Do Higher Taxes Kill Jobs? Check out Illinois and Wisconsin

"Scott Walker, the Republican governor facing a recall vote in Wisconsin, traveled over the Illinois line to argue that the tax increase backed by his Democratic counterpart Pat Quinn is killing jobs even as the Midwest rebounds from recession...

A broader snapshot tells a different tale. Illinois ranked third while Wisconsin placed 42nd in the most recent Bloomberg Economic Evaluation of States index, which includes personal income, tax revenue and employment. Illinois gained 32,000 jobs in the 12 months ending in February, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found. Wisconsin, where Walker promised to create 250,000 jobs with the help of business-tax breaks, lost 16,900."

Buddy Roemer Nails It!

"Republican presidential candidate Buddy Roemer came out in favor of “Occupy Wall Street” on Wednesday, voicing his support for the movement that other Republican candidates have decried as harmful and distracting.

“As I continue touring college campuses throughout New Hampshire, I am reminded of all the young Americans currently taking part in the Occupy Wall Street movement. Please know that I stand by you,” Roemer said in a statement.

The protests fit well with Roemer’s presidential platform, which focuses on the corrupting influence of money in politics. Pursuant to that stance, his campaign accepts donations no larger than $100 from any individual."

Did Al Gore Invent Global Warming?

This 1956 video shows that science had documented global warming and its effects on the climate over 60 years ago.

Chain Political Emails - 96% lies?

PolitiFact gave Mitt Romney a "Pants on Fire" rating for using an out of context clip of President Obama saying, "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." The President was quoting John McCain, and the clip is three years old.

PolitiFact concludes that only about 4% of all chain political emails are completely accurate and only about 9% are mostly accurate. More than half are so inaccurate that they earn a "Pants on Fire" rating (As in "Liar, liar, pants on fire!).

Americans deserve better from those who seek our votes and our trust. The story of George Washington and the cherry tree is an example both candidates and voters should keep in mind.

Whatever Happened to Peaceful Protesting?

With baby boomers forming such a large part of the population, you would think that we would remember how ugly using excessive police violence against protesters is. For those who have forgotten the tragedy of Kent State, recall the WTO conferences in Seattle and Pittsburgh.

Evidently those memories fade quickly. Not only have they faded, but new technologies and the steady adoption of the latest military weaponry by local police has created scenes that we used to only see in science fiction as the scrappy rebels faced off against the imperial storm troopers. Here are a few examples from recent events in California.

First, here is a scene from UC Davis where peaceful protesters are sprayed with pepper spray.

Or this scene from Occupy Oakland a few weeks earlier as police cleared the area. The wounded man is a Iraq war vet.

Pittsburgh police demonstrated more weaponry against protesters at the WTO meeting in 2009. A armored vehicle equipped with a sonic gun that can permanently injure one's hearing.

What's next? Drones?

Flat Tax - A Cure for a Non-Problem?

Candidates Perry and Cain have proposed competing flat tax proposals that are appealing for their apparent simplicity. A better test of their value might would be whether these proposals treat Americans equitably and whether they address the problems our economy faces.

The argument that a flat tax would help the economy is based on the premise that it would lead to increased investment in US businesses, plant and equipment resulting in job creation. This approach presumes that our economic woes are rooted in insufficient capital investment and productive capacity.

Reality intrudes at this point. The problems we face stem not from a lack of productive capacity or the capital needed to invest in new plant and equipment. China and the US already have too much productive capacity. The banks have too much cash. Our public companies have low debt equity ratios. The problem lies in the market place where stagnating wages, low home values, and exported jobs have sapped the ability of the consumer to buy new goods and services.

The Flat Tax approach will exacerbate this problem by increasing taxes on most consumers thereby limiting their ability to purchase new goods and services. Without growing markets, new investments will fail to generate the kinds of returns needed to justify them.

It's no wonder that it's the wealthiest voices that are fervently backing the Flat Tax approach; they will be its biggest beneficiaries, at least in the short term. In the long run, continuing to increase taxes on the middle class and poor will only shrink our markets and further damage our economy.

Let the Markets Work....the way they are supposed to

Candidates for the Republican presidential nomination prescribe allowing free market forces to work as critical to curing our economic woes. I agree 100%.

Most of these same candidates ignore the conditions that free markets require to work their magic. Effective free markets need free and open competition among participants. Unfortunately if left to themselves, markets tend toward monopolies undermining the competition that makes free markets effective. Government's critical role is to act as an unbiased referee to minimize anti-competitive practices such as price fixing, collusion, and other barriers to efficient markets and their benefits.

Teddy Roosevelt understood the referee's role when he busted the trusts (monopolies) and called for a "Fair Deal" to allow new and smaller companies to compete on a fairer basis.

Teddy would likely be appalled to see what passes for 'free markets' these days. A handful of "too big to fail" national banks dominate the marketplace and take huge risks with tax payer guaranteed money. A few, very large health care insurers and pharmaceutical companies have been handed huge markets to divide up among themselves. Their customers are either not allowed to bargain for prices or are so disadvantaged by knowledge and regulations that they cannot bargain effectively. Creativity has been stifled by new copyright extensions which limit the size of and access to our public domain for the benefit a few large media companies. Big Oil, Big Defense, Big Airlines....the list goes on, but the thread is the same: competition has become so stifled that our "free markets" are no longer free.

How did this happen? The referee has been bought and paid for. The rules that used to provide for a level playing field have been corrupted to create an unfair advantage to those with the deepest pockets and most access to the national legislative process.

A recent Bloomberg article proclaimed that "the area surrounding the nation's capital is now the richest in the nation". At the same time Federal employment is down, but the number of lobbyist representing the private sector has steadily increased. This well heeled population surrounding the nation's capital earns makes it's living from corporations, industry groups and labor unions who employ them to tailor government policy to their liking. It's a big expense, but also sound investments which provide excellent returns to their investors.

We need to restore our free markets to health by making them level again and reopening them to the competitive forces essential to their proper functioning. How? By restoring the level playing field to our electoral process. The necessity to raise huge campaign contributions requires that both candidates and incumbents be bought and sold by the highest bidder before they take office or if they have a chance at reelection. Even a member of the House has to raise about $20,000 each working day if he or she realistically wishes to stay in office.

If we want more competition in our commercial market places, we need to restore competition to our political market places by instituting government funded election campaigns and reducing campaign periods to several months, not several years. With our legislators and elected officials no longer being elected by a handful of deep pockets, they can act as honest referees to restore competitiveness to our markets.

If our commercial markets are free and open, they can be as effective as these Republican and many Democratic candidates claim.

Why Doesn't the Tea Party Embrace Occupy Wall Street?

Our economic woes have resulted in dissatisfaction and protest across the nation. The first group to organize to highlight the abuses of corporate cronyism was the Tea Party which excoriated the current administration for bailing out the banks, allowing public money to be used to pay huge executive bonuses, and the stimulus package. Tea Party-ers clearly distinguished between Main Street and Wall Street. The Republicans, Fox News and other conservative groups have supported the Tea Party's growth and efforts to become a substantial political voice.

Occupy Wall Street and its many branches across the nation have focused on many of the same ills, such as corporate cronyism in government, exorbitant bonuses, and the economic inequality that resulted. Yet they have been reviled and ridiculed by the Far Right, Fox News, and candidates for Republican office.

Why? Don't the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street share more in common than differences? Couldn't they achieve more by working together than by reviling another group that shares their dissatisfaction?

Hopefully the Tea Party will wake up at some point an realize that they and the Occupy Wall Street are mirror images of each other who need to find some way to work together to achieve the change they both seek.

Unequal Income Distribution Hinders Growth?

Nicholas Kristof's recent OpEd piece notes that

"In his important new book, “The Darwin Economy,” Robert H. Frank of Cornell University cites a study showing that among 65 industrial nations, the more unequal ones experience slower growth on average. Likewise, individual countries grow more rapidly in periods when incomes are more equal, and slow down when incomes are skewed.

That’s certainly true of the United States. We enjoyed considerable equality from the 1940s through the 1970s, and growth was strong. Since then inequality has surged, and growth has slowed."