He has already stated that he will put money towards a rainy fund – a move that has been met with some opposition.  It makes sense to create this fund though considering that the budget of the City of Detroit is still in shambles and the State could be forced to enact multiple bailouts.  While this would doubtless be unpopular in certain regions of the state, it is a move that would be warranted.  Detroit (and the Metro area) remains the economic hub of Michigan through both industry and commerce.  Detroit is lagging behind other areas of the state in recovery, and if it was to sputter backwards and start a negative slide it could potentially take the rest of Michigan with it (again).  So, one use of this rainy day fund could be as sort of a Detroit Insurance Fund.

There are a lot of other scenarios that require the creation of such a fund though.  Just think about your personal budget.  While you may have cut back in some areas of your budget during tough times, when times got better did you restore all finding to the areas that got cut?  Or did you decide that perhaps it made some sense to put away a stash of cash in case you had car trouble or need emergency house repair or a medical expense popped up unexpectedly.  Wouldn’t it be better to pay for such things out of savings rather than go into debt (again) to pay off something like that?  A similar case can be made for the Michigan’s Budget.  It makes sense (and cents – ha) to have a bit of savings so you can be a bit prepared for the unexpected.

Michigan and her residents should be happy today.  The ward work and sacrifices they have been making seem to be paying off.  While the state is not in the clear yet, it is making big strides and showing America that Michigan is once again ready to lead.

I will admit, when I first heard about this idea, I was pretty fired up.  It had nothing to do with the separation of Church and State like the ACLU would claim.  It had to do with teaching the proven vs. the unproven.  But then I started to think – Evolution is not fact, it is theory.  While the claims behind it are very strong and convincing, it is not 100% proven fact like a simple arithmetic problem (2+2=4) or an unquestionable event in history (The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor).  So, why are we allowing one theory – evolution – to be taught over another theory – creationism?  In my local paper the comments about this bill ran the spectrum with some saying that we need teach creationism right next to evolution to the other side calling creationists “idiots” and saying this is why Indiana was failing in Education. (sidebar – why does it have to go into name calling?  Why can’t you make your point without resorting to tearing down another in such a vicious manner? I just don’t get it.)  Many people seemed to feel there was merit of at least pointing out that evolution is not fact and that we need our children to be enlightened about fact vs. theory.

The bill will not move forward as the House has decided not to deal the possible backlash (which, given the Right to Work stuff they had to deal with, I think they just want to get done with the session and go home) and questionable constitutionality.  A larger question looms though.  Are we focused too much on “what” our children are taught rather than “how” they are taught it?  I worry that we will become a nation that can recite anything but fails to imagine.  As we continue to try to gauge success by tests and we may lessen our ability to think critically.  Shouldn’t we expose our children to new ideas and new topics?  Shouldn’t we teach them to question?  I am not saying that this particular matter (evolution vs or + creation) is the model by which to do so, only that we need to remember the jobs of those within our educational system is not to teach students what to think, only how to think…or to be more specific “the many different ways as to how one could think about what one is thinking about”.

First and foremost, Warren Buffet paying less taxes than his secretary is partly because of how he has his tax liability set up.  Much like Mitt Romney, Mr. Buffett is only paying the minimum required by law.  While I don’t have access to his tax returns, I can guess that his “income” is set up in such a manner that it falls into one category while his personal revenue far exceeds that.  As I discussed in the previously linked article, income does not equal personal revenue in the eyes of the IRS.  When a person is extremely wealthy (like Warren Buffett – who has a fortune Scrooge McDuck would be envious of) they have many revenue streams that are all taxed at differing levels and some which can avoid taxes altogether.  The problem with Mr. Buffett’s example though is that HE and his accountants set this up.  They could have just as easily set up his portfolio to maximize taxation rather than minimize.  He could also pay MORE to the government than he currently is.  The IRS is willing to NOT give you a tax return if you so choose.  So all of this makes me very skeptical of Mr. Buffett’s motives.  Why make these points which only illustrate how you, yourself, are gaming the system?

While Mr. Buffett used the example of his secretary to generate sympathy for the irresponsible taxation policies the United States currently has in place, that may have actually backfired.  When most of us think of secretaries, we think of women making low hourly wages or salaries under 40K a year.  So, when The President and Mr. Buffett told us about this, many were in shock – how could a multi-billionaire be paying a smaller percent in taxes than someone making under fifty-thousand dollars a year?  Well, the problem is, Mr. Buffett’s secretary is not like most secretaries.  Given that his secretary is in the 35.8% tax bracket, she has an annual income  of somewhere between $200,000 and $500,000 a year.  Not exactly the picture that The President had painted in our minds, is it?  Now there has been some backlash at Ms. Bosenek because she accepted the invite to the State of the Union and is allowing herself to be used as this example.  I don’t think that is right though.  Why fault her for having a job she truly enjoys while making a lot of money doing it.  Who cares if she bought a second home recently?  That is what we want American’s to do – have a job, work hard, earn money, and spend that money.

Does this example show the inequality and irresponsibility in the tax system – you bet it does.  But it also shows how much perception and assumptions can influence public opinion when the facts are not clear.  What is truly a shame is that Mr. Buffett is allowing his employees to be taxed at such high levels while he himself skates away relatively free of the taxa burden they bare each and every paycheck.  Why hasn’t he set up a system for them where they can enjoy the rewards that he does?  While our tax code is certain irresponsible, Warren Buffett and President Obama are truly the irresponsible parties in this matter.  Mr. Buffett further personifies the picture of corporate greed, making his employees pay taxes at such a high rate in comparison to himself.  President Obama once again shows that he won’t let facts get in the way of pushing an agenda.  Mr. President, I agree, we NEED tax-reform – but let’s be truthful and open with the American people rather than trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

This primary process is ass backwards, and I’ll be the first to say it. It was designed when news traveled slowly and a stump speech in Iowa was heard by those attending, not broadcasted live across the internet. Obviously things have changed, and when you say something smart in Iowa or New Hampshire, everyone hears it, and even more people hear it when you say something dumb. However, that is okay sometimes, because we’re better off hearing someone say something stupid early in the primary, than late in the general. But what angers me most is how some Republicans involved in the primary process feel like they have been robbed every time Mitt wins. They complain that the Republican Party isn’t listening to what the people want. They complain that the Republican Party elites picked Mitt. Are you kidding me?!? Last time I checked hundreds of thousands of ballots were cast in every state primary so far, and the results show that hundreds of thousands of people want Mitt Romney to be the GOP nominee.  So for everyone out there calling Mitt the “establishment” candidate, the RNC didn’t ask him to run, the RNC did not endorse him, no State Party organization endorsed him. No group affiliated with the Republican National Committee or any State Republican Party did anything to help him win or encourage him to run for that matter. So instead of using the word “establishment” to make a point that you don’t like him and you’re mad your guy lost, accept the fact that he has good ideas and millions of Republicans in America want him to be the GOP nominee.

Secondly, it makes perfect sense that Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee. Barack Obama became the nominee with simple lines that mean nothing, meanwhile his record showed him to be one of, if not the most, liberal member of the Senate. His policies as President reflect that. Recent polls show he is one of the most polarizing Presidents ever. You either love him or hate him. Well that is what happens when you elect someone who is far away from the middle in the political spectrum. You see the middle is where the majority of people like. In America only about 35% of people say they are Republican, and 32% say they are Democrat. What about the other 34%? well the vast majority of them are in the middle, so-called independents (or something else like Green Party or Libertarian and throw their votes away). These people decide elections.

(Say what you want to about McCain and how the middle of the road strategy failed, but it didn’t. Did you know McCain was leading national polls at the start of September? Then Palin did that interview where she said you could see parts of Russia from Alaska. Then he plummeted in the polls. What failed was he couldn’t say what Americans wanted to hear, and he failed  to respond well to the economic crisis facing America. Obama did, while those policies have failed and continue to fail, Americans believed what he was saying. That is why he won)

Back to subject, now America is facing a debt crisis, a bloated government, and an anemic economy. So if we were to imagine America as a Company, how would you fix it? Well I’d bring in a guy who has a track record of fixing companies. I’d bring in a guy who will say, this needs to go, this needs to be cut, this costs too much, this could use some more investment, and oh yeah this tax code is so messed up I dance circles around it. That is who I would want.

What is that you say? He flip-flops on abortion issues, and he may or may not support same-sex marriages? Well stop the presses, America is in decline because of those issues. I bet if we stopped all abortions in America we would see the national debt plummet to $0. Actually, we won’t. So 2012 is not the time to focus on those issues. Are they important? Of course. Should we make sure people in Washington care about those issues? Definitely. Should it dictate who we nominate as President? No, it should not.

(Oh and Romney Care? That was to get uninsured people who could afford insurance to stop going to the Hospital Emergency Room for a colds, minor cuts, and other trivial matters that cost the government lots of money. They were essentially mooching not cause they needed it, but because they suck as people. Does Romney think we should do that across the entire Country? No, so get off his back about it.)

Mitt Romney has a background of fixing businesses, and yes that includes firing people, but that is what you do when someone (the government or a government employee) is doing a job that is not needed, is duplicative, or costs too much for what it produces. He understands all the crappy loopholes in the US tax code, and wants to make the system simpler. His policies on how to do these things are not set into stone and can still be mold to reflect what Americans want/think we need, and adapt to a volatile free market economy.

So Mitt Romney is the guy that can fix our country’s problems based on his past experiences. Not the guy who has been in Washington for 30 years and a lobbyist for the last 10. Not the guy who makes  an ass of himself whenever someone asks him about social issues. Not the guy that wears a 42R and should be wearing a 38R.

In America we have 2 things that make us great. 1) A Free Market economy where people with good ideas or a good work ethic can become millionaires and 2) A Democratic Republic where people with good ideas and a good work ethic can win a majority of the vote and become President.

Sorry your guy didn’t have good enough ideas.

Now, firstly and most importantly, I am NOT against compensation of an employee in the present day. While CEOs and other executives may earn high paychecks, they are creating/adding value to the companies they serve and impacting the share price or, at the very least, profit margin of their employers.  What I find to be excessive though is the post-employments benefits they receive.  How is this beneficial to the company?  Is strict employment time pay no longer enough to attract difference makers in the corporate arena?  Especially troublesome is the amount of money that “fired” CEOs are allowed to take or how some CEOs are allowed to “step-down instead of be fired and by doing so their compensation changes.  The specific instance that comes to mind is the case of former HP CEO Mark Hurd.  By stepping down rather than being fired (as he should have been) Hurd walked away with over $12 Million in compensation.  Had HP rejected his request to step down and instead fire him, they would have paid much less.  The question I have is this: if some random VP or Director at HP had fallen into this same situation would Hurd have let that person walk away with a larger compensation package rather than being fired – I doubt it.

While this may seem like a rant against the rich, it is hardly so.  Instead, these companies are being wasteful with their resources.  Think of how much money companies could plug into research and development if the golden parachutes were only sliver or bronze.  Imagine the benefits they could give to their lower-level employees, thereby helping out the local economy and creating potential new stockholders if they cut back at the top.  The banks and financial institutions that were bailed out by taxpayers in 2008 and 2009 could have repaid their debt to the United States tax-payers much faster or put cash in reserve so they would not have to be bailed out the next time they operated irresponsibly.

I think that as more and more Americans look to limit the scope of government they will also turn their attention to corporate responsibility.  Ending the phenomena of golden parachutes certain would go a long ways towards developing that culture of responsibility – a culture Americans will be increasingly reliant upon if our government shrinks like it needs to.

It is painfully obvious that the tax code we currently employ for generating income for our governments(s) is outdated and beyond repair.  However, what is the best solution?

I personally think we need to look at a hybrid system of income tax and a value added tax (or a VAT).  While I have serious concerns about the economic impact of a VAT, by being paired with a flatter and more rigid income tax many of the possible negatives could be minimized.  By not having the rate of a VAT as high as it would be in order to fully replace the income tax, the prices would not be prohibitive for consumer spending.  However, an additional $10 dollars on a $100 product could be quite beneficial.  Paired with a  lower income tax that has brackets of simplicity the United States (and those states that employ an income tax system) would still be able to bring in a lot of revenue while not putting the burden on the lower and middle classes.  Obviously additional changes would need to be made to the way income via the stock market is taxed, but to be honest, I do not know enough our our baseline to suggest any sort of alternative there.

I don’t think we want to limit the ways that people in this country can procure income, we likely should actually expand it (to a degree, I am not advocating for nefarious means of moneymaking, settle down).  However, with new ways of income generation being developed continually, we do need to make sure that a dollar earned for one is always worth a dollar earned for another.  Right now, that is simply not the case.  While that dollar may mean something different to those who posses it, it should mean the same – relatively speaking – to our government(s).  I bet that is something both Democrats and Republicans can agree on.

• Reducing the combined employer-employee tax rate from 12.4 percent to 7.6 percent, a 40 percent rate reduction.
• He also would establish a retirement age of 70 for everyone born after 2024.
• Eliminate the current contribution cap, or the cap at which annual income is taxed for Social Security (the cap in 2011 was $106,800)

Sand said eliminating the cap would, in essence, create a flat tax and would ensure that all taxpayers, including those who make more than the $106,800 cap, are paying their fair share.

Sand also proposes to apply means testing to Social Security benefits based on retirement income needs, which he said would allow the program to cease being an entitlement regardless of income and act as a “true safety-net program.”

While I am in no position to crunch the numbers, the idea looks pretty good.  The thought being that reducing the tax rate put more money in the pockets of those who fall under the income cap current cap.  The lost revenue would then be made up by then applying that 7.6% tax to ALL income, not just an arbitrary number.  Like I said, I am not sure it all balances out, but it looks good on paper (and looks a lot simpler than some of the solutions trotted out in DC).  I would probably tweak the numbers a bit, maybe bump it up to 8 for a nice round 4% from each side, but that is just me.

What is interesting in this is that it really does seem like a very centrist proposal.  Republicans would like the lower taxes – both on the employer contribution side and on the employee side.  Democrats would love the means testing and the removal of the cap.  The downfall of a plan like this might be what makes it so appealing in the first place, the simplicity.  No doubt Senators and Representatives would tack on amendment after amendment, to try to enable tax changes(cuts or increases), create another savings vehicle, or just pass something completely unrelated to topic at hand.  That is not to say that additional savings vehicles should not be pursued (they most certainly should) but they could always be created later and discussed later.

* This is not an endorsement of Duane Sand.  I don’t know the guy and prior to a friend sending me this story, had never heard of him.  However, the topic is quite germane to this blog and some people consider North Dakota part of the Midwest…those some people work at the Census Department by the way.

One of my friends said that the only reason he could see a recall election being justified was if the elected officially broke the law.  Well, usually if an elected official breaks a law serious enough for a recall then he or she is most likely headed to jail, meaning they can’t serve out there term anyway.  Recall elections are for sore losers who didn’t get their way the first time.  That why is people stand for RE-election.  If someone did not do a good job in their first term, then vote them out the next time they stand for re-election.  There is no need to create a brand new election so you can feel better about yourself.  The terms that elected officials in the United Sates serve are not overly burdensome to constituency.  If they ARE, then those who support recalls should put their efforts towards lowering those limits, not enacting what amounts to a personal vendetta.

I don’t feel that President Obama has done a very good job, but he was elected to a 4 year term as President of the United States and he earned the right to serve that term.  I will exercise my right to vote for another candidate in November.  If my candidate doesn’t win, then I hope that the President can do a better job than he has so far.  I lived in Iowa and Maryland under Democratic Governors.  I thought their leadership and policies were not helpful to the state, but I would not have signed petitions to recall them because the people voted them into office in the manner in which our forefathers intended.  Who am I to say that they were wrong?

-SamEagle76

I was able to hear Amb. Huntsman speak in Indianapolis this past summer.  He spoke with conviction but spoke with broad brush strokes on policy issues.  If you took the time to read some of his policy action items on his webpage, you could see the direction he wanted to go.  However, you have to push the message out to voters rather than pull them to a site.  Huntsman ran on logic and reasonableness in a time when emotion and soundbites are what many in the Republican base seem to crave.  There  should have been a base of voters that would embrace that, but he somehow failed to capture them enough to make a difference beyond New Hampshire

If you sat and listened to Jon Huntsman on TV, you could imagine this man being President.  Hopefully, he will take another shot down the road.

We have already had one nomination contest for the Republican Presidential Campaign (which sometimes feels like a campaign to become President of the Republicans rather than the 300+ Million who make up the citizenry of the United States).  With Iowa behind us and New Hampshire tomorrow, the nomination could be cemented for Mitt Romney..but I doubt it is.  I am betting we go into South Carolina with a 4 man race (and Ron Paul).  If Jon Huntsman can make a strong showing in New Hampshire, he has the same type of momentum that Rick Santorum has…except he is going into a state that is much more wide open that New Hampshire.  If things break the right way, we might even head to the convention with a nominee.

We will do our very best to put out thoughtful opinions and timely commentary.  Hopefully you come over and make some comments too.

-SamEagle76