American Daughter - Multimedia journalism with articles,pictures and graphics, podcast audio and video,slide presentations, live-blogging of events, and webcasting
California Chronicle - Published daily The California Chronicle brings you the top news and commentary of the day throughout the Central Coast, the State and the Nation.
Real Clear Politics - One of America’s premier independent political web sites. Updated every morning and throughout the day, RCP culls and publishes the best commentary, news, polling data, and links to important resources from all points of the political compass and coveri
TownHall - Townhall.com is designed to amplify conservative voices in America’s political debates just as the 2006 and 2008 election cycles begin to heat up.
Working Senior - The National Association of Working Seniors
In a 1934 U.S. Court of Appeals case, Judge Learned Hand famously said, “Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.” – (Gregory v. Helvering, 1934).
Judge Hand’s statement refers to “tax avoidance,” which is legal. However, tax evasion is not. In short, avoidance is managing one’s finances within the law in such a way as to pay the least amount of tax, whereas “evasion” involves violating tax laws to minimize or eliminate income taxes.
Given the complexity of our tax laws today, which require something on the order of 66,000 pages to document, the difference is often unclear. Even those who work for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and tax professionals are often unable to interpret our tax laws. So, why should Timothy Geithner be expected to understand them, even though the IRS is one of the agencies he will supervise?
What did he do that could or should be cause for concern? In the Senate hearings to confirm his appointment to the nation’s most important financial position, Mr. Geithner confirmed that he failed to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on his income for the four years 2001 through 2004, saying it was due to “careless but unintentional mistakes.” Should that matter and, if so, should it have disqualified him from being confirmed as the Treasury Secretary for the new administration?
The facts are not complicated:
Mr. Geithner failed to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for four years (2001-2004), while he was working for the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The IMF advised him in writing that he was responsible for paying U.S. Social Security and Medicare taxes on his earnings, which he acknowledged in writing, and they gave him the money to pay the taxes.
In 2006, his 2003 and 2004 income tax returns were audited, and he was assessed and paid $16,732 in taxes plus interest for the Social Security and Medicare taxes due for those years, a total of $25,970.
However, he did not pay the back taxes for 2001 and 2002 – because the time within which the IRS could audit those years had expired. Although Mr. Geithner knew or should have known that he was obligated to pay these taxes at the time he filed his income tax returns, he did not do so, and he did not voluntarily pay them in 2006.
He did subsequently pay his Social Security and Medicare taxes for 2001 and 2002, but not until after he had been nominated for the position of Treasury Secretary.
Mr. Geithner said he made “honest mistakes” and that his accountants had failed to catch the error. But, they don’t look like honest mistakes to me. The Wall Street Journal reported that Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said it was “‘incomprehensible’ that Mr. Geithner didn’t realize he needed to pay employment taxes.” I agree.
Although his actions may not rise to the level of tax evasion in the technical sense, my conclusion is that he believed it was safe to forget about paying the additional taxes for those years for which the statute of limitations had expired. Perhaps it was, legally speaking, that is. But, this is not a legal issue, it’s a moral one.
To me, this is about character. People who are appointed to head a major federal agency should have the highest “character” possible. It’s especially important in this case, given that the Department of the Treasury’s responsibilities include investigating and prosecuting tax evaders. Mr. Geithner may not become directly involved in making decisions in specific tax cases, but I wonder how he might judge the “honest mistakes” of other taxpayers.
I would have voted against this nominee because I believe he does not have the honesty and integrity that should be required to head a major federal agency. However, that Obama went ahead with Geithner’s appointment after learning of his nominee’s ethical breach is the most telling aspect of this situation. Where else will we see Obama’s actions depart from his rhetoric about transparency and honesty in government?
President Obama’s inaugural address received glowing accolades from many Americans and criticism from others. I wasn’t impressed. However, my criticism is not based on his rhetoric or style so much as the content of his speech. Following are just some of the things he said that concern me:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood…Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.”
Whose “collective failure”? The fault lies with our politicians, who have steadily expanded the role of government in the economy and have been unwilling to restrain spending. The public is responsible only in the sense that they have repeatedly elected politicians who do not understand economics and whose primary interest is getting re-elected.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “…the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history, to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”
Are all Americans childish, or only those who do not agree with Obama?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions – that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
No one seems to know what President Obama thinks the country should look like. Before I start remaking America, I want to know what it means. So far, his vision doesn’t seem to include fiscal restraint. With something on the order of two trillion dollars of new spending in the offing, I don’t intend to be led somewhere I know is wrong.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act – not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.”
It’s hard to know where to begin with this litany of ambitious goals. Who knows what any of this means, except perhaps his health care prescription, which he seems to think should be some form of nationalized health care. This is a formula for a health care disaster. Socialized health care has never worked as promised in any society, generally downgrading the quality of care and causing rationing.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.”
This is a repudiation of the use of torture and the presumed abuses of the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA). However, our new President does not offer any alternative to protect the nation? He has already signed an Executive Order to close Guantanamo – without having the slightest idea of what to do with the prisoners there and without any agreements with other nations to take them.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “…our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”
The idea that we can be protected from our enemies by the “justness of our cause” or “the tempering qualities of humility and restraint” is simply naïve. Try telling this to the Israelis. Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran believe just as strongly in the “justness” of their cause, which is the extermination of the Jews.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet.”
This sounds like another nuclear treaty in the making. The question is, with whom? Are Russia, China, India or Pakistan going to give up their nuclear weapons? Or Iran, if and when they get them? As for “the specter of a warming planet,” evidence has been mounting that the theory of global warming is being challenged by a large number of highly credible experts. If the President takes the nation to a “cap and trade” program, it will increase costs and disrupt the economy with little or no result, including putting our coal industry out of business.
At the risk of being pilloried as another negative, nay-saying conservative, my take on President Obama’s inaugural address is that it was long on platitudes and short on substance. The most important message he conveyed to me is his intent to turn America into another socialist state. Having the U.S. become more like France, Italy, Sweden, Denmark and other socialist countries is not my idea of progress or “change” that I think is good.
Wikipedia defines hyperinflation as “…inflation that is ‘out of control’, a condition in which prices increase rapidly as a currency loses its value…A vicious cycle is created in which more and more inflation is created with each iteration of the cycle…(I)t becomes visible when there is an unchecked increase in the money supply (or drastic debasement of coinage) usually accompanied by a widespread unwillingness to hold the money for more than the time needed to trade it for something tangible to avoid further loss. (Emphasis added).
Hyperinflation dates back to the Roman Empire - and is graphically illustrated by the situation in Argentina from 1969 to 1992, when their currency reached the point where one pre-1969 peso equaled ten trillion (twelve zeros) new pesos. Savings and investments that were not inflation adjusted and continued to pay a fixed return, such as bonds, quickly became worthless.
When Argentineans received their pay checks, they immediately tried to convert their pesos to commodities or other assets that would hold their value as the rate of inflation continued to escalate. Wealthy citizens tried to deposit money in American banks or they bought stock in American companies. The less wealthy attempted to hold U.S. $100 bills or bought houses or gold or commodities, such as rice – anything to get rid of their own currency. They also tried to offset the consequences of unbridled inflation by indexing contracts, which adjusted payments to compensate for the rise in prices over time.
An extreme example of the effects of hyperinflation is seen in Zimbabwe, where in a December 19, 2008, the Christian Science Monitor noted: “Under the ruthless rule of its despotic strongman, Robert Mugabe, its economy is near collapse and its people live in fear, as the regime cracks down on political opponents. Thousands have died of malnutrition and starvation… Mismanagement of the economy has produced inflation of an incredible 231 million percent, a figure undoubtedly outdated even as this column is written. The ordinary staples of existence are beyond reach of most citizens.” (Emphasis added)
The bottom line is that a nation’s currency becomes worthless during runaway inflation. Productivity decreases and capital takes flight, along with other dire consequences, such as the government refusing to redeem its outstanding bonds.
After the First World War, hyperinflation crippled the German economy and visited terrible personal hardships on the nation’s citizens. James Turk has observed: “The newly formed German government…kept pumping up the money supply. The process started relatively slowly, but quickly the pace of money creation accelerated…All the wealth saved in Reichsmarks was eventually wiped out.”
A May 14th AP article in the Washington Post reported: “Nearly seven in 10 Americans are worried about maintaining their standard of living, as concern has spiked higher in just the past five months, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Soaring consumer prices are a major challenge, with many people struggling under the weight of the rising costs of fuel, food and health care…Overall, 68 percent of people surveyed in the new Post-ABC poll said they were concerned about their ability to keep up their lifestyles, a jump of 17 percentage points since December…”
The scene is being set for hyperinflation, with panic efforts to “stimulate” the economy and “save” financial institutions and industries that are considered too big or too important to fail. Obama’s plans to spend upwards of another trillion dollars on a second “stimulus package” and as much as an additional trillion dollars for new programs (as yet undefined) will soon cause inflation to begin anew. It’s difficult to predict exactly when hyperinflation is likely to occur, but unless we stop creating fiat money and borrowing as if there is no tomorrow, it’s sure to happen.
If and when the Chinese, the Japanese, the Arabs and others decide that it’s no longer safe to hold their wealth in American dollars and start selling U.S. bonds, there will be a sudden drop in the value of our currency with a corresponding increase in inflation.
The American public seems to instinctively understand that what’s going on is wrong, but the economically ignorant, bone-headed politicians who are in charge simply don’t get it.
It’s no surprise, I’m sure, that I am a registered Republican. However, I consider myself more a “conservative” than a Republican. For me, it’s more about principles and values than it is about political party. I don’t have a particularly strong allegiance to the Republic Party, whereas I am an avid believer in Conservatism. If a true “Conservative” party were to emerge, I would change my registration in an instant.
That said, my reasons for being a “Conservative” are primarily based on what I believe are the differences in the core beliefs of Liberal and Conservative adherents, which are founded on their respective philosophies about human nature, what motivates people, and how to best organize the economic activity of societies.
Liberals generally tend to believe it is wrong for people to accumulate wealth or to have income substantially in excess of their individual needs. Their core concept is that, in general, everyone should derive the same or similar benefits from the available resources, which are finite, thus requiring government to be organized as a top down structure of decision-making. This in turn limits individual freedom of choice. They also believe societies work best when they are organized around this principle, with command and control authority concentrated at the top.
The most extreme example of this principle is found in Communism, which attempts to centralize all key production, pricing and distribution decisions about the millions of products and services that are made every day throughout a society. The failure of the USSR within a single century clearly proved that this doesn’t work. Unfortunately, true believers don’t see it that way, they just think the Soviets didn’t do it right. On the other hand, Conservatives generally believe the best way to organize society is to allow maximum decision-making by individuals acting in their own self interest, as they themselves perceive it.
The primary difference between the two concepts is found in the degree of personal freedom and government control that each permits or requires. “Conservative” economic philosophy is based on the idea that people are motivated by self interest, while the economic (political) philosophy of Liberals is that individuals are (or should be) motivated by some higher standard.
Liberal economic models are based on the principle that the size of the economic pie is static, that those who are highly successful can only succeed at the expense of others, whereas Conservatives believe that the growth of the economy is based on increased productivity, which means the size of the economy is potentially unlimited.
Human nature leads people to act in their own self-interest. However, this does not mean self-interest is necessarily defined in economic terms. People also work for rewards other than money: power, position, status, security, even love or altruism. But whatever their individual motivation, it is always self-interest in one form or another.
The concept that in America we are all “created equal” is being perverted by Liberalism to mean equality of outcome, that everyone should derive the same or similar benefits from society. But, the world doesn’t work that way. No two people are really “equal” in all respects. Some are smarter, better educated, shrewder, better looking, more personable, have more drive or ambition than others, and no form of government can alter that reality.
For true “conservatives” and for me personally, the most important core value is having the individual freedom to pursue our own happiness as we define it for ourselves, with a minimum of interference from the government.
Has the endless barrage of “politically correct” (PC) rules that we are subjected to nowadays finally overcome our nation’s treasured right of free speech? To me, PC is BS (Bad Speech). It is censorship pure and simple. What concerns me is that it stifles dissent under the guise of being sensitive to the feelings and values of others.
I, for one, am weary of Politically Correct demands and the PC straight jacket that has been placed around the minds and free expression of Americans. I don’t know anyone any more who feels free to openly express their personal opinions.
PC influences expression about almost every subject. And, it includes efforts to pass laws that not only try to force everyone to conform to some group’s notion of “correct” speech, but even to what they are supposed to think.
Our language is becoming so codified and restrictive that we are no longer free to speak openly: “African-American,” not black; “Latino” or “Hispanic,” not Mexican; “Gay,” not homosexual (gay used to mean happy); “Ms.,” not Miss or Mrs.; “undocumented worker,” not illegal alien; “challenged,” not handicapped; etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Many individuals and groups have become so hypersensitive about the speech of others that it is almost impossible to find the right expression to communicate effectively. Words that used to be simple statements have become pejorative slander in the eyes of many minority groups, and acceptable terms are periodically changed so that it becomes an artful dance just to find the right way to describe something or someone. It’s counterproductive, and why Americans tolerate this kind of intimidation is a mystery to me.
Bloomsburg University in Pennsylvania decided to ring in the holidays with music from various religions and cultures but was unable to find any programmed non-traditional music for their system, so members of the music department created their own. (Exactly how is it possible to write non-traditional holiday music without sounding traditional?)
The Little Rock Convention and Visitors Bureau decided to rename their annual Christmas Parade the “Little Rock Holiday Parade,” to make sure the event is “all-inclusive.” (What is the “Holiday” if it is not Christmas?)
The City of Portland considered an ordinance to ban “transgender” discrimination. The law protects men who come to work dressed in traditionally female clothing, even if they still look like men and even if it drives customers away. (Who thinks of these things, anyway?)
An Arizona State University drama professor settled a lawsuit (for $395,000) against the school for wrongful termination because he taught the works of dead white males (Shakespeare and Moliere) over the objections of campus feminists.
A student at Eastern Michigan University reported that the school was pressured to change their team name, “Hurons.” They picked “Eagles,” and in spite of the fact that the Huron Indians wanted them to change it back, government pressure kept them from doing so. The student’s reaction was, “All this civil rights B.S. is further erasing Native Americans from our history.”
The list of examples is endless.
Those who don’t agree with PC speech and attempt to defend what they may perceive to be their rights are often mercilessly discredited or destroyed financially through litigation or perhaps risk physical harm.
The result is that people repress honest expression, keeping their thoughts to themselves or discussing them only with others they know to be “safe”. The consequence has been the opposite of one of the PC objectives: that outlawing or repressing speech changes unacceptable ideas or makes them go away. But, they have merely gone underground into a subconscious pressure cooker of suppressed but growing anger. The people I know have become increasingly guarded about saying what they believe, but their attitudes and beliefs have not changed one iota. If anything, they have hardened. They’re just more careful where and to whom they say what they think.
Have we reached the point where not only can things we say be actionable but certain thoughts may eventually be considered a crime, as in “Hate Crime?” Does anyone worry that we are on a slippery slope to thought control?
PC pressure puts a lid on free expression but it doesn’t change attitudes. Preventing people from openly saying what they think may well be one of the causes of the growing violence in our society. Contrary or unpopular opinions and anger can only be contained for so long. When they are suppressed indefinitely without an acceptable outlet, they eventually erupt.
We say we believe in the First Amendment, but do we really? Or do we now have the right of free speech only insofar as it meets some sort of PC test? What has happened to our cherished “land of the free and home of the brave?”
New Years Eve celebrations never mattered to me. We stay home and watch the festivities on T.V. as they circle the globe, go to bed early. Boring, I know. But, it’s safe and sane and keeps us out of trouble. We stay off the roads and don’t travel.
So, what’s the point of this column, you may wonder. The point is that as each New Year rolls around, I try to focus on the future, not so much in the sense of making New Years Resolutions, most if not all of which I never keep, but my hopes and aspirations for the next year.
First and foremost, I look forward to another year of just living, spending time with my wife, our two dogs, and my friends and associates. I have been blessed with a long and fruitful life, filled with challenges and my share of hardships, I suppose. At 80-years-of-age, I am a living testimonial to the miracle of modern medicine and the talents of many fine medical professionals, who managed to get me through various health travails on numerous occasions, some of which were quite serious.
Following, in no particular order, are my hopes and wishes for 2009:
That our political leaders will come to their senses and stop spending money we don’t have. We are rapidly spending ourselves into oblivion at every level: national, state, local and individual, and appear to be headed into the worst of all economic worlds, hyperinflation.
That people around the world can somehow stop enslaving, torturing and killing one another, for whatever reason(s). I understand that there may be compelling reasons in some instances, such as defending oneself, but man’s inhumanity toward one another has been the hallmark of civilization throughout recorded history, and unless we find a way to control our baser instincts, we may well destroy ourselves. Some people think that might be the best outcome.
That we will somehow manage to get through the current economic downturn largely unscathed.
That we can manage to elect some people to public office who are principled and honest and are willing to serve for the common good rather than how they can line their own pockets. That’s a tall order, I know, but I can at least hope.
That our educators will find a way to reach a generation of indifferent young people, too many of whom are ignorant and self-centered to a fault. When a young person cannot make the simplest calculations to give change to a customer, something is seriously wrong.
That we can somehow find a way to lift our society out of the cultural morass into which it has sunk. Through the medium of modern communication: radio, TV, the Internet and print media, we have managed to reach the point where anything goes and there are no limits, debasing too many of our young people in the process.
That we catch or kill Osama bin Laden, along with the other bad guys.
That all of our military come home safely to their loved ones, their friends and their communities.
That science will find cures for the worst diseases, such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, AIDS and the host of other conditions that plague the human race.
That we can somehow improve the desperate conditions in which far too many of the world’s peoples are forced to live.
That we will have milder weather in 2009. This winter has been one of the worst in memory, causing terrible hardship. And, speaking of weather, I hope we do not have a severe earthquake in California.
That the techies among us will find a way to stop spam forever and catch the people who spew endless unwanted garbage messages at us.
That I get through another year without any serious health problems and that my wife does not break her other knee.
That my six grandchildren will inherit a better world than we have now.
That you will have the happiest, most successful and healthiest year you have ever had.
It may seem like I’m asking for a lot, but in the final analysis, you can probably sum up my hopes and aspirations in one wish, that, as beauty contestants so often say, I just want “world peace.” And, I almost forgot, I hope I can manage to complete a book I’ve been working on.
usa online gambling? Play Online Blackjack For Money Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Australia Gambling online blackjack in usa
play online casino!
usa online gambling? Roulette Software Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Gambling In Michigan online blackjack in usa
play online casino! Playtech Bingo
