Obama revisits Bush-era tax cuts

It isn’t a question of whether the 2001 GWB tax cuts should be extended at a time when the economy is just beginning to right itself.  It is rather a matter of to whom they should be extended.  White House spokesman, Jay Carney, has stated that president Obama would not sign any extension that included the wealthy, which has been identifies as income over $250,000.  Republicans claim this will weigh heavily on small business owners.



Obama speaking to middle-class tax cuts

There is some truth to this in that sizable portions of small business owners (31.8 million as of 2008) now elect to be taxed on a system called flow-through or pass-through income.  Basically, that means this income is taxed on the business owner’s personal tax income, not as a corporation.  This, of course, frees this sole proprietor (or LLC, partnership, or S corp.) from being taxed as a traditional C corporation and then taxed again individually.

Sen. Jon Kyl, (R-Arizona) came up with the statement, "The proposed tax increase on 53% of all flow-through business income would be especially harmful to small businesses," but he doesn’t spell out who that 53% is.  Obama counters with the fact that under his tax proposal 97% of U.S. small business owners’ lower tax rates would remain at the same level.  If I had to choose between believing the facts of Jon Kyl next to Obama, it’s the president hands down.

Assuming the 31.8 million small business owners, above, have increased—they were only 10.9 million in 1980—then there is a sizable number affected.  3% of only 31.8 million is just under a million businesses, and the combined net income from pass-through businesses was $1.7 trillion.  TaxFoundation.org states that based on 2009 tax returns, 66% of pass-through income was reported by taxpayers earning more than $250,000.  36% of that is $1million plus.

Anyone might agree these are hard figures to reconcile.  The Tax Foundation also reports from 2009, “…individual taxpayers reported $896 billion in total business income from all sources—including business and professional income, rents and royalties, partnership and S corporation income, and farm income. After subtracting net losses, individual taxpayers earned $696 billion in net business income.”  It may be impossible to untangle the actual numbers.

Tax breaks will expire at the end of this year and with the elections in November controlling just about everything right now, we can probably count on the GOP Congress to take the direction of damaging Pres. Obama at all costs.  That would mean demanding a continuation of tax breaks for millionaires, which Obama is likely to veto.  The GOP favor the same old story of shrinking government over raising taxes, partially right, but with no conciliation on revenues.    

Warren Buffett wants us to “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich,” in a New York Times piece.  He states, “The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.”  This is another matter entirely but points out the inequality of the whole tax system.

The Tax Foundation warns that, based on the importance of pass-through income, over taxing that group could “fall very heavily on America’s non-corporate businesses.”  We are also reminded that these flow-through businesses “account for a large percentage of business income and employment in the United States.  So how do you literally change the system so that small business owners win in the overall tax deal? 

Would it make sense to take another look at the Hire Act of 2010 (extended into 2011) which provides tax incentives to employers for hiring qualified individuals?  Extend this beyond the special groups to include anyone unemployed, perhaps with increased incentives for hiring those without jobs for a long period of time.  Anything offered to these companies must have meaningful results that are calculable by small businesses.  Can’t see how Republicans could object to that.

But of course they would.

Its time to defuse the uproar over the UN Arms Trade Treaty ATT

NRA's head gun lunatic, Wayne LaPierre

As it does with anything remotely connected to gun control, the gun rights lobby, led by the National Rifle Assn. (NRA), has reacted with overstated alarm to the UN’s attempt to place some kind of control over the international trade of weaponry.  In effect, what the gun nuts are saying is that we should do nothing about keeping firearms away from terrorists or the Mexican cartels, or in general regulating the transfer of guns internationally.

This persistent 2^nd Amendment misnomer of ‘You’re trying to take away our guns’ has become very tiresome, and should be viewed in the same absurd light as the equally wearisome arguments used to back up this prattle.  No one is trying to take away your precious guns for rightful purposes domestically, meaning based on U.S. law and the 2^nd Amendment in this case.  The UN General Assembly resolution 61/89 even specifies hands off all domestic laws.

But we know gun worshippers won’t give it up so we have to keep explaining it to these double-digit IQs.  Put simply, it is a UN sanctioned resolution establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.  You do understand that international, while not exactly the opposite of domestic, does’n mean domestic control, or do you?  61/89 is proposed for people affected by the side effects of irresponsible arms transfers.

George W. Bush, of course, said no to this during his administration, but in 2009 the Obama administration through Sec. of State Hillary Clinton overturned GWB’s decision.  And this immediately got the attention of the international community because the U.S is the world’s largest arms exporter with a $55 billion annual trade in conventional firearms.  Without the participation of the U.S., based on the latter, any treaty would have limited relevance.

A 2/3 majority of the U.S. Senate is required for passage and gun rights groups such as the NRA claim that the treaty is an attempt to circumvent the 2^nd amendment and similar guarantees in state constitutions in order to impose domestic gun regulations.  However, the resolution explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”



Pass Arms Trade Treaty



The Huffington Post reported that the propaganda that 61/89 provided a legal way around the 2^nd Amendment and a complete ban on all weapons for U.S. citizens was “virtually impossible.”  If you follow them, Snopes.com called it “scarelore” and false.  The Los Angeles times reported that only the fringe element believed this foolishness.  If you want to read more go to Wikipedia.org for a comprehensive understanding of the Arms Trade Treaty.

So recently a guy by the name of Joe Wolverton II, a militant Libertarian and Ron Paul supporter, enters the fray through an article in The New American.  He wrote that George Soros, a billionaire and very progressive, is financing the fight “to give the United Nations control of your guns.”  Now that will get the attention of every gun freak in the U.S. and send them screaming to the NRA, who will reply they are right, but send more money so we can fight the battle.

For the most part Wolverton’s article is the kind of disinformation you would expect, except for a statement that the UN  won’t meddle in the gun affairs of individual countries, but with some reservations.  Wolverton cites a couple of red flags that deal in the semantics of quotation marks around a phrase on freedom, and infers the U.S. needs permission from the UN for the right to own a gun.  In each case, he is thrashing around in the ridiculous.

But I have always said that it is good to know your enemy, and a reading of this article proves just how persistent the gun rights fanatics have become.  Wolverton makes the accusation that President Obama and Secretary Clinton will engage all the governments of the world involved in the ATT to gang up on the U.S. and take away Americans’ guns.  He even goes so far to say Obama, Clinton and Soros “have much to fear from an armed and educated citizenry.”

Now that almost sounds threatening.

Wildfires caused by target shooting a complete waste

This is a follow up to last Wednesday’s post, “The epitome of gun stupidity…Arizona gun nut knowingly starts major wildfire,” that recounted five dimwits that went into the Tonto National Forest northeast of Phoenix, Arizona for a bachelor party that ended up starting one of the state’s worst wildfires in history.  Craig Shiflet, 23, faces 6 months in prison, a $5,000 fine, or both for starting the Sunflower fire that has burned over 18,000 acres.

These gun nuts were target shooting, which has been prohibited for years on BLM property, and Shiflet even used an incendiary shotgun shell, which started the fire, and which is also banned on federal land.  Gun irresponsibility does not get any worse than this, and aside from the alarming trend today of increased shootings resulting in multiple deaths and injuries, we have yet another case of an equally irresponsible National Rifle Assn. (NRA) not taking action.

All this gang of misfits—with Wayne LaPierre at the helm—cares about is pushing for more gun rights to put more guns on the street in the hands of the likes of Craig Shiflet.  The NRA and other correspondingly inept gun rights groups keep telling us that things like this only occur from a small faction of gun owners that are in a minority.  I would like to know exactly what puts Shiflet in the minority; he seems more like the typical gun owner to me.

Although the feds don’t keep records listing “shooting” as a cause. The U.S. Forest Service does make side notes in their records that the fire was caused by “shoot” or “target” and the numbers are not good.  The Forest Service reported that in 2010, 17 wildfires were caused by one of these means, 28 in 2011, and 13 already this year.  And that’s only on land that is managed by this agency. 

What’s wrong with target practice on a gun range?  Especially when there are currently 45 wildfires burning in 15 states.  A gun owner has to have a double-digit IQ—or less—not to understand the danger of firing steel-jacketed or steel-core ammunition that in most cases puts off a spark when ricocheting off a rock, potentially leading to a fire.  Utah is banning this ammunition in favor of lead bullets which unfortunately can be toxic to animals.

One gun owner in Utah who was interviewed was reasonable about the situation, saying, “I certainly wouldn’t want to be responsible for a fire that burned somebody’s house.  I wouldn’t even take a chance with it.” 

But a Utah gun owning grandmother, Yetive Jones, was less committal saying, "I don't think the standards should be any higher for any one person who sets a fire.  Granted, somebody shooting who accidentally sets it off, they're going to feel bad about it. ... But there's nothing you can do once a fire starts."  Spoken like a true gun nut.

Read more here, here and here.

The epitome of gun stupidity…Arizona gun nut knowingly starts major wildfire

Arizona wildfires

This is the kind of gun rights the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) has been promoting for years, led by head wacko Wayne LaPierre.  The mentality is to own any gun I want to, use any ammunition I want, and take them both anywhere I want to.  It happened recently in Arizona, actually May 12, the day the Sunflower fire was started near Payson, Arizona, that has burned over 18,000 acres in the Tonto National Forest. 

You would think it was some demented individual that carried out this brainless act but it wasn’t.  It was one of Arizona’s typical gun freaks that has been assured repeatedly by state legislators that the state is his own personal shooting range.  His name is Craig Shiflet, 23, and now he faces 6 months in prison, a $5,000 fine, or both.  It was supposed to be a fun camping trip and bachelor party with, of course, lots of guns.  It turned into one of Arizona’s worse fires in history.

Shiflet, and four of his friends left Mesa, Arizona on May 11 for the Sycamore Creek area which is close to Payson.  First they were shooting at targets the morning of May 12, a practice proven to have already started wildfires in Utah and Colorado, and was widely covered in the media.  Duh…that doesn’t apply to me.  It was after this that Shiflet loaded a different kind of shell into his shotgun and fired it at a soda box.

Soon after this, the five certifiables noticed smoke where Shiflet had fired, discovered fire, then tried to stomp it out with no success.  It was then that Shiflet called 911 from his cell phone at 10:18 a.m. the morning of May 12, and the rest is disaster.  And here’s the rub.  Shiflet admitted to prosecutors that he believed the round he had put in his shotgun would shoot out flame or act like a flare gun.  I have heard of idiotic uses of a gun but this takes the cake.  

OK, here’s another ‘you just won’t believe it item.’  There is a warning label on the ammunition that reads: “Shoots 100 feet of fire, setting everything in its path ablaze.  Warning: Extreme FIRE HAZARD.”  Assuming Shiflet doesn’t have the brains to tie his own shoes, you would think at least one of the other four guys would have offered something like ‘this might start a forest fire.’  Is this what the NRA means when it says their members are “single minded?”

Fortune magazine calls Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) a LIAR in his Fast and Furious investigation

BREAKING NEWS

CA Rep. Darrell Issa's  Fast and Furious all lies

The ‘We will do anything, yes anything, to bring down Barack Obama’ GOP movement is not only still running strong but apparently gaining momentum.  Fortune magazine calls California Republican congressman Darrell Issa’s investigation of Fast and Furious a conspiracy.  Katherine Eban of Fortune says the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives operation was nothing like U.S. Rep. Issa has claimed.”  She has even more doubts about Issa.

Eban surmised that the Fast and Furious event was so different than has been portrayed by Issa that it would be near impossible for him to be so thoroughly misinformed.  The author thinks he is lying.  And apparently the same applies to ATF “whistle-blower” John Dodson who may have perjured himself by claiming under oath all 2,000 guns Issa proclaims went to Mexico came from ATF.  The actual number has been established as five, all under Dodson’s purview.       

Eban comes to the conclusion that the “problem” is Arizona with its loose gun laws making it almost impossible to prosecute those responsible for buying the guns, according to ATF Agent Dave Voth.  Gun runners can do their thing easily in Arizona without fear of prosecution.  As an example, a transient bought 10 AK-47 type rifles, was reported by the gun store to ATF, but because Arizona gun laws are so sloppy, it was impossible to convict the transient.

And the other “problem” in this matter is the National Rifle Assn. (NRA), which threatened to withhold support from congressional leaders that didn’t vote to hold AG Eric Holder in contempt for not releasing privileged documents.  This resulted in 17 wimp Democrats voting for contempt which succeeded in passing.  The NRA charges that Fast and Furious is Obama’s way of instigating gun control because of the required reporting of sales by 9,000 border gun stores.

The question is becoming not when we are going to halt the insane antics of an out-of-control organization that loves its guns over human life, but why haven’t we done something already?  It is hard to understand an American public that doesn’t comprehend the nature of this dilemma.  Innocent people are dying on the streets of the U.S. simply because Congress is too much of a coward to stand up to the NRA, afraid of losing millions of $ in annual contributions.  Pathetic.

Read more here and here.

Supreme Court upholds majority of Obamacare…and just in time

The Affordable Health Care Act has been recognized by the Supreme Court as being constitutional.  The one factor not upheld was requirements of Medicaid expansion within the states.  The Court basically ruled that this involved too many conditions that seemed unreasonable to demand.  Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the majority but took the position that the mandate requiring all Americans to have health insurance is a tax, contrary to the President.



Demonstrators for Obamacare



And the reason this decision comes “just in time” is a new report by Families USA confirming that 26,000 Americans die prematurely each year because they don’t have health insurance.  That breaks down to 500 per week, 2,175 each month.  For those of us paying dearly for our insurance coverage, and who are tired of supporting those who elect not to have health insurance, Obamacare rectifies this by making it affordable for this group.

The law’s mandate to buy health insurance was confirmed, but because the fine against those who do not comply is administered by the IRS, Roberts deemed it a tax.  Nancy Pelosi, Obama’s staunchest supporter of the legislation said you can call it anything you want to now that the law is upheld.  Republicans say they will work vigorously to repeal Obamacare and this may pass the House but most analysts say it will never get out of the Senate.

If the Supremes had no other reason to uphold the law, the 26,000 annual premature deaths would be reason enough, although this has no legal grounds.  What the figure does establish is the depth of crisis this nation is in when it comes to providing affordable healthcare to all its citizens.  Another staunch supporter of The Affordable Healthcare Act since it passed is Ron Pollack, Executive Director Families USA.  He said:  

"The fact remains that for the millions of Americans without health coverage, only the Affordable Care offers the promise of access to affordable coverage and to a longer and healthier life."

In the 26,000, above, every state is affected, Vermont with the fewest deaths and California with the most.  The numbers for those without health insurance have a broad range from 21 million to 50 million, and the figure being thrown around most recently is 30 million.  Apparently included in this aggregation is 9.7 million who are not citizens.  In addition to these numbers, an additional study reports that another 38 million have inadequate health insurance.    

Other points in the Families USA Report are:

“…in the past 2 years, uninsured women older than 50 were half as likely as insured women to get mammograms.”

“Low-income uninsured adults were 5 times less likely to get screened for colon cancer in the past 5 years compared to insured adults.”

“Cancer patients without insurance are five times more likely to delay or even skip treatment because of the cost.”

“…uninsured adults are more often diagnosed with advanced stage disease and they are 25% more likely to die prematurely than those with private insurance.”



Stage 4 kidney cancer



As an example of the latter, Frederick and Regina Holliday had no health insurance for 16 years while working multiple jobs part time.  They had 2 small children and paid all the medical bills out of their pocket.  They did not go to the doctor until it was, as they described it, “…couldn’t get out of bed sick.”  Another obstacle for affordable coverage was Frederick’s pre-existing condition of a urinary tract stricture.  In 2008, things started to change.

Regina got a job but they could only afford health insurance for her.  Then Fred got a full time job teaching and they had family coverage.  But it was then that Frederick was diagnosed with stage 4 kidney cancer which had metastasized to his stomach, bones and lungs.  Several months later he died at age 39.  His wife remarked:

“I believe that if my husband had consistent health care during his adult life he would still be alive today,”

Enough said?

It’s time to reboot the NRA

The National Rifle association (NRA) has been around since 1871 and will no doubt be here for at least a few more years.  It started as a reasonable organization, founded for the purpose of teaching marksmanship and gun safety.  It has evolved into a gang of unreasonable lunatics demanding that anyone should be able to own a gun and take it anywhere they want to.  Led by the head wacko Wayne LaPierre, it has power most of us can’t comprehend.



Charlton Heston, one of the original NRA kooks



As a recent example, the NRA has joined up with the GOP in the drive for contempt charges against Attorney General Eric Holder re. Fast and Furious.  They are pressuring Democrats now to join Republicans in the fight to make Holder the first sitting cabinet member to receive such a charge.  Whatever the outcome to Fast and Furious, it is not about the issue but rather the fact that this group of fanatics can bring down such pressure on Congress.

The time has come to stop this nonsense.  I have been reporting on gun violence by documenting the monthly numbers of U.S. shootings, those killed, and those wounded since March.  There was a 37.5 percent increase in gun violence in April over March and another 30.4 percent in May.  June looks to be coming in with another increase and one wonders just how long this country will put up with this before taking some kind of action on gun control.

This has to start by eliminating the power of the NRA that is conducive to the rights of sane gun owners—yes, there are some of those out there—but restrictive of this radical philosophy of guns for everyone, everywhere.  It is time to reboot the NRA.  The term means restart, begin again, in order to correct errors that have occurred.  Precisely what this out of control bunch of extremists needs and the process of change must start soon or more will die from guns.

The excellent gun control blog, Common Gunsense, recently posted an article on the fact that guns are now responsible for raging fires in Utah and Colorado.  It is the result of target shooting, a right that the NRA demands for its members, your rights be damned if it starts a blaze that destroys homes and precious forests.  CG says the NRA doesn’t trust government, adding:

“The NRA wants the minority of folks who own guns and carry guns to determine public safety rather than the people who are actually charged with doing so for the good of our communities.”

Gun control today

Richard Aborn of the Washington Post made this statement, “The debate about guns in the United States has always been between David and Goliath. Last year, the gun lobby outspent advocates of gun control by 11 to 1, or $2.9 million vs. $260,000.”  The NRA is well known for spending 46 percent of donations on fundraising, only 54 percent on charitable efforts while most major 501(c) charities spend 75 percent on the latter.

Aborn continues, “…the United States leads its post-industrial peers with an average of eight times as many annual deaths as a result of gun violence.”  He cites a decrease in gun control support in the United States, comparing this at a level of 52 percent in 1994 with a recent November Gallup poll indicating it is currently only at 1 percent.  The apathy is likely to continue as long as millions of Americans are out of work and losing their homes.

With those figures in mind, the author charges all of us with three factors in taking back control of guns:

Number one, don’t believe it; the battle against violent crime has not been won.  “More Americans were killed by gun violence last year than all American troops who have been killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.”

Two, “Ninety percent of gun owners support reasoned measures to keep guns from criminals and the mentally unbalanced, bipartisan polls show.”  Gun control and gun rights groups must come to an understanding.

Three, the NRA has successfully worked to prevent government funding for scientific research on the effectiveness of gun control measures.  Aborn says we should look at other countries for the plunging number of gun deaths with reasonable gun control.  You can see an example in my recent post, “Canada laws prove that gun control works.”

Numbers don’t lie and my monthly documentation of gun violence should be a wake up call for all of us, especially those out there I call the “Apathetics.”  You have to care and somehow make a contribution to efforts that put a reasonable control on who owns guns and just where they are allowed.  If not, many of you could be one of my future statistics.