Stuff My Brain Says #87

"Who do you think you're kidding?!?"

Remember when Congress wanted then candidate Donald Trump to turn over his tax returns? Yeah. Fun times.

Now Congress is telling us that the multi-trillion dollar infrastructure spending bill will be paid for by making companies and the rich pay their fair share. You know, "The middle class won't be left holding the bag. The rich who haven't been paying their fair share will cover the bill." 

To quote Dana Carvey: "Isn't that special?"

(Side note: when Social Security was first "sold" to us, we were told only the very rich would pay for it. Have you looked at your paystub to see the lump that goes out for Social Security? Welcome to the very rich ... )

Did you see the commonality of the above two statements? Yup. Congress. Now, here's the funny part: Congress is the very entity that created the tax code that ALLOWS people like Donald Trump to not pay taxes.

IF those "evil" rich aren't paying their "fair share", wouldn't there be charges brought up against them? Ask folks like Wesley Snipes, Nicolas Cage, and Willie Nelson about what happens when you don't pay your "fair share". Sounds to me that if a rich person or company isn't already paying their taxes, they would have been caught by now.

Maybe Congress has been watching too many Tim Misny commercials. Of course, the reason he can "make them pay" is that they've done something illegal. You'd think since Congress is made up of a bunch of lawyers, they'd already know that.

Would somebody please ask those folks who've been in D.C. seemingly forever what changes to the tax code they plan on making? After all, one of the reasons that a lot of these companies aren't "paying", is that a POLITICIAN promises tax cuts/abatements for opening a business in their district. NOW they are crying that these very companies actually embrace those cuts and abatements?

Even if Congress were able to get more money from the rich and businesses, they would simply outspend it. It's been their modus operandi for decades. They have an addiction: other people's money.

Maybe Congress should live by this simple financial code: If your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep will be your downfall.

© Emittravel 2021

It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #11

It's broke . . .

President Donald Trump came under a lot of pressure to separate himself from his businesses once he became President. The concern was that having control of his businesses would impact his decisions and the way he worked with foreign governments. You know, he would not make a decision that would negatively impact his businesses.

And separating himself is a good thing. But is it enough?

If having “civilian” enterprises are a negative for the President, shouldn’t the same be said for those in Congress? What about the Supreme Court? How about for anyone in public service? Why just the President?

In March of 2004, Martha Stewart was found guilty of what is commonly referred to as “insider trading”. (She was actually convicted of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart) Was she in the wrong? The courts surely thought so.

But why is “insider trading” considered illegal? According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security (stock), in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include 'tipping' such information, securities trading by the person 'tipped,' and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information.” It is considered illegal because “insider trading undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets”. (See https://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm for more info)

When you own stock, you own a part of a company. The more stock you own, the more of the company you own. If you own a certain amount, you have “voting rights” of a company in their decision process.

If a member of Congress owns stock in a company, wouldn’t that be on a certain level the same as President Trump owning a company? And wouldn’t owning that company impact the laws that Congress writes? And furthermore, wouldn’t having access to lobbyists from these companies provide insider trading information to these members of Congress, which would not only impact the way they write laws, but also how they buy/trade their stock?

In other words, if a member of Congress owns stock, couldn’t they be charged the same as Martha Stewart?

The solution is simple: EVERYONE in public office must give FULL DISCLOSURE of their financial investments to the public (you know, their BOSS) and be accountable for any decisions they make that impact the value of their investments. You know, like everyone screamed that President Trump needed to release his tax forms.

Either that, or like everyone is screaming about over President Trump, they should remove themselves from their “businesses” (a.k.a. “the companies they own - even if it is via stock”). And the simple way to do that is divest themselves of all of their investments prior to taking office.

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2017

Stuff My Brain Says #36

One of the major differences that I've read concerning Republican and Democrat politicians is that most Democrats have a background in the legal establishment (a.k.a. "lawyers") and most Republicans have a background in business (corporate or private). As far as running the government is concerned, both have their pluses and minuses. I think the real benefits are seen when politicians leave office. Most Republicans go back to what they were doing before taking office (or retiring). Democrats, like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, seem to keep hanging around like the annoying relative at the end of a family function - they never know when to go home!

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #34

The Department of Justice is "fighting" book publishers for collusion: getting together to manipulate the market (a.k.a. adjusting pricing models). You see, collusion between companies is illegal, and the government needs to step in and stop it. Why? Because THEY weren't invited! Colluding with businesses to manipulate the market (usually with disastrous results) is the "job" of the government. Shame on you publishers. Besides, you may have missed out on a too-big-to-fail stimulus!

©Emittravel 2012