 'electable' tag seems to leave out Ms. Palin, thankfully. 

Last, over on Fox News Sunday, the conversation centered on the new Congress and their plans.  Fred Upton (R-MI) promised a vote on repealing the entire health care reform bill before the State of the Union address, and then attacking pieces of the bill individually; he believes they might actually get it voted down in the House.

Issa, again, this time talking about holding hearings on regulatory impediments to job creation.  That should be fun.  Allan West (R-FL) complained about House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and his plan to have everyone spend less time in Washington. In Cantor’s view, the more time they spend in Washington the ‘bigger’ government is; West and other Tea Partiers are not enthralled with that position. I suspect most Americans would rather have them working than wandering around raising money or worse, spending money 'fact-finding' all over the world. 

None of the Reps on FNS would admit to wanting a government shutdown come March, so we can expect the debt ceiling to rise in the spring. What we get in return remains to be seen.

Shots Fired: Bush Tax Cuts, etc. Edition

There’s a whole lot of jibber-jabber about the plan to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for everyone across the income spectrum, tinker with the death/estate tax, and with any luck add even longer unemployment benefits.

Here’s just a sampling from Tampa Bay online, NPR, and Business Week:

• "If it's take it or leave it, we'll leave it," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas.  
• "While I have concerns with some specific aspects of the plan, I support the proposed framework to avert further economic hardship and provide a first step to restore the foundations for sustained growth and job creation." Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI)
• “Most of us who ran in this last election said we were not going to vote for anything that increased the deficit. This does. It raises taxes. It raises the death tax. I don't think we need to negotiate that aspect of this thing away. I don't think we need to, you know, extend unemployment any further without paying for it.” Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)
• “I've said before that I felt that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed.” President Obama, in his press conference on Tuesday.  
• “If everybody took out what they didn’t like we would have nothing…At the end of the day this will get done.” – White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs

Until we see a vote, which may come Monday, I suspect we'll hear a whole lot more of stuff like this.