How the media distracts us from real issues

I'm often insulted when I see in the media that the most important issues are brushed under the rug and petty bickering makes the headlines.

On MSNBC's Martin Bashir program Friday (Oct. 27), Democratic analyst Karen Finney said of the white Republican base, "They think [Cain is] a black man who knows his place."



A cohort of mine subsequently shared a link to a Weekly Standard web page featuring the exchange and remarked, "Left wing racism rears it's ugly head again. Disgusting!"

Putting aside for a moment his misuse of the contraction, my friend uses circular reasoning to arrive at a conclusion that the Democratic analyst is racist for accusing the white Republican base of holding a racist viewpoint.

This is also a classic example of feigning dismay in order to arouse the right-wing base and distract them from the truly important issues of the day, like the poor economy and the high unemployment.  Anyone that's paying attention should recognize that Finney was exhibiting GOPism and not left-wing racism.

Finney's remarks are reminiscent of Rush Limbaugh's racial overtones when he made disparaging remarks about Philly quarterback Donovan McNabb:

"Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go," Limbaugh said. "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Was Limbaugh the racist here?  Or was he accusing the media of using race as a criteria for their desire to see McNabb do well?  I don't often come to the big guy's defense, but in this case, his statement was not racist.

Now onto a lesson on the use of its and it's in American English writing.

Spotify

In this rant: Why I dislike Spotify.

It's spyware and malware and junkware all wrapped up in one cute package.  Plus it incessantly announces to which song certain friends are listening, further advancing the wholesale distribution of useless information.

Join me next time as I rail against multiple entities reposting the same information to dozens of walls.

Fundamental Restructuring of the Tax Code

Michele Bachmann, John Huntsman and Sarah Palin are all saying how they'd help businesses create new jobs by lowering or eliminating corporate taxes, which would shift more of the federal revenue burden on the individuals.  They all mention a fundamental restructuring of the tax code.  I agree.

But how is shifting the responsibility for generating government revenue to the individuals good for the American people?

I'm running for president and I have my own plan.  It comes in two easy steps.

Individual income tax came about within the last century and it's resulted in a power and wealth shift toward big business and an explosive growth of government.

The fact is, the earners in this country that have the biggest need and the most to gain from lowering the federal overhead, but are the ones with the least power to influence a change, which creates a fundamental (some say fatal) flaw in the system.

Money flows in a circular fashion, from manufacturers to individuals to retailers and back to manufacturers. Government taps its revenue from various spigots to varying degrees. But because of special interests and corporate lobbies, the demand for more federal revenue is exploding because more of the money flows back to them from the tax coffers (through subsidies, loophole exemptions & reductions and bailouts). So the only way to reduce the governments appetite for money is to give big business incentive to encourage a more efficient government. And they will under my plan.

Step 1.  End individual taxes.

Since all government tax money is coming from the same stream, we're simply proposing that the corporate spigots be the only ones turned on...essentially pushing the taps upstream.

Initially business will shoulder a larger tax burden because government is top heavy. But as the heat is felt in Washington, new policies will be proposed that will shrink the size and scope of government and thereby lowering the overall tax burden on society.

• End all taxes levied on individuals (not including capital gains from investments like stock, bonds, commodities, etc.)
• End all corporate taxes on foreign business.
• Uniformly tax all revenues derived from the US market without regard for the country of companies' headquarters.
• Fairly assess a sustainable road use tax on all commercial vehicles based on objective road wear studies.
• Insist on local community ownership of businesses where ever possible. This should not affect manufacturing, distribution, communications network backbone providers and the like.
• End federal drug laws.
• Criminally punish business owners for hiring illegal aliens and deceptive pricing and advertising practices.

Taxes include all money any government agency assesses on individuals, their purchases and property, including fuel, property & sales taxes, licensing & registration fees, telecommunications fees, etc.

Step 2.  Restore backed currency.

Rick Perry on the issues

Payroll taxes and partisan rhetoric

When a political party identifies itself as a champion against taxes, insisting on extending ten-year tax cuts that benefit rich folks indefinitely, then says it's OK to allow certain other tax cuts to expire (a payroll tax cut that would help low income earners), it becomes clear what the goal is.

The 6.2% Social Security payroll tax on employees that was temporarily reduced to 4.6% by Democrats is ending on schedule, thanks to Republicans, who want that particular tax to expire.

The tax cut only applies to the first $100,000 in earnings, meaning that a maximum of $2,000 will be gained by any earner.  That is to say, for millionaires it's not that significant of a cut to be concerned with.  Millionaires will forgive their Congress for such a petty loss.

But the gains for the federal coffers could be $120B.  So even if it is a tough chunk for earners to swallow, Republicans really have to show fiscal responsibility at this point in time.  They're running for the White House, afterall.

On the other hand, is this just a negotiating tactic?  For those of us that earn less than $100,000, are we going to have to give up something enormous just to gain back the 2% of the money we worked hard to earn?

Oh, the games people play with other people's money.

OPEN LETTER TO THE GOVERNMENT:

I think what Warren Buffet is saying is that we-the-people have failed the nation in regulating the money flow into the hands of the power class, that it's time to start taxing capital gains and commerce in a meaningful way and stop penalizing the hard work of the earners in America.  It's time to shift the purse strings from the individuals to the revenue generators -- the power class -- in this country.

So from all American earners, I say we are sincerely sorry for our weaknesses.  We thought we could hold their feet to the fire, to keep the power class honest, but through some misguided choices on our part, we have failed America.

Please help us and our nation by taking the purse strings back.

PS -- we're also returning the currency to you.  It's a little dinged up, so you'll have to fix that, too.  Please don't be too mad at us.

Does the Iowa Straw Poll mean anything?

While most of the local media is focused on the Butter Cow at the Iowa State Fair, the national press is counting down the days before the year's largest republican fundraiser.

You might think, judging by the media frenzy surrounding this early presidential contest, the GOP gathering at Hilton Coliseum is a critical badge to earn in order to become a US president; candidates who don't participate are hurting themselves.

Not so fast, pundit breath.

Only once in thirty years has the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames predicted a presidential election, when in August of 1999, George W. Bush walked away with seemingly all the honors: Iowa Straw Poll, Iowa caucuses, other US primaries and the general election itself.

John McCain, who eventually won his party's nod in '08, earned only a tenth-place showing at the money gala.

Needless to say, as a measuring stick, it has little meaning.  Only Bush 41 & 43 have eventually gone on to win the presidency after an Ames Straw Poll win -- and not necessarily in the same campaign year.

Even the early caucus and primary referendums don't indicate a winner in the general, so it makes you wonder what the fuss is all about.

National media coverage aside, the Iowa Straw Poll is a pointless exercise in the big campaign, so it's no wonder GOP frontrunners like Mitt Romney would choose to skip this particular dance.  Besides, Romney has already achieved what other candidates would hope to gain from the event, so why risk potential landmines (like this video and this issue) along the Iowa trail?