JUST SAY "NO" TO LOCAL PROFFERS

(The following was published in The Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch on 12/21/16 as "Correspondent of the Day.")

I enjoyed your Monday article about legislative restrictions for local proffers, which are unconstitutional and should be entirely banned.

Proffers imposed by multiple jurisdictions become a "pass-through" cost because buyers cannot "shop around" to avoid them.  Developers must bear the onerous up-front burden of proffers, but ultimately they are passed on to buyers as an "entry fee" for the "privilege" of living in such communities.  No one should have to pay an "entry fee" to live anywhere in this country they wish.  Most existing owners did not suffer any proffers; neither should new owners.  If SOME of the buyers of the newly developed properties happen to be older locals seeking to "downsize" by moving to a smaller house or townhouse, why should those people have to pay such an "entry fee" to stay where they already are?

There is a very real cash squeeze being felt by local jurisdictions as the land tax yields smaller or stagnant revenues due to dropping or stagnant property values in many places.  It is past time for localities to shift to a local income tax instead, but that won't likely be allowed by the Virginia General Assembly anytime in the foreseeable future.  Many large rural tracts of land are owned by relatively few folks with substantial incomes getting subsidies of artificially lowered land taxes (the so-called "land-use tax") that fictionally depreciates the actual market value of their lands.  Meanwhile, local government budgeting is a "zero-sum game" since they cannot print their own money.  Those who do not qualify for those subsidies, like ordinary residential owners and cash-strapped businesses, must make up the revenue differences created by those unwarranted subsidies out of their own pockets.  

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRUMP AND GODZILLA? (Joke)

The difference between Donald Trump and Godzilla?

One is a huge, ill-tempered reptile with small forelegs, orange skin, and weird orange scales on his head who goes around stomping on innocent people, bellowing and baring his teeth a lot; the other is just a Japanese movie dinosaur!

TO THE TELLER OF A LAME JOKE (Poem)

© 1968, 2016

I lift my long and leaden limb.

THIS, I say, I'll give to him.

And so, without a moment's warning

(It's the same at night or morning),

If we don’t laugh (until we choke)

Because he told a bad, lame joke,

For all his efforts, he'll only get

A broken breeze for his weak wit!

BAD-NEWS BORK

This ran in the Charlottesville (Va.) Daily Progress Oct. 4, 1987

Bork Bad News For Individual Rights

U.S. Constitution, Amendment IX: 

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Magnetized to my refrigerator is a "Ziggy" cartoon by Tom Wilson in which Ziggy is again on the psychiatrist's couch with a worried countenance. The shrink says to him, "You're cured, Ziggy. ... The American Psychiatric Association no longer considers fear of the government to be paranoid behavior!"  Small comfort, indeed, with appointment of Judge Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court at stake.

Bork is probably not unfit or unqualified to serve on the court, but we shouldn't want him up there, and it is appropriate for those senators who so agree to exercise their constitutionally granted political power to deny consent to his nomination.  Bork, who seems to be a smart and witty fellow, also appears to have a frightening and dangerously skewed view of the balance between the rights of individuals and the powers of government (and its bureaucrats) that predictably and inexorably encroach on our rights more and more each day.  All of this is said notwithstanding his apparent "conversions" during or shortly prior to his appearance on the witness stand.  A distinction is noted here between "rights" and "powers," not mine originally. I refer to the somewhat esoteric yet clarifying legal philosophy of John Wesley Hohfeld.  He said that under our system of laws, it is necessary to distinguish between rights held by persons, against which the state has no authority to act, and limited powers held by the state, which specifically are granted by the Constitution or reasonably inferred.  People have rights, but governments, state or federal do not.  Governments must have the specific power to act; otherwise, the people are supposed to be immune from governmental meddling.

The history of the Constitution and the shared philosophy of our nation's Founders extolling the "Natural Rights of Man," espoused by John Locke and others (including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison), must lead us to the inescapable conclusion that limited powers flow from the people to the government, not that rights flow from the government to the people. Bork seems to reverse these principles by ignoring the concurrent principle of the immunity of individuals from the tyranny of the majority.

It should not be necessary, nor is it seemly, that individuals must go to the politicians or the courts, hat in hand, to beg for their rights.  Jefferson said that the "Natural Rights of Man" are not some dispensation gratuitously given to us by our all-powerful, benevolent government, subject to deprivation upon the whim of the majority.  Unfortunately, it is fairly clear that Bork's view of the balance between powers and rights follows a statist belief in a benign government, a term I view as oxymoronic.

Bork is widely regarded as a "conservative" of towering intellect who supposedly will bring to the Supreme Court a "strict constructionist" doctrine asserting that judges are to interpret, not make, law. His railings against "judicial legislation" are clearly what moved Ronald Reagan to nominate him.  Conversely, much of the criticism of Bork is nothing more than Mickey Mouse carping that, in my view, misses the mark and will serve to enhance his chances of confirmation, as was the case with William Rehnquist's nomination for chief justice.  The only two charges against Rehnquist that had any merit were the allegations of minority voter intimidation and his failure to recuse himself from hearing a case as a justice (in which he cast a decisive vote) in which he had participated as a Justice Department lawyer.  One would not, however, have known much about these serious issues for all of the smoke that was blown out over the irrelevant nitpickings against Mr. Rehnquist by his opponents, much the same people who are not taking potshots at Bork.

Attorney General Edwin Meese III (a.k.a. "Officer Ed") is fond of frequently citing Alexander Hamilton's opposition to the Bill of Rights as authority for the assertion that individual rights were not unanimously recognized by the Founders. As with so many legal issues, the "Sage of Wedtech" has been serving up the baloney again.  In fact, Hamilton's opposition was not out of hostility to the concept of individual liberty but was instead born out of the fear that reactionary statists such as Meese, Reagan and Bork would claim, as they have, that the failure specifically to enumerate a right would allow the inference that the right does not exist.  Thus, following the "Borkian" analysis of individual rights, "if it ain't written, it ain't."  On the witness stand recently, Bork attempted to recant some of his more extreme past positions in what appeared to be a new-found libertarian attitude.  I was shocked, therefore, to hear that he was claiming to renounce past-held "libertarian" views.  If his past utterances are "libertarian," then excuse me while I find a new philosophy or at least a new label.

As the man said: That dog won't hunt. The Ninth Amendment, which admittedly has not been given much attention by the Supreme Court in its decisions, was adopted by the Founders specifically to allay Hamilton's fears over enumeration.  That's in the history books, all you strict constructionists out there in Original-Intent Land.  Bork's amnesia as to the Ninth Amendment, calls into question his much-vaunted intellectualism.  That's not a very high intellectual tower, by my measurement.

If Bork wins confirmation, it will be the bottom of  the Ninth for individual rights and civil liberties.  One who has such contempt as Bork seems to have for "due process" and especially for "equal protection" of the laws; who quibbles over the right of a married couple to be free from state interference in the bedroom; who presumes to tell women that the states may reduce them to second- (or third-) class citizens and may control their bodies if male-dominant legislatures so decree; who finds "intellectual" stimulation in contemplating abandonment of "one person, one vote"; who espouses a bizarre theory that the power of the legislature to meddle with the rights of the individual exceeds the power to meddle with a state-created corporation, and who insists that the Constitution must be interpreted today in light of the mores of 200 years ago, when slavery and indentured servitude were accepted and women were not recognized as citizens —that person may be technically "qualified" to sit on the court, but I would exercise my political prerogative were I a senator to keep him on the D.C. Court of Appeals. None of this is about right of privacy; it's about necessary limitations on governmental power.

And to Ronald Reagan and "Officer Ed" Meese, I close with a quote from Mick Jagger: "You can't always get what you want, but you get what you need." We don't need Robert Bork, not his wit nor his brand of intellect, on the U.S. Supreme Court, where he might judicially legislate the Ninth Amendment out of existence.

[The writer] is a lawyer and member of the Virginia State Bar since 1973. He received his law degree from Washington & Lee University in 1973 and his bachelor's degree from Randolph-Macon College in 1968.

VIRGINIA NO-SHOWS, 2016

Many people routinely complain about the "politicians," about their votes not counting, and about there being no choice in elections.  Most people are politically trapped in the "binary box," feeling forced to choose between a Democrat or a Republican, which this year boils down to choosing between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump for President.  There are other choices available, but they are summarily disregarded because of the absurd perception that they simply "cannot win."  That is certainly consistent with the political myopia of the simple-minded.  Most people will likely be voting "negatively" this year, to prevent a particular candidate from winning, rather than voting FOR someone to win.

As for the notion that the votes "don't count," consider the following:

In Virginia elections for the past three years, the registered voter participation rates were:

2013--Governor, 43%

57% = WORTHLESS TWITS

2014--US Senator, 40%

60% = WORTHLESS TWITS

2015--Genl. Assy., 28%

72% = WORTHLESS TWITS

(Might a majority actually show up this 2016 to vote for Prez?)

That is an average no-show rate of 65% over the 3 years!  That is appalling--almost 2 out of 3, and people DARE to whine that their votes don't count, often uttered as an excuse for not voting!  In 2013, Terry McAuliffe beat Cuccinelli by about 49% to 48%.  Considering that he won with 49% of the 43% who showed up: barely 21%, that is a ratio of about 1:4, which means that every person who voted FOR McAuliffe controlled the outcome for almost 4 other registered voters--not quite another one who voted for Cuccinelli and the three idiots who just stayed home!  The McAuliffe votes COUNTED, BIG-TIME!  Consider that if Cuccinelli had mobilized just a few thousand more votes, he would have won!

Most journalists and office-holders just let the nonvoters off the hook, ALL THE TIME!  They blame EVERYTHING ELSE for the low participation rate but the no-shows themselves!  This just sticks in my craw!  We should bring back public whippings for the morons who DON'T vote!  Just beat the crap out of them until they beg for their mommies!  How dare any of them complain about the "politicians" they had no role in choosing?

We truly get the govt. we DESERVE!

Back during the "Bush" years, a friend had a bumper sticker on his car that was the best I'd ever seen: "If you are not absolutely appalled, then you haven't been paying attention!"

[UPDATE 12/26/18: The Va. turnout for the 2016 presidential election was about 72%.  The registered-voter turnout for the 2017 Va. gubernatorial election was 47.6%.  The Va. turnout for 2018 was 59.5%.]

NATO

In the summer of 2016, Donald Trump impugned the validity of NATO and suggested that if Russia attacked the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) he would take no action against Russia.  It was imprudent for Trump to say out loud what is probably a reality, but I believe that NATO has outlived its usefulness, and it is now a serious delusion that we insist on perpetuating instead of getting rid of it.  I am weary of the lip service we keep giving to Europeans that we stand ready to engage in combat for their sakes!  NATO should have been disbanded when the Berlin Wall came down!  Instead, stupidly expanding NATO into eastern Europe upon our instigation gave Putin the pretext he needed to do his territorial acquisitions.  It was a colossal diplomatic blunder, typical of guys who think with their Cold-War penises instead of their brains!  

Robin Williams once made the joke that "God gave Man two brains: one in his head and the other in his dick, but only enough blood to run one at a time!"  I fail to see that any of that action in eastern Europe is worth anyone in this country dying for or getting his/her genitals shot off, and at the risk of starting a much deadlier conflict!  I do not mean to suggest that we should turn our backs on what is happening in eastern Europe, but formal alliances imply things that I don't believe are realistic, and NATO is a Cold-War anachronism that should have been buried long ago!

INSTEAD, Clinton, Bush and Obama provocatively expanded NATO right up to Russia's back door, so now they have that pretext (THAT WE HANDED TO THEM ON A SILVER PLATTER) for accreting territory, like the Crimea and eastern Ukraine, for starters!  We bluster with tough talk, but the US isn't gonna do a thing except some more tough talk and maybe some sort of silly sanctions that will be honored in the breach by most of Russia's neighbors.  We rattle our sabers and talk tough, but that has rendered our credibility to zilch!  We are more than a day late and a dollar short in eastern Europe!  Then we go bomb somebody to show how tough we are!  The innocent "Collateral Damage" is meaningless to us!  THAT'S why the "wogs" hate our guts!  American foreign "policy" for the past 50 years has been to either provoke stupid pseudo-wars with tiny opponents we can supposedly conquer (but never do) or to swagger around, speak loudly and carry a meaningless stick!

NATO is just another provocative albatross around our necks, a set of potential broken-to-be promises.  I doubt very seriously if the US has any business threatening combat over Russia seizing whatever it may.  Not that I agree with their recent behavior, but in time they may come to rue the burden themselves.  Putin won't live forever, and there is no certainty that his successor(s) will pursue the same course of action as he.

I realize that anybody (but Trump) who dares impugn the necessity of NATO becomes a wounded political target.  But that's what SPINE is all about!  Once again we succumb to Conventional Wisdom because our Fearless Leaders don't have the courage to call out the sanctified fossils!  It's EXACTLY like our eternal blind support for Israel or those charities (like "March of Dimes") that NEVER DIE, despite their original raison d'ȇtre (like polio) being cured.  I well remember those cards handed out in elementary school to fill up with dimes in the cut-out slots, so polio could be "cured"!  I remember the photos of the kids in those dreadful "iron lungs" for the rest of their miserable lives!  I probably filled up 8-10 of those cards!  Now those money-grubbers at MoD have embraced BIRTH DEFECTS as their cause!   Clever footwork!  Charities are Big Money these days!

So much for Obama's (false) HOPE and (chump) CHANGE!  The sad fact is that Obama, for all his promises in 2008, is a willing prisoner of Conventional Wisdom!  I think that is what annoys me about him the most!  He truly inherited a mess, but he did almost NOTHING original to fix it!  He almost immediately bought into the usual (though utterly discredited) "Supply-Side" and Security-State nonsense, doubled down in central Asia, maintained the status quo, and never demonstrated the courage to REALLY try to change much of anything.  I think Hillary and her rutting husband (the "Blowjob-in-Chief"!) are EXACTLY the same.

DRAFTING

(The following was published as "Correspondent of the Day" in the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch on July 8, 2016:)

Although I am not a City taxpayer, I have business interests in the City of Richmond which are indirectly affected by the merchants' real-estate tax load.  So, I am interested in what is happening therein.

Your June 30 article about the contretemps over the present and future real-estate tax burden for Stone Brewing Co. raises issues that tend to support Donald Trump's complaint about inferior government negotiation of trade deals: that "our" negotiators cannot manage to address seemingly simple concerns adroitly.

The essence of the City dispute is the implicit taxable value of the real estate occupied by Stone Brewing and the resultant assessed-tax burden.  That multi-million-dollar brewery and restaurant were built via $23 Million in revenue bonds, guaranteed by and to be redeemed at taxpayer expense.  Stone Brewing gets to buy the property at the end of its 25-year lease for a "nominal" $25,000.00, so it understandably wants to be taxed only on the $25,000.00 valuation.  This could cost City taxpayers as much as $9.1 Million over the life of the lease.  They have been left on the hook for any deficiency by the City's Economic Development Authority, according to your article.  Those "wizards" who negotiated that nonsense are reduced to quibbling over the meaning of "nominal."  Apparently, Stone Brewing pays no rents for the property other than properly-assessed taxes.  This utterly avoidable issue defies common sense.  It demonstrates the folly of having communities compete with each other for "economic development" at taxpayer expense.

Why could not that obvious issue have been simply and effectively addressed in plain language at the outset?  What idiot wrote up that lease?  Someone or some entity needs to be held fully accountable to all City taxpayers.

WHIMPER, NO BANG

An item published at the Phys.org Website last year suggests that there may have been no "beginning" (nor "end") to our Universe, as there was no singular "Big Bang" but perhaps several "bangs" that kept spewing matter and energy outward, thus driving the known continuing expansion of the Universe, now attributed to a sort of anti-gravity "dark energy":

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

I feel vindicated, since I have been suggesting as much for years!  The singular "Big Bang" theory seems to serve the earnest hopes and wishes of those who insist that there is a anthropomorphic, self-conscious being-force ("God") that created the Universe.  I think an eternal, infinite Universe, driven ever outward by multiple "bangs" tends to contradict such notions.  I am not here denying the existence of a Creation Force; I am merely doubting its humanoid nature!

Many physicists have concluded, on the basis of only what "background radiation" our instruments can CURRENTLY measure, that THE "Big Bang" occurred some 14 Billion years ago, but there may be reason to think that the Universe is at least a TRILLION years old or perhaps is infinite.  Recorded history has demonstrated, time and again, that our understandings (and the resultant age predictions) keep going farther and farther back as more sensitive instruments are developed.  In other words, we've come a long way, Baby, from Galileo's telescope (at least until the "experts" screwed it up by confusing metric and English measurements, as with the initial mis-focus of the Hubble telescope)!  And, we are definitely a long way from the estimate in the Hebrew Torah that the "Garden of Eden" story had its conclusive creational say about 8500 years ago!

It has simply made no sense to me that the Universe should have a presumed age, before which, simply, no TIME even existed!  I can grasp the notion of a sort of "black hole" singularity where all matter and energy and time itself are compressed into a single, finite point which then explodes, spewing creation outward.  Consider the sheer size and complexity of the Universe: billions and billions of galaxies in the night sky, our Milky Way galaxy, a medium-sized galaxy with millions if not billions of stars and solar systems, being 100,000 light-years across (a single light-year is 5.8 TRILLION miles)!  It is naïvely presumptuous to assert that NOTHING existed before "time" and "existence" itself were created with a sole "Big Bang"!

OF COURSE I cannot "prove" any of this, but I think it is healthy to doubt the Conventional Wisdom on this issue.  Others have certainly made a persuasive mathematical case for the "multiple bangs" theory!

This also ties into my latest "theory" of gravity, that gravity is not a force that PULLS matter together but is, in fact, a manifestation that astronomical bodies will expand AWAY from each other by the force of "dark energy" UNLESS they get too close to one another, in which case the all-surrounding "dark energy" PUSHES them together!  If we assume that such dark energy is as "efficient" as possible (most energies are), then it's a lot easier to push one bigger, conjoined body away from all the others than to push two separate, smaller bodies.  That dark energy favors convenient "gravitational" collisions, much as electrical energy searches for multiple juicy grounds (i.e., the cows standing under a tree) during an electrical storm!

(I really like exploding things!)

FISCAL, NOT MONETARY!

(The following was sent to Congressman David Brat, (R-7th Virginia) June 9, 2016:)


Dear Rep. Brat:

Here are some observations I sent to a friend recently that sum up my strong views about the current and chronic WORLD economic crisis.  You promote yourself as the only economist in the Congress.  Everything that has been tried so far, including the Fed's utter foolishness with short-term interest rates (now near zero) has not worked for the vast majority of Americans, many of whom remain unemployed or in substandard employment.  It is important to remember that MOST American workers have been employed by small, usually local businesses, not the big industrial firms.

With the aging and dying of us Baby Boomers, the huge DEMAND engine that was present for over 60 years has radically dwindled, and we have been suffering a DEMAND-side crisis, not a SUPPLY-side crisis, for at least 9 years.

I know you are a Republican and may be wedded to the dominant but thoroughly discredited economic theories, but I also think you are smart enough to consider a radically different view of the situation, thus:

Greed and selfishness ARE universal.  However, they are not synonymous with "self-interest."  The INCOME-tax cuts of 2001 and made permanent for most people (UP TO $700K TAXABLE joint incomes) by Barack Obama and Congress about 2 years ago were absolutely the WRONG thing to have done, because capital investment was already quite healthy and did not need "stimulation," which was the primary justification.  (We are awash in cash now!  Where are all those "investments" and jobs?)  Most businesses, even the large ones, are self-interested in their reliance on paying customers, and if the majority of people in this country and around the world are deprived of spending money, then sooner or later the businesses will have to lay off employees (as they have done) who will then have NO spending money, thus triggering more layoffs!  When those INCOME-tax cuts were made permanent, the FICA PAYROLL tax was increased back to a combined 12.4% on workers and lower-salaried people and their employers.  The really wealthy (and their employers) do NOT pay FICA on their larger salaries, nor on PASSIVE incomes like dividends, interest and capital gains.  It is levied only on lower EARNED incomes.  FICA is also levied on GROSS wages and salaries and allows for no deductions and no exemptions, nor is it deductible from taxable income.  Thus, it is paid by lower-income folks with PRE-TAX dollars.

Now the wizards are trying to cut Social Security benefits and/or raise FICA PAYROLL taxes to fix a Chicken-Little "crisis" in Social Security, so that FICA revenues may thereafter be surreptitiously diverted to alleviate the horrible deficits caused by inadequate INCOME-tax revenues, NOT Baby-Boomer SS claims.  Collected FICA revenues are reportedly down as well, indicating shrinking payrolls despite the falsely inflated "jobs reports."   (Also, SS benefits derive from revenues already taxed, yet they are being doubly taxed again for higher-income recipients!)

Note the significant difference between TAXABLE incomes and GROSS incomes, the former reflecting exclusions, exemptions and deductions.  Many of those in the lower half of the American income structure cannot afford to buy a home, so they most likely are forced to use the measly Standard Deduction instead of larger itemized deductions.  Most of them also spend 100% of their net incomes (no savings) into their local economies, which wealthier folks don't do.

In 2014, the GROSS household median (midpoint) was under $53K.  80% of all US households were under $113K annual gross.  At least 63% of American households were under $75K gross annually.  The top 5% of households earned more than $262K gross annually.  The true "middle class" has no spending money!  Relatively flat recent retail sales is proof!

So, economic self-interest more likely relies on getting paying customers, not cutting taxes for investors.  The cut taxes and resultant deficits have eroded the real purchasing power of the masses, shifting net wealth from the masses to the relatively few and under-taxed wealthy who could easily AFFORD to pay more taxes to reduce those deficits.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics finally admitted that their numbers do not reflect the recently enlarged group of former workers who have simply quit looking for work in desperation.  Those folks are no longer counted as "unemployed."  The BLS "jobs reports" do not report NET jobs added but only GROSS jobs added, meaning they don't reflect the substantial layoffs that have also occurred.  They also cannot accurately account for "under-employment," which is rampant.  Retail sales is a much more accurate measure of true economic health than is the "jobs report," and retail sales are still suffering.

The fact of the high numbers in the Dow Jones averages do not matter to at least 60% of American households.  I think the true "middle class" has no dog in the Dow fight.

Contrary to the blather of Milton Friedman and most others, there is NO SUCH THING as a "free market."  If so, then monopoly and price-fixing would be legal.  It is a massive delusion believed in the repetition of it.  The American and world economies function much more as a manifestation of "fair-market mercantilism" (buying and selling) than "free-market capitalism."  "Capitalism" is merely a very useful tool for accomplishing the capital funding of businesses.  It cannot be a legitimate end unto itself, because no business, no matter how well-capitalized, will survive w/o paying customers.  GM and Chrysler are obviously well-capitalized (no small thanks to the American taxpayer), but their cars still SUCK!

I think Bernie is wrong about some things, but his thinking is much closer to the reality for most people than is Milton Friedman's.  Speaking of "wrong," we've had about 34 years of Friedman's brand of "free-market capitalism" and the true world economy is in the toilet.  It is going to stay there until the masses get some jobs and some spending money.


PS--The Fed has cut short-term interest rates practically to zero, yet no widespread prosperity is manifest.  That "supply-side" claptrap is meaningless for the majority of households routinely deprived of borrowed money, and most consumers are no longer going to borrow and spend.  Those days are so over.  Our economic problems are FISCAL, not MONETARY, so Congress needs to get busy!

ENDING CORPORATE INCOME TAXATION

(See 1/6/14.)

There has been a lot of discussion lately about the corporate income tax.  Opponents insist that it suppresses worldwide competition and economic prosperity.  Others call for an increase in corporate taxation to reach allegedly undertaxed wealth and to reduce government budget deficits.  I would suggest that both arguments miss the point.  I would eliminate the corporate income tax and levy taxes on dividends and "imputed" corporate profits, net of operating expenses and reinvestments.

I would also propose elimination of the individual capital gains tax and replacing it with a "recoupable" investment tax credit, but that should be left for a separate discussion.

Traditionally, the corporate income tax was levied on what was considered to be a legal "person" separate from the investors, which a corporation truly is.  It was considered at the time that there was a fair trade-off for the limited liability granted to shareholder-investors against the "double" taxation of income received by a corporation then paid out as separately taxable dividends to those individual shareholders.  Those corporations are considered "Subchapter C" taxable entities, as referenced in the US Internal Revenue Code.  At some point in time, there arose a demand for a "pass-through" entity that would allow the limited liability but impose only one level of income taxation at the shareholder level, so the "Subchapter S" corporation was recognized for such purposes by the Congress.

The "S" corporation was immediately grabbed for those smaller businesses owned by a very few people (25 or fewer) who did not "deserve" to pay a double income tax on their business income.  Thereafter, the limited liability company was developed for much the same reasons, but it did not have the legal restrictions that "S" corporations have.  The limited liability company is truly a marvel of tax simplicity, and I have created several of them for legal clients.  So, there are a lot of limited-liability entities out there which are not being doubly taxed.  Meanwhile, the larger and publicly-held "C" corporations are cleverly using the Internal Revenue Code (as they should) to avoid paying income taxes, so many profitable corporations are simply not being taxed, and neither are the shareholders.  The burden of those lost revenues is being disproportionately imposed on lower-income individuals, as I could explain separately but shall demur for now.

Higher-income taxpayers are undertaxed.  That statement will undoubtedly be vehemently derided by a lot of people, but I have worked the numbers, and I know what I am talking about.  Besides, the legitimate point of taxation is not to "punish" people but to raise enough money to cover the costs of government.  Unfortunately, most of the legislatures (including the US Congress) HAVE used taxation to punish people or otherwise achieve questionable social goals, such as the levying of so-called "sin" taxes that purportedly make those enjoying "excess" pleasures pay for their "sins."  I do not agree with that tactic.  Taxes should be purposed strictly for raising revenues.  And, taxation does not really work efficiently if it taxes static wealth, such as local property taxes,  as opposed to taxing transactions, like income.  (One might include inheritance-type taxation in the "static" category, but those taxes ideally should tax the TRANSFER of wealth from one person to another.)

A lot of people are clamoring for the so-called "flat tax," like sales taxes, that purportedly tax all persons equally.  That is true from a strictly percentage-paid standpoint, but such a flat tax would not provide the economic prosperity we badly need these days.  Besides, the goal of "tax simplification" is not truly reached by "flat taxes."  It might well reduce an individual's need to keep a shoebox full of receipts for deductions purposes, but most of the Internal Revenue Code and most of the litigation are oriented toward disputes about what sorts of transactions are INCLUDED or EXCLUDED, and that issue is pertinent to all forms of taxation, especially sales taxes.  I have litigated the very issue of whether or not a particular Virginia sale to an out-of-state customer was to be taxed.  The answer?  It depends.

As for the corporate income tax, I suggest that the true cost of such taxes is imposed on customers, suppliers and employees and not on shareholders.  Because all corporations are subject to such taxation, it becomes a non-competitive pass-through expense.  Customers, suppliers and employees cannot go elsewhere to find a corporation NOT subject to such taxation, so each corporation and its shareholders thus benefit from such a dynamic.  I would suggest instead that the corporate-level tax be eliminated entirely, and that the shareholders be IMPUTEDLY taxed at graduated ordinary-income levels for ALL income realized by a corporation, whether paid out as dividends or not with reductions/deductions, of course, for legitimate corporate operating expenses, depreciation and appropriate reinvestment that would truly further the purposes of the corporation.  The existing corporate tax is just a meaningless game of dodgeball that ought to be stopped.

I suggest that every corporation, regardless of size, become a pass-through entity.

SOOWEE'S SECOND THEORY OF GRAVITY

© 4/11/16 All rights reserved.  (See 3/19/08.  Updated 2/7/18.)

This came to me over several weeks in the early spring of 2016, and it is based upon several observations of others about which I recently read.

Most of us know that there is no such thing as a true “vacuum.”  That is, to say, a vacuum does not affirmatively “suck.”  It is merely the ABSENCE of air pressure, and whenever anything moves toward a vacuum, like in a mercury barometer, it is really the ambient air pressure that is PUSHING down on the exposed reservoir of mercury and up into the “vacuum” tube.  In outer space, a mercury barometer would not work because there is no air pressure.

Perhaps gravity is really not masses drawn toward each other by the energy of some mysterious subatomic “God” particle (the recently confirmed “Higgs” boson, for example) but is, instead, the ABSENCE of energy within a mass that allows EXTERNAL "dark energy" (currently causing the known Universe to expand) to also PUSH mass objects toward each other (thus “gravity”).  I am only a layperson, so I do not have the knowledge of math nor physics with which to test these speculations.  I must leave that to others.  (In his 1997 novel, Mason And Dixon about the 18th-Century surveyors who created the eponymous line, Thomas Pynchon opens with a sailing-ship voyage in the 1700's to watch a total eclipse of the sun somewhere in the South Pacific.  The BOATSWAIN (pronounced "bosun") on board the sailing ship is aptly named "Higgs"!)

So, what if that “dark energy” is what PUSHES objects together (manifest as Einstein’s warpage of space-time) like a roulette ball going around the wheel being confined and “pushed” around by the rim of the wheel bowl?  And, because the objects of matter being “pushed” together have mass, that mass (the absence of “dark energy”) actually creates a sort of “vacuum” that allows the external “dark energy” of gravity to push those mass objects closer together!  That's my story, and I'm sticking with it!

I assume that there is a constant whereby the acceleration of "gravity" is proportionate to the mass of the two objects in attraction.  For instance, on Earth, a body approximately 8,000 miles in diameter, objects are “attracted” to fall toward the Earth at a uniform acceleration rate of around 32 feet per second per second.  Most objects thus attracted are not of such a mass as to create a measurable differential in attraction.  The “pull” of gravity on the Moon is less, but we know that the Moon's gravity does "attract" the Earth, the tides and other objects.  The “pull” of gravity on Jupiter is probably way more than either!

Hell if I know!

CORPORATE "GENEROSITY"

I have never understood why corporations donate to charities, other than suck-up "good will."  It is an accounting mess, and I think it is not a proper function of a profit-seeking business.  Those donated funds otherwise belong to the shareholders, but the managers get all the credit for their shareholders' "generosity"!  I think that's a load of crap and should be prohibited across the board by law!  It will never happen, however, because too many powerful, influential people prefer the status quo.  They wantonly donate my money to each other's charities then get all the credit for it from each other complete with cigars and back-slaps!  It really annoys me to see corporate "sponsorships" on PBS or for the "March of Dimes"!  Also, as a shareholder, I never get invited to all those cocktail parties, dinners and galas.  If shareholders want to donate personally to a charity, fine, but they should get the sole credit, not the corporate managers.

Speaking of the "March of Dimes," I remember filling up the little cards with silver dimes in elementary school to cure polio!  Well, Drs. Salk and Sabin cured polio back in the 1950's.  We all took our Salk shots, then we sucked down the Sabin sugar cubes.  So, did the "March of Dimes" die a quiet death thereafter?  No!  That self-serving eternal flame-out is still chugging along, having subsequently adopted "birth defects" as its clever raison d'etre!  

Charities never die.  Miraculously and regardless of scientific advancements, they are like vampires and  live forever, parasitically sucking on the lifeblood of society forevermore!  If cancer is ever cured, the "American Cancer Society" will surely find some reason to keep on keeping on!

IN-TUITION

College and university tuitions are way higher now than when I went to college.  The burden of student loan debt to finance same is crushing, and job prospects for graduates (and loan payback) are slim.  Student loan debt cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, so it hangs like a blood-sucking tick on the student debtor for a very long time.  Student loan debt, unlike most federal programs, is VERY profitable for the US government!  Beginning with us Baby Boomers in the mid-1960's, the DEMAND for college has way outstripped the SUPPLY of available places and grows with every year.  Indifferent "semi-pro" athletes on athletic "scholarships" are subsidized by tuition-paying students.  A college degree is a must-have for almost everyone, since the future income prospects for those without one are horribly (and mistakenly) degraded.  Too many people are being told that they must attend college AT ANY COST, and so it is.  The colleges and universities are just charging whatever the market will bear, AS THEY SHOULD!

When DEMAND exceeds SUPPLY, costs go up.  That is basic economics.

Some people of indifferent academic abilities should be diverted to trade schools Instead.  I should have gone to a trade school instead of wasting space in college and law school!  I finally DID go to auto mechanics school and got top grades!  I passed all 8 ASE Master Mechanic's exams TWICE!  I always wanted to be a car mechanic, and when I finally did that, I realized I had been wrong to pursue "academic" courses beginning so many years ago.  I don't regret my formal education, but I did get it kicking and screaming the whole way!  I was simply not allowed to consider any alternatives to college, except being wounded or killed in Vietnam!  Not much of a choice worth having, anyway!

All colleges and universities ought to quit awarding the oxymoronic "athletic scholarships" to good athletes who don't really care about getting an academic education.  Why should the colleges and universities provide a FREE "farm system" for the NBA and NFL, when major-league baseball must maintain its own farm system?  All colleges and universities should be put under the NCAA Division III rules (academic scholarships only) immediately.  That would create a "level playing field" that would be fair to all fans, and good athletes uninterested in formal education could go into a basketball or football pro farm system maintained by the majors.  Good athletes who are also scholars could get real "scholarships" AND play their favorite sports!

That might then obviate the idiotic debate about whether or not college athletes should be paid for their labors!  I understand their desire to share in the ocean of athletic cash flowing through college and university coffers, but it's nonsense!  Maybe coaches will finally get lower salaries than the college presidents!  All money generated within an athletic program should be deemed to belong to the school.  Why should coaches be allowed to divert those funds into their own pockets?  Same for research funds given to professors!  If school resources are used to generate those funds, then they should belong to the schools!  More money might then be freed up to provide more tenure-track faculty positions and fringe benefits, especially if the administrative bureaucracies are brought to heel.

If DEMAND for college student space were reduced, the costs must eventually come down, and so would the currently outrageous bite of student loans.

CLASS WARFARE?

Stephen Colbert asked Bernie Sanders on February 10, 2016 if he was not, in fact, advocating "class warfare."  That is the usual response to those who seek to "spread the wealth" and make public institutions more inclusive.

Indeed, some advocates do complain against the "haves" as a group, and that is just as wrong as complaining about other groups like "Muslims," or "blacks," or even "white folks."  Group-think is the essence of bigotry.  Each of us is entitled to be judged by our own actions and statements and not as a member of any group.  So, it is wrong to blame all wealthy folks generally for the fact that Congress and many of the state legislatures have been unwilling to levy the necessary taxes to generate the revenues being spent.

Nobody likes paying taxes.  Why should anyone be expected to ASK for a tax increase?  Nevertheless, taxes are the price we must pay for a civilized society, and we cannot have "civilization" if there are people going hungry, homeless or whose disorders are untreated.  I personally believe those are fundamental to our self-definitiion as a free, civilized society.  

When he was the tax-supported President some thirty years ago, Ronald Reagan, without a hint of irony, famously declared "government" as the enemy.  There has been a palpable hostility toward "government" among most of the wealthier folks ever since, and among some not so wealthy.  There also is a widespread presumption that, BUT FOR "government," the taxpayers would have so much additional money.  That ignores, however, the very complex ways in which higher gross earnings are derivative of stronger, more effective "government" that requires taxes to function properly.  There are very few wealthy people in an anarchy.  Too many Americans are taking their well-being for granted.  That may well change when rusted bridges start tumbling and water and sewer systems start failing.  Artificially low taxation for the past thirty years or so in the face of draining, adventurous warmongering has beggared our neglected and deteriorating infrastructure.  Those chickens may be about to come home to roost!  Flint, Michigan just may be the tip of an approaching iceberg of massive infrastructure failure all over the US.  

It is a fact that wealthier people wind up keeping a larger PERCENTAGE (not simply total dollars) of their gross incomes after taxes and basic living expenses than do lower incomes.  This has probably been true for a very long time, but those who presume to analyze economic policy must reckon with the fact that lower-income households spend most if not all of their after-tax net incomes.  Their savings is virtually nonexistent.  Many forego healthcare expenditures just to keep food on the table.  It is unconscionable that ANY household in America must choose between illness vs. hunger.  That is unacceptable to me.

"Healthcare" and "insurance coverage" should not be synonymous, but they are.  When people complain about the high cost of "Obamacare" or whatever and tout the "free-market system" as a preferred alternative to managing healthcare costs, such a proposal would leave many ignorant, powerless, low-income folks at the risk of a brutal marketplace, as before.  Until "Obamacare" was adopted, American families were subject to a "free-market" healthcare system complete with mostly unregulated for-profit insurance companies that are not, BY LAW (still), subject to the antitrust laws.  Anticompetitive practices furthered excluding those with "pre-existing" disorders, exclusionary monopoly markets (still a problem), premium-cost collusions, coverage-limitation collusions, and a host of other expensive realities that impaired any insurance coverage for some and expensive coverage for others.  Yet increases in taxes are never compared with the former COMBINED costs of uninsured healthcare and for-profit insurance, and many geographic areas are still served by only one or two companies, furthering the effective monopoly referenced above.  For-profit insurance companies are permitted to NOT compete area by area, are permitted to charge whatever they can collude is reasonable, and they do not suffer whenever a healthcare provider refuses to play in their colluded sandbox.  More and more providers are opting out of the insane system that prevails.

Notwithstanding my favor for public healthcare, "Obamacare" is a far cry from being a good system.  It was the product of a nefarious bargain between Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and the insurance companies who were basically left in charge.  The House of Representatives acted first on the issue of public healthcare, and the House bill that was sent to the Senate was a pretty good bill: it provided universal public healthcare, exclusive of private insurance company control; it provided serious cost controls, yet did not saddle healthcare providers with the pointless need to generate a profit "envelope" for the insurance companies, as does "Obamacare."  In short, by gutting the House-passed bill and forcing he American people to buy into a for-profit system, "Obamacare" has continued some of the many shortcomings under the prior system.

Bernie Sanders is advocating "Medicare-for all," which the House bill more closely resembled.  There is no reason why this is not an acceptable goal.  It does not prevent health-insurance companies from participating, just as they now participate by writing Medicare supplemental policies.  But, it would provide some "universal" healthcare availability that would not be CONTROLLED by the health-insurance companies, whose participation should be submitted to competitive forces that would require healthcare-insurance companies to compete in ALL markets as a condition of participating at all.  The territorial exclusions should be eliminated.  If supported by higher taxes on higher incomes, the true "middle class" could be spared much of the additional cost that would be borne, instead, by those who can AFFORD to do so.  The costs of private insurance could be drastically reduced for all, including the wealthy, and non-participating providers (who would be spared much of the burden of bearing the profit "envelope") would be more likely to stay in the game.  Paid benefits would be even and certain, being of benefit to healthcare providers and, ultimately, to patients.

And, the net IMPACT on most taxpayers would likely be lighter if the insurance-company profit margins were subtracted from the costs equations.  Again, the core issue is not who shells out what, but who has what left over.  Those in Sweden, for example, who are in a 60% income-tax bracket know that they are getting a lot of "civilization" for their money.  Even though a 60c bite is being taken out of every top dollar (not all of them), they are getting a lot for their money.  And, even if they are in the 60% bracket, they still have quite a bit left over.

"Class warfare" implies a certain unfair and hostile seizure of private property that would otherwise be available BUT FOR a government riddled with "waste, fraud and abuse."  Ever since Reagan, many people have come to ignore the many good and efficient things that "government" does and look only at the admitted shortcomings.  Too many idealistically obsess about living in an utopian anarchy, free of pesky "government."  Providing fundamentals for everyone in society does not mean a "war" on any segment.  How much pleasure and satisfaction can a wealthy person derive from his bounty if there are hordes of hungry, desperate people hanging out on street corners begging, vomiting, committing crimes, etc.?  How much enjoyment of that wealth can he or she have if lying in a bed, paralyzed with a broken back because a bridge collapsed?  What might the health-insurance company try to declare as "uninsurable" then?

"Class warfare" indeed!

CONVENTIONING WISDOM

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has indignantly demanded the call for a "Convention of States" to amend the US Constitution under Article V.  Keep in mind that Abbott was the legally-trained Texas Attorney General before he became Governor, so one might properly conclude that he has already thought through all the ramifications of his propositions.  Further, the reader might be tempted to dismiss the zealous proponents of such stuff as half-wit Trailer-Trash yayhoos, but I dare not possibly suggest such a conclusion! 

Nevertheless, Abbott has proposed several provisions for such a Convention.  Here they are, according to "The Daily Beast," with my reactions to his propositions: 

1.  Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.

Might this proposition automatically modify or restrict the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and "navigable" waters, even if the focused event occurs entirely within Texas?  What do the words "regulate," "activity," "wholly" or "within" mean?  Would Congress be able to regulate the generation of pollutants entirely in one state that spill into or blow into another state? 

2.  Require Congress to balance its budget. 

I used to support the Balanced-Budget Amendment, then I got to thinking about how the Constitution is usually enforced, by filing litigation in COURT!  Constitutional provisions are NOT self-enforcing, so it's always been up to the FEDERAL courts to enforce them.  So, if Congress fails to cobble together a balanced budget," that certainly seems to be a constitutional violation to be created by Abbott's proposition.  Would Congress be under some sort of time limit to generate that "balanced budget," or could it proceed on "continuing resolutions" as it now does?  Could that mean the Congress would be obligated to levy high enough taxes to support all the stupid pseudo-wars they are too spineless to declare?  Who might be able to file a FEDERAL court action seeking a court order COMPELLING the Congress to obey the law?  Would a federal judge have to first make a finding that the budget, in fact, was not "balanced" before proceeding?  Might a "balanced budget" require "balanced" spending and taxing?  The "budget" does not really control federal spending now, and supposedly there is already a federal statute in effect requiring a "balanced budget"!  Could the federal courts order the Congress to levy more taxes?  Would a President be able to keep the costs of a big war "off-budget," as George W. Bush did with the Iraq War?  Could federal judges generate a "balanced budget" if the Congress failed to do so?  (I don't think that would be a valid function of the judiciary, speaking of "activist judges"!)  Could the courts decide what should be taxed?  Neither Abbott nor any other "Convention" advocate has ever provided any answers to all these questions. 

3.  Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.

What does the word "creating" mean?  Would federal agencies be prohibited from issuing regulations covering the things they are usually expected to regulate?  Would the Congress be, therefore, burdened to write up more detailed statutes to make up for the regs the "unelected bureaucrats" couldn't legally generate anymore?  When would that ever get done? If Congress predictably overlooked something, would the federal government then be prohibited from addressing it? 

4.  Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.

What does "preempting" mean?  Would this revoke the "Supremacy" clause in Article VI that recites that the Constitution, all congressional acts and ratified treaties are parts of the "supreme Law of the Land"?  So if state legislatures adopted laws that were contrary to federal law about a matter clearly within the purview of Congress (like immigration), would all the different state laws prevail? 

5.  Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision. 

I understand the intention here is to cut down the Judicial Branch as a separate, co-equal branch to the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch.  Same with Proposition 6.  Proposition 9 would supposedly allow 2/3 of the state legislatures to "override" a congressional act or executive regulation.  Would 2/3 of the state legislatures be able to override a federal outcome that clearly addressed a federal issue, like declaring war?  Could 2/3 of the state legislatures declare war, even if 1/3 objected?  Could 2/3 of the state legislatures revoke a declaration of war, even if 1/3 supported it?  It appears the intent here is to subject ALL of the congressional powers in Article I and all of the Supreme Court decisions under Article III to a 2/3 state legislative veto.  Since the Supreme Court has outlawed school racial segregation, could 2/3 of the state legislatures reintroduce it?  If the Supreme Court outlawed capital punishment, could 2/3 of the states revoke that and maybe even compel it in states that had also outlawed it?  Could 2/3 of the states completely outlaw capital punishment for the entire country as presently validated by the Supreme Court?

6.  Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.

What, exactly, is the scope of a "democratically enacted law"?  Would it require 7 of 9 Justices to outlaw an obviously unconstitutional law enacted by a state, like compelling daily prayers to Allah in the public schools? 

7.  Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.

I was unaware the "balance of power" was out of whack!  The 10th Amendment already prohibits "powers not delegated" to the federal government.  Why is it necessary to "reinvent the wheel"?  Maybe we just need to develop a "litmus" pledge for potential judicial candidates to sign!

8.  Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.

How do we define "overstep their bounds"?  Or, do we just empower the individual states to sue the government as often as desired?  Does that require a state legislature to direct the state attorney general to sue the government?  Does a state's governor have any say-so or veto?  Who pays the costs of the litigation?  The loser?  If a state loses, should its taxpayers have to pay the federal government's legal fees, or vice-versa?  

9.  Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation. 

What in the world does "override" mean?  Would the offending regulation or law have to be specifically identified in a legislative act duly adopted and signed by the governor?  To what extent of detail would an override need to have?

Other points are worth making: the amending provisions of Article V do not limit the subject matter of any called Constitutional Convention.  So, while it may be Abbott's intention that only his proposals be heard, once the Convention is called to order, there is no way to block proposed amendments from the floor, such that the various rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to remain silent, the prohibitions against "cruel and unusual punishment," the right to a lawyer, the right to subpoena witnesses, the right to be free from unreasonable" searches, all of those things COULD be potentially revoked or restricted as desired by a simple majority vote at the Convention!  Presumably all votes would be by simple majority once the Convention was called to order.  There is also no provision in Article V for how a Constitutional Convention could proceed, who would preside, where or when it could be held, how long it would last, who could be a delegate, etc.  Presumably the state legislatures would be the sole determinants of who got elected as delegates.  There is also no proposed allocation of representation!  Presumably the allotment of delegates would be according to population, but that is not specifically provided.  Must the states be equally represented as they were at the original Constitutional Convention?  If so, then Vermont (the home of Sen. Bernie Sanders) would have the same Convention voting strength as Texas!  Women and minorities could arguably be limited or excluded from a delegation if any state legislature so decided.  It could conceivably wind up being entirely composed of white male property-owners, just like the first Constitutional Convention! 

I am also not sure if Article V requires a proposed-amendment ratification by 3/4 of ALL states or just 3/4 of the ones in attendance at the Convention.  So, if only 34 states (2/3) show up for the Convention, could just 26 (3/4 of 34; barely half of all states) accomplish the ratification, or would it still require a full 38 state legislatures to ratify?

FINALLY, I am absolutely fascinated with the pure political angles of these propositions!  Suppose a coalition of few big states, like Texas, NY, California, Fla., Ohio, etc. got together and passed some sort of law in Congress (where they have dominant representative power) favoring heavily populated states, but a coalition of at least 34 small and/or sparsely populated states like Vermont, Rhode Island, Nevada, etc. got together and had their legislatures revoke that pro-big-state federal law!  That is a distinct possibility under Abbott's propositions!  By empowering only state legislatures, these propositions do not reflect any sort of numerical population balance or influence!

Maybe it won't make any difference if these propositions are adopted.  Getting 34 states to agree on anything may be impossible!

De Debbil is really in de details!  Good luck with all that!