Rant time

This just really ticks me off. Alexandra Petri shot off a blog this morning over at WaPo that sent me into orbit. Her complaint is based on Mitt Romney's comment in Iowa that "corporations are people, my friend." This sent Ms. Petri into a snarky (less than thought out) rant about how you can't invite 'corporations' over to dinner and other such nonsense. She also managed to get a solid dig in about Palin's special needs child (classless). Her point is way off base, here is what small businesses (corporations if you like) contribute to the economy:

Small firms:

Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.

Employ just over half of all private sector employees.

Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.

Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.

Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP).

Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers).

Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.

Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007.

Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.

 
You see, Petri doesn't consider the fact that most corporations are actually small businesses made up of a few hard working people. Most of us are barely keeping their heads above water. We in the small business community go to bed and wake up thinking about what we can do to make our company better. Not just for us but for our customers, employees and their families.

I am lucky enough to own a small boniness and yes I represent it everywhere I go. Even, oddly enough, when I'm invited over to someone's house for dinner (full disclosure this doesn't happen very often). What Petri does not understand is that if I were to get hit by a bus my 'corporation' would effectively die. So yes Ms. Petri, corporations are people you sanctimonious (fill in your own bad word here).

Rant over.

Who plays and who really pays?

Chris Kobus has a must read post over on Right Wing News. Chris, rightfully, asks:

Why does CNN point out that majority want higher taxes on the rich, but don't point out that the majority pay no federal income taxes? And that bottom 40% actually get money back?

Chris goes on with a series of charts and graphs to show just how imbalanced our tax code is.

Fact: Top 1% Pay More Fed Income Taxes Than Bottom 95%! Bottom 51% Pay None. Bottom 40% GET MONEY BACK!

Now rather than pointing out the Media bias (Chris does a much better job than I could), I want to throw out a few solutions. In the comments section I laid out a couple of possibilities:

I see a huge issue in our current tax code. What if we changed the code to one of two ways:

1. Abolish the income tax entirely and replace it with a national sales tax. This would by definition make sure that all Americans participate in paying for the government and have a say by voting with their dollars.

2. This one's more radical and surely has no chance. But if you are a chronic welfare recipient, then you give up your right to vote. This of course is much more cumbersome and creates a huge verification issue (not to mention Constitutional dilemma). But it would certainly incentivize those wishing to be a part of the democratic process to get off the dole. Not to mention reduce the number of democratic votes by at least half.

Once welfare recipients realize their access to the treasury is no longer there, they will have to, gasp, change their behavior.

I could go on and talk about the flat tax and other changes to the code but all these solutions have one thing in common. And that is if Democracy is going to work, then the entire citizenry will have to participate. And that means not only voting but paying as well. Our current tax system rewards bad behavior while discouraging good behavior. And this, my friends, is a recipe for disaster for the republic.

Rioting in the streets?

Rasmussen had this headline out today: 48% Think Spending Cuts Could Trigger Violence.

Nearly one-out-of-two Americans (48%) think that cuts in government spending are at least somewhat likely to lead to violence in the United States, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. But that includes just 13% who feel it's Very Likely.

My guess is that the respondents of this poll have a bit of a London hangover. Any adjustments to Social Security or Medicare will be phased in over a number of years. Thus, any 'rioting' would be from people that will not be eligible for either of these for a number of years yet. But I gotta tell you, I'd love to see the Man with no name ride again. Even if he's 81!

Constitution gets in the way again

You know, I'm really starting to think that those fellas in the funny breeches and white wigs knew what the hell they were doing when they wrote the Constitution. This from Reuters:

An appeals court ruled on Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.

The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

Man, Obama just can't buy a break, bad week bro, bad week.

Two quick points to make. First, let's not get too worked up here; this debacle will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court. That being said it sure helps when you can get the lower courts to rule against it. Second, the bit about "the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect" doesn't mean much, because without the mandate forcing Americans to buy this nonsense, it all falls apart because there will be no funding for it.

Just thought I'd brighten your Friday.

The true threat to the Unions

The biggest problem the anti-austerity movement has is when it works. This is gonna leave a mark (emphasis mine):

Recently, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
noted that under Walker's plan to require greater health-care and pension contributions from government employees, the City of Milwaukee actually comes out $11 million ahead

 

That's $11 million ahead! Walker was faced with deficits for as far as the eye could see. Rather than kicking the can down the road, he put in some common sense plans and already, not 10 years down the road, good things are happening. And the Union response?

Mayor Tom Barrett's March prediction that Walker's budget "just makes our structural deficit explode." Barrett, who lost to Walker in the 2010 Wisconsin gubernatorial election, refuses to give the governor any credit for helping him balance his city's books, instead complaining that Walker's plan to curb collective bargaining went too far.

Er, okay. It gets better tho. Apparently, the Democrats and Unions were reticent to even mention collective bargaining in their television ads during the recall elections because they didn't want to alert voters to the plan's successes.

There are many other examples of how the new law is benefiting the students while saving the state millions of dollars. All of which will further hurt the unions and their brand. The best thing that can happen is that the unions continue attacking Walker and other like minded Governors, it will only serve to remind voters just how irrelevant these extortionists are becoming. Taxpayers 1 Unions 0!