Tax On Christmas Trees Abominable

When Santa makes his rounds on Dec. 25, I hope he has a large supply of coal.  He'll need it for all the names of those in the U.S. Department of Agriculture on his "naughty" list who deserve nothing more in their stockings this year.

The Agriculture Department has officially imposed a 15 cent tax on all live Christmas trees.

If they're going to do something so heinous, why don't they just go ahead and levy taxes on Christmas presents, mistletoe, and a singing fee on every Christmas carol sung or played during the holidays?  (Okay, I'll admit that the music industry has already figured out how to do the last one).

Who exactly is the head of the Agriculture Department these days, Ebenezer Scrooge?

Like most bad government ideas, this one started as an okay idea.

The Christmas tree growers in the U.S. have seen a dramatic downturn in the number of trees they sell each year.

It's not a diabolical scheme devised by Jack Frost or Heat Miser or the Abominable Snowman.  It's just another sad reality of a nation that is addicted to Chinese goods as severely as it joneses for imported oil.  The truth is that Americans today buy artificial trees.

In an effort to improve their live tree sales and expand their marketing efforts, the tree growers have asked for help from the government (always a bad idea...just ask the Katrina victims). 

The government decided to do what the government ALWAYS does, which is establish another committee.  But in these austere times, they had to find a way to pay for the committee and their multitudinous assistants, vice-assistants, deputy associate assistants, and all the reams of paper any self-respecting bureaucracy requires.  So to fund the new committee, the Agriculture Department is charging 15 cents per tree to all of the tree growers, who of course will pass that 30 cent tax down to tree buyers.  (If you don't understand that last sentence, then you obviously flunked business math at Wharton.)

There are so many despicable facets to this scenario that I hardly know where to begin.

First, once again our government is sticking its nose into a business problem, and offering their equivalent of more corporate welfare.  At a time when so many people want to scream "socialism" at the drop of a hat, it continues to be hilarious when business owners see no problem whatsoever in receiving government assistance.  If the tree growers really needed another committee so badly, why didn't they form it themselves?

Second, this is an abject lesson in governance that should enrage and terrify every American.

When you go down the LONG list of directors, secretaries, managers, and other high-level toadies in the Agriculture Department, you'll find something interesting: not a single one of them was elected to their position.  The American people didn't vote for them or approve their appointment.

However, despite the fact that they aren't elected, the Agriculture Department somehow has the power and authority to levy taxes.

Most of us operate daily under the erroneous assumption that only Congress can impose new taxes.  In fact, if I remember correctly, that's exactly how we ended up with a Congress, after colonists decided they'd had enough of taxes being levied by appointed flunkies like King George (who, if you believe the monarchy, was appointed by God). 

The truth is that just about any old department or committee in the federal government can tack on some fees, tariffs, or taxes any time they want, without Congressional approval or action.

It only took a little over 200 years, but we've succeeded in bringing the concept of "taxation without representation" full circle.  It is now a normal and accepted practice in the United States.

Worst of all, I'm not sure there's anything we can do about it, short of dressing up in war paint and heading down to your nearest Kiwanis tree stand to throw large collections of Douglas firs overboard.

So, now that we're just about as powerless as the colonists in 1775, all we can do is hope that the Big Guy in Red will exact some collective vengeance against the bureaucratic evildoers by leaving mounds of coal in their stockings for finally finding a way to tax Christmas.

Never mind that every piece of coal placed in those stockings includes taxes imposed by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency.  As we so often say on Christmas morning when opening the oversized, badly-knitted mittens from Aunt Esther (even though you're now 35 years old)...it's the thought that counts.

Corporations Thrive While Middle Class Dives

Wall Street Skyrockets While Protesters Freeze

Still don't understand why people are angry enough to take to the streets in protest over the runaway greed in this country?

Recent news stories have inadvertently underscored just how broken and out of whack the scales have become when weighing the growing wealth of the richest individuals and corporations against a backdrop of staggering unemployment and crippling losses in value for average American homeowners.

First, a report came out last week on Exxon's third quarter profits.  The numbers were jaw-dropping. 

(See story at http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-27/exxon-mobil-profit-tops-10-billion-on-crude-oil-price-surge.html)

At a time when people are getting absolutely gouged at the gas pumps, making hard decisions between paying for food or paying nearly $4 a gallon for gasoline in some places to get them to and from work, Exxon posted a third-quarter profit of $10.3 billion.  It was the third quarter in a row the oil giant earned more than $10 billion in profit, and a 41% jump in profit over last year's third quarter.

Exxon has made a profit of more than $30 billion this year alone, sheltering those profits from the tax man by using their offshore corporations, while nearly 10% of the population is unemployed because other corporations have sent their jobs overseas.

The kicker is that Exxon's actual oil production was down 3.8%.  Ordinarily, when a company produces less of their product, their revenues and profits go down.

Not in oil-addicted America.  And the oil companies know it. 

Oh, and just as a reminder...In 2009, Exxon paid NO income taxes.

(See story at http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-1262-ge_exxon_paid_no_taxes_in_09.html)

One more irony in this scenario is that for years, Exxon and other members of big oil have lied that high gasoline prices aren't their fault, that it's a function of the speculation markets.  Yet in a CNN story, they admitted that the higher profits are a direct result of higher gasoline prices. 

Sorry, Exxon, you can't have it both ways.

Soon after the Exxon story broke, Chevron announced that at $7.8 billion, their profits for the third quarter of 2011 are double their 2010 profits for the same quarter.

(See story at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203687504577003563181503478.html)

Royal Dutch Shell announced that they also doubled their profits in the third quarter.

Again, all of this is happening while Americans are struggling under the Atlas-like weight of extremely expensive gas that has jacked up the cost of delivering food and goods.  And you know how that "trickle down" works - higher prices for what we eat and wear.

On Friday, Oct. 28, Wall Street chimed in with a little salt to pour into the wounds of Americans who are losing their jobs, homes, and way of life.

According to reports, October was the best month for Wall Street's Dow since 2002.  The Dow traded on Thursday at 12,186, compared to its March 2009 low of 6,547.

(See story at http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/wall-street-edges-down-after-strong-rally/101554/)

This is great news for those who hate the Occupy Wall Street protesters.  It means that, in the face of this historic protest against greed, the stock market continues to skyrocket and go higher and higher in value and profits while America's working class continues to get pummeled by the economy.  Wall Street continues to prosper while the protesters freeze out in the snow at Zucotti Park.

And a new report on housing indicates that economic news is going to get worse and worse for the average homeowner.

It states that home values will fall another 3.6% between now and June, and could fall as much as 15% more in the battered Las Vegas market.  This means home values nationwide will have plummeted more than 35% since the peak in 2006.

(See story at http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/113725/home-prices-heading-triple-dip-cnnmoney?mod=realestate-sell)

Remember, for most average Americans, their home is their biggest investment and usually represents more than half their personal net worth.

To put it in perspective, the wealthy stock market investors and big oil corporations are making money like crazy, while hard working middle class homeowners are losing money on their most valuable asset through no fault of their own.

It's insane, and upside down.

The middle class has done nothing wrong.  They didn't cause the real estate implosion or the banking scandal, yet they are paying the price across the board with lost jobs and lost value in their homes.

So to see protesters screaming about the inequalities and runaway greed on Wall Street should not be a surprise.  The only surprise is that more of us are not carrying signs among them.

Occupy Wall Street Ironies

One thing you can always count on when it comes to popular culture is irony.

The recent Occupy Wall Street protests are filled with it, particularly in the attempts by opponents to shut it down.

My favorite irony revolves around the fact that the protest is aimed at the rich and their greed.  In listening to the wealthy denigrate the movement, and the government's complaints about it, the differences between the 1% and the 99% become crystal clear.

For example, the leadership in several cities including New York and Oakland have decided that the protesters have to go because they simply aren't rich enough to be allowed to remain.

In both cities, the mayor's office has raised a ruckus because nobody has bothered to pay the fees required for protest permits.

I find that hilarious, because I can't find a single line in the Constitution that says you have to pay a cover charge to express your grievances.  Apparently, free speech isn't free in New York or Oakland.

More proof that only the wealthy are allowed to protest is in another gambit being employed by these municipalities.  Protesters were swept out of their park in Oakland and were threatened with expulsion in New York because of their cooking facilities.  In both places, the argument is that the open air "kitchens" don't meet code, and must be shut down until the appropriate upgrades and improvements are in place.

Usually, that means National Sanitation Foundation-approved refrigerators and stoves. 

Have you priced one of those suckers lately?

I feel confident in saying that you could go to Home Depot and buy a nice Frigidaire refrigerator for about $900, but it won't have the NSF logo on it.  To get the exact same model that has an NSF label, you can add another 2k to the price.  Seems kind of pricey for a paper sticker, but that's the way the game is played.

Basically, the authorities are saying that if the protesters included more wealthy people willing to pony up a few grand for first-rate appliances, they would be allowed to stay without complaint.

I find it particularly ironic that a lot of wealthy right wingers have nothing good to say about the 99 percenters.

Here's what I mean:

When the first brontosaurus burger concession came into existence, you can bet that a caveman with a protruding suborbital ridge and a clipboard showed up, grunting that the Neanderthal-preneur needed a city license and had to pass a health-department inspection.  I'm not sure how you lose points on such an inspection for having dirt on the floor when the floor itself is made of dirt, but I have faith that prehistoric bureaucrats found a way to work it into their citations.

Ever since the days of Fred Flintstone, the right has been complaining about government regulations like that.

However, now that it's the 99 percenters getting hammered with these requirements as the ruse being used to evict them, those wealthy anti-regulation zealots remain curiously quiet.

As for the complaints about a lack of bathroom facilities for the protesters, I have no sympathy for the anti-occupy crowd.

And it's one more briquette on the charcoal irony pyramid.

Everyone knows that those obscenely rich Wall Street types believe their crap doesn't stink. So when the smell of unfiltered humanity wafts beneath their nostrils, they go into a panic.

Want to make the smell go away?  It's easy.  Simply let the protesters use the bathrooms at the New York Stock Exchange and at those fancy bank buildings lining Wall Street.

But no, the police have put up barricades and prohibited the protesters from setting foot in these elite facilities. 

I guess it makes sense.

Obviously, the authorities figure those places filled with bankers and stock brokers are already so full of crap that they couldn't accommodate one more bean fart.

And on this one point, I would have to agree.

Huntsman Seals Fate With Diss Of Nevada Neighbor

Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman has
finished off his flagging campaign for
the Republican nomination by insulting the
state of Nevada.

Did you hear that sound? 

It was the echo of a presidential campaign in its death throes.

Worst of all, it's a campaign now destined to die of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the foot.

Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman's bid for the GOP nomination has been on life support for weeks.  Not only has he failed to become the most popular candidate in the national discussion, he isn't even the most popular Mormon in the race.

Former Utah resident, LDS member, and 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics savior Mitt Romney has bested him in almost every metric.

Huntsman hasn't made any significant gaffes, which in some ways is unfortunate for his campaign because his name and likeness aren't getting any late night exposure during Leno's monologues or Letterman's soliloquies.

He also hasn't done anything significant or noteworthy to elevate himself toward the top of a crowded herd of presidential wannabes.

However, this week he finally made a misstep, compounded by the proverbial insult added to injury, and it's likely to finish him off.

Huntsman made the curious decision to opt out of the televised Republican candidate debate in Las Vegas Oct. 18. 

It was odd, because he could have driven from his Utah home to Vegas.

Also, who passes up on free TV face time? 

Even sanctimonious Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum figured out how to find Sin City, despite the fact that the nameplate on his podium could have been engraved with "Is HE still in the race?"

His absence was a slight slap in the face to his next door neighbor, but it wasn't like anyone would miss him.  It simply meant one less person standing in line at the all-you-can-eat buffet.

Now, Huntsman's exercise in skipping school has been blown into a full-fledged steel-cage death match between him and the Nevada voters, and the candidate himself is the one who picked the fight.

On Thursday, the potential dairy spokesmodel published an Op-Ed piece in New Hampshire's Union Leader newspaper and website [Click Here for article].

Instead of offering up a subtle mea culpa for missing the debate, like he was washing his hair or fell asleep in front of the TV while watching Hannity on Fox News, Huntsman hammered the entire state of Nevada for its gamesmanship over the upcoming primaries.  He explained that his "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" from the campaign was actually a boycott of the Silver State.

In the guest editorial, Huntsman ripped Nevada for deciding to move its GOP caucus up to January, just ahead of New Hampshire's primary.  Previously, the vote in New Hampshire was the first in the nation.

After flipping Nevadans the bird, he then spit in their eye with some of his remarks.

"At a time when so much of American politics has devolved into slogans and sideshow theatrics, as we've seen in recent debates, Granite Staters demand more.  They expect to meet candidates, not through a television ad, but a handshake. They do their homework, examine records, and ask probing questions and tough follow-ups. They're not impressed with slick PR campaigns. They value authenticity and recognize pandering for what it is," Huntsman said in his editorial.

Why didn't he just go ahead and call us a collection of vacuous Ken and Barbie dolls?

He goes on to take a few more backhanded passive-aggressive swipes at what he apparently believes to be the doltish collection of Las Vegas louts while singing the praises of New Hampshire.

There are a lot of reasons for Nevada residents to raise their hackles and sharpen their pitchforks as they pointedly ignore his name in January, but he has actually given all voters across the country two legitimate reasons to go ahead and scratch his name off the list, and that doesn't include the impression that Huntsman's really just a campaign coward afraid of taking on the big boys under a national spotlight.

One, he apparently doesn't own a map; and two, a simple pocket calculator is obviously beyond his skillset.

Take a look at a map of the U.S.  If you're into comparing "size" (and Texans like candidates Rick Perry and Ron Paul always are), Nevada is bigger than New Hampshire.

But as wives are constantly reassuring their insecure husbands, size really doesn't matter.

But populations do.

According to the 2010 Census, the population of New Hampshire is 1,316,470.  The population of Nevada is 2,700,551.  Nearly double.  Which means Nevada not only has more potential voters, it represents more ticks on the Electoral College tote board come election time.

Snubbing and insulting one of your neighbors isn't how you win elections, not that the former Utah governor was ever in any danger of taking the top spot on the GOP ballot.  After Huntsman's most recent diatribe, Sharron Angle has a better chance of carrying the Nevada Republican vote (and she lost to Harry Reid, one of the most hated politicians in the state and country).

But it's even worse for Huntsman.  When the elections are over and he returns to Utah, dragging his whipped tail between his legs the entire trip, he's going to eventually run into a few of his western neighbors.  And while Nevadans apparently "don't do their homework" and "don't examine records," there is one thing our Las Vegas Mafia-influenced history has taught us how to do:

Carry a grudge.

Occupy Protesters Need To Avoid Tea Party Mistakes

First the Occupy Wall Street protesters were ignored.  Then they were lambasted by the right wing.  After that, they were embraced by the media.  And now the Democratic Party is trying to co-opt them.

My advice to the unidentifiable leadership of this organic, unorganized grass roots protest?

Don't let them do it!

Don't allow the weak, knuckleheaded boobs in the Democratic Party do to you what the knuckleheaded boobs in the Republican Party did to the Tea Party.

In the beginning, I believed in the Tea Party.  There are some facets and individuals involved in that movement that I support even today.

But when they sold out wholesale to the Republicans more than a year ago?  I lost my respect for them and gave up on them as a legitimate, groundbreaking organization of substance.

Today, under the GOP leadership, they have completely lost their way.

I'd be willing to wager that a good 40 percent of the people who either belong to or support the Tea Party don't even know what "TEA" originally stood for.

It was "Taxed Enough Already," a sentiment that is worthy of embrace by almost every American on the continent.

In the beginning, the group was deliberately and pointedly non-partisan, holding politicians accountable on both sides of the aisle for the out-of-control spending and high taxes.

So who got the tax breaks?

The corporations and the rich.

Unfortunately, the Tea Party appears to have given up on that cause and embraced an easier message spoon-fed to them by their GOP puppet masters: "Get rid of Obama."

What does Obama have to do with this country's out-of-control spending?  That problem was here long before Obama got into office, and continues unabated under the de facto rule of the GOP in the Senate and the actual Republican majority in the House. 

The Repubs want to play shell games and blame the problem on "socialist programs."  Really?  Which ones?  You mean Medicare?  Social Security?  Sorry, those programs were here long before Obama showed up.  In fact, the big growth in Medicare came not under a Democrat, but under George W. Bush, who approved the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003. 

Since Jan. 20, 2009, I challenge you to find a single "socialist" program that has been enacted.  The only thing the right wing can point to is Obama's idiotic Health Care Reform (which doesn't provide any of those three things - health, care, or reform).  What they forget is that, since President Spineless caved and removed the "public option" from the new law, there's nothing socialist about it.

But when it comes to government deficits and unbridled spending, the elephant in the room (pardon the pun, 'Publicans) is the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq.  Somehow, the Tea Party always forgets that it was a Republican who picked those two coffer-draining fights.  You want to blame Obama for something?  Blame the rat bastard for lying and not getting us OUT of those two messes like he promised in 2008.  According to recent news reports, even the troops are questioning whether these two ongoing wars are worth the lives and money being squandered on the two battle fronts with no winnable solution in sight.

Obama lied to the American people about ending the Iraq war and pulling our troops out.  According to the Brookings Institute, as of June 30, 2011, there are still 44,000 American troops in Iraq.  You want to whale on Obama?  There is a legitimate reason.  His lack of action is almost as unconscionable and unforgivable as Bush's decision to get us into Iraq.

Someday, I'm hoping the Tea Party will return to its non-partisan roots (hint - that means lunatic GOP darlings like Sarah Palin won't be the keynote speaker at their "non-partisan" rallies).  When that day comes, I'll go back to being a Tea Party supporter.

In the meantime, I'm trying to be optimistic that this new Occupy Wall Street group will do a better job of standing up to corporations and rich campaign donors who have been manipulating the two-party system for decades.  That means they'll have to resist the charms of left wing nutjobs like Democratic congressmen Charles Rangel and Keith Ellison. 

The last thing the Occupy movement needs is to fall prey to partisan politics and become the extreme mouthpiece for the Democrats, the way the Tea Party has for the Republicans.  Just like the GOP, which needed the growing momentum of the Tea Party to become relevant in 2010, the Democrats want to suck some of the go juice from the burgeoning Occupy movement to give themselves some badly needed momentum for the looming 2012 elections.

When you think about it, the moves by both major parties are truly sad, and indicative of how far politics in America has fallen.  Those politicians from both parties used to be referred to as "leaders."  Now, they're just finding fast-moving parades and jumping in front of them to give the appearance that they are leading.  They're not.

You want proof?

According to a recent Rasmussen Report poll, 33% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters.  (40% have no opinion, and 27% have an unfavorable opinion).

By comparison, a recent ABC poll shows that only 14% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Congress, and 82% disapprove of the job Congress has been doing.

That means the Occupy movement, filled with what Fox News characterizes as slackers and lazy out of work bums, is twice as popular as Congress after only being in existence for three weeks.

To the protestors and supports of the Occupy Wall Street movement that has now moved to Main Street in a number of states, the message is clear (even if your demands aren't...yet):

Stay pure. 

Steve Jobs Death Sad, Not A Tragedy

The world received the sad news on Wednesday that Apple founder Steve Jobs died at the age of 56.

News sites from every corner have eulogized his passing, some even hinting that it was a tragedy.

To be sure, it's surprising and unfortunate.  When someone with his wealth, access, resources, and mental strength succumbs to pancreatic cancer, you know it is truly an incurable disease.  Also, it always gives pause when someone still in his prime is struck down.

But does it rise to the level of "tragedy?" 

No.

Jobs lived a remarkable life.  He reached the heights in his profession, positively influenced history, and was a household name.

True tragedy is dying with your song still in you.

The amount of media coverage raises another question that no longer gets asked very often.

Was he a good man?  And does it matter anymore?

Without question, Jobs was iconic.  His story was an inspiring one, involving a young man and his business partner Steve Wozniak working in obscurity to pioneer new computer innovations.  Starting from nothing, they created Apple, and the Mac line of computers.

Then, in a sign of just how crazy, insensitive, and wrong the corporate world can be, Jobs was ousted from his position as the head of the company he founded.

That's an important story, because it emphasizes one of the many things that is flawed about today's business world.  Corporations no longer reward and applaud innovation or visionary thinking.  They only want profits.  Big profits.  If the profits aren't big enough, even a company's founder can be shown the door.

The bean counters and professional corporate handlers subsequently ran Apple into the ground.  That's not a surprise.  No hired gun can bring the same level of intensity, commitment, and vision as the guy who originally built the company.  To the job-jumping CEO's, it's a board game.  To men like Steve Jobs, it is a part of who they are.

During his time away from Apple, Jobs co-created the animated movie giant Pixar, which eventually got eaten by mega-corporation Disney. 

He also created a couple of failed computer competitors, including NeXT.

Then, after watching his beloved Apple turned into a third-rate computer company, Jobs returned as CEO.

He stunned the world by making, instead of the next whiz-bang lineup of computers, a music player called an iPod.  It was an enormous success.

Then, to top off that win, he again sidestepped the call of rolling out a new and better Apple computer.  He bucked all the odds and ignored the catcalls of Wall Street watchers who believed he was destined to run Apple back into the ground by jumping into the crowded, cut-throat telecommunications world.  The result was the iPhone, which is the undisputed king of smart cell phones.

His next trick was super-sizing the iPhone into the iPad, a gimmick which a lot of people thought was just a retread of the laptop computer fad.  As usual, they were wrong and he was right.  Now, an entire new industry of "tablets" has been created.  Moreover, tablets have been anointed as the PC killer that experts have been predicting since about two months after the PC was invented.  Even Hewlett Packard has run up the white flag, admitting that tablets are the future of computing by announcing that they are going to stop building PC's.

Steven Jobs is a business hero.

But the core question remains - is greatness defined today simply as the height and breadth of your accomplishments, or who you are as a person?

Once upon a time, such lofty accolades were reserved for those who not only had success, but also displayed a touch of humanity.  Mother Teresa immediately jumps to mind.  She didn't die a millionaire, but she was beloved and known the world over.  John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. were both recognized as protectors and promoters of their fellow man.  John Wayne was known for his soft spot in helping people and spending time with the common folk.

There are plenty of stories about Jobs' business and technology prowess, but not many warm and fuzzy tales of helping a sick child or donating millions to causes.  In fact, there are numerous reports of his sometimes ruthless nature in business.  He also had a wide streak of stinginess in not sharing Apple codes with programmers, or allowing other software writers to develop applications that would work on an Apple computer.  Other computer companies facilitated and encouraged such synchronicity, sharing the wealth created by their innovations with other software developers. 

As a child, your mother would have chided you for being selfish.  Today, it's considered "just business."

To be fair, Jobs never appeared on the police blotter or was photographed stoned, drunk, or stumbling into a car without underwear, which are common and accepted practices for today's celebrities.  No sex scandals, no Madoff-like corporate sleight of hand, no wife beating.

All of this is not to diminish the memory of a historic figure, or to speak ill of the dead.  It is to make the point that our interpretation of "greatness" has become skewed. 

Today, you can be considered great even if you've crushed some people under your wheels.  Nobody's handing out trophies for second place.  In fact, you'll even receive scorn if you finished second because you insisted on being ethical, humane, and compassionate.

The loss of Steve Jobs this week is sad and worthy of our attention and consideration.  It doesn't rise to the level of tragedy, although it will probably be seen that way by holders of Apple stock.

The loss of our standards as to what constitutes greatness, and the way we reward behaviors that would have made our mothers ashamed...that is a true tragedy.