Why the gas tax is unfair to wage earners

 When the state tacks fees on the price of a gallon of gas, it's punishing a class of people that are not only the least deserving, but the weakest element of the government. The wage earner.

The reason we, the weak, are taxed in the first place is because we don't have the power to fight back.

The US Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations are sovereign entities above and beyond the individuals that comprise them by upholding their ability to speak with a louder, more pervasive voice in government via campaign contributions. That gives the very rich incredible influence in government that the rest of us cannot access.

The reason the wage earner, the people that drive their cars for reasons of personal travel or to get to their jobs and many other non-commercial reasons, should not have to pay a gas tax is because they cause a minuscule amount of wear and tear on the roads in comparison to that of commercial users.

The unmistakable beneficiary of our roads are the corporations that use them to generate vast amounts of revenue. Pound-for-pound, semi trucks cause 60 times more damage than a passenger car. Even if I thought the people, who have a natural right to move about the country unencumbered by government regulations or corporate restrictions, were to fork over an equitable share for their road use, then it would be a tiny fraction of what they currently pay.

Let's also remember that the gas tax is not the only way in which the people subsidize over-the-road commerce. We pay huge in state and federal taxes on wages, tax on purchases, tax to give health care to elderly, disabled and poor people, and tax to supplement the incomes elderly people after they retire, without respect for financial need. Any of these moneys can be leveraged or converted to directly or indirectly fund road construction or gas subsidies -- on the backs of the wage earner.

There are no delusions that the government needs revenue to operate and keep the country on the rails. The question is, from which spigots should it be able to derive it? The problem is that some very powerful people and entities regard the wage earners as an enormous teat from which to enrich themselves.

I don't know about you, but I'm getting a little sick and tired of being the schmuck who has to pay all the damn bills around this place!

Free digital TV means $140 in monthly savings

I always threatened to cancel my cable TV subscription, but when my bill jumped from $78 to $140 a month, it was suddenly a lot easier to return the gear to Mediacom and end the relationship.

What I had not fully realized was that 95% of what I watch is free.  In fact, all the top shows are in fact broadcast OTA (over-the-air).  What am I missing?  I can't watch Mad Men and The Daily Show at their initial air times anymore, but for $9 (Netflix) I can catch up on almost any cable show, like Mad Men, and there's a free app for The Daily Show.

For the sake of full disclosure, I had to replace the Internet connection my cable company provided as a part of their $140 package.  I found a company that provides DSL for $45/mo.  And I still have my Tivo DVR, so that's another $129/yr ($10.75/mo).  I can drop that (see below) and still enjoy all my shows.  Finally, my phone bill is $45 a month.  I'm keeping that.

What you need to cut the cable:

• $35 TV antenna (and the guts to instal it)
• $50 chimney mount and RG6 coaxial cable
• $35 signal splitter/amplifier
• $100 over-the-air DVR

Now, even if I give up my Tivo, I still can record two shows at once, and watch them on my computer, or TV (via Apple TV [$99]) or on my iPad if I want.

Branstad endorses a big, fat liar

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad announced today that he's backing Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) for the Presidency.

It's pretty late in the race to be choosing horses, and this particular stallion has some issues from a previous run.

Romney showed us there's nothing he wouldn't lie about.  So the question is whether it hurt Branstad to back the better of the evils, when in fact the lesser man is evil.

Let me take you back to august of 2007 when the former governor of Massachusetts appeared on a radio show while stumping in Des Moines during his ask-me-anything tour.

Several minutes into a filler segment, the talk show host abruptly shifted gears, noting that Romney was walking into the studio. "Good morning, sir, welcome aboard," Jan Mickelson said.  But the niceties didn't last.

After a significant kerfuffle on and off the air, Mickelson said, "I hope we can do this when we can spend some quality time on the air."  "No, I get a little tired of coming on a show like yours and having it be all about Mormon," Mr. Romney fired back.

If it's not bad enough that Romney was argumentative, defensive and combative, he told Katie Couric that the host had a hidden camera on the console.

More than this being about a potential US President's dishonesty, I'm disheartened that the governor of my state would back him in that role.