Following the Tax Code is Wrong?

Following the Tax Code is Wrong?

Recently Apple CEO Tim Cook was hauled before a senate panel to be chastised for practices that shielded his company’s profits from taxes. He was not accused of anything illegal; he was not accused of committing any unethical act. The complaint was that he prevented the Elected Empty Suits on that panel from getting their hands Apple’s money.

We must all understand what happened here. Elected Empty Suits were both outraged and offended by a major corporation who followed good business practices and maximized their profits. They successfully shielded a portion of their success from greedy politicians. Profits are good and taxes are bad. Elected Empty Suits lose sight of that.
Their point of view was the loss of potential tax revenue, tax revenue that never materialized because the businessmen and women in Apple were smarter and more effective than the Elected Empty Suits.

Remember in the ugly confrontation that took place on that Senate panel, Apple was never accused of doing anything wrong; they were accused of following the tax code and avoiding taxes. This caused a great deal of stress and anxiety among the Senators. Elected Empty Suits don’t like that because they depend on tax revenue to further their nefarious and usually unethical plans.

Where are the Senate panels to investigate and bring to light the wasteful and stupid spending that occurs daily to the tune of millions of dollars? Where are the investigations looking into the money spent improving the roads from a Congressman’s home to his mistress’s house and then on to the Congressman’s favorite whorehouse?
Which Congressman am I identifying? Who is his Mistress? Where is this particular whorehouse? I admit all are figments of my imagination, but where any Congressman or Congresswoman is, a whorehouse is not far away. It may or may not be an establishment dedicated to sell sex for money, but it will be an opportunity to sell a favor for a favor and not for the common good of the taxpayers.

Elected Empty Suits cannot be trusted to look out for the taxpayer. The money they spend will go to what they think will get them reelected regardless of the burden they place on the taxpayer. They are self-motivated and will not consider the impact of their wasteful spending on the taxpayers.

This Senate panel should investigate what Apple did to be so successful, and teach those lessons to the struggling companies in our economy. Talk about a stimulus project to boost jobs and the economy, get more companies to market and sell products that are as popular as Apples products and our economy will jump like Elected Empty Suits around a free buffet table.

While they are investigating that they should learn what Apple did to protect their income from the tax man and teach that to struggling and successful companies. Profits are good and taxes are bad. We know that but Elected Empty Suits can’t understand that.

From their point of view the money earned by a company belongs first to the government and what is left goes back to the company. This is why an Elected Empty Suit is unfit for public service and must be voted out of office.

Spending millions of dollars on add campaigns to increase the number of citizens on food stamps make sense to Elected Empty Suits. The millions of dollars spent on the ad campaigns have to be borrowed, the money to support the new recipients of food stamps also has to be borrowed. Spending money to dig a deeper hole to go deeper in debt makes sense to Elected Empty Suits. That’s exactly like, not similar to but exactly like pumping gasoline on your own home while it is burning. Your house is on fire, but you want to increase the damage and accelerate the crisis so you pump, not pour gasoline on your burning home.

Any politician who does not look out for the tax payer must be voted out of office. Any politician who cannot see and understand the wasteful spending must be voted out of office. Any Elected Empty Suit who does not see the benefit of putting the taxpayer first is an idiot and should not be allowed in public without adult supervision.

Taxpayers are carrying this country and they are the backbone of this country. Every citizen has the right to vote, every taxpayer is bearing the burden of the decisions of government. We must vote for the men and women who understand this and understand the need to put the taxpayer ahead of the voter.

Courage Integrity and Honor

Courage Integrity and Honor

The dictionary defines “Integrity as a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes.”
Integrity is important as we live and work with others. Integrity is that quality that allows those around you to turn their backs on you. If you are short on integrity you are less of a man or a woman. A person of integrity doesn’t use the phrase, “I was just following orders”. A person of integrity does not follow orders that are questionable. Within the acceptable boundaries of the environment you work in, a discussion can take place about the details and ethics of a task.

When your boss instructs you to do an inventory of the same material you just inventoried, that may be a senseless task but a task you shouldn’t question other than for its repetitive nature. The boss has a legitimate or a less than legitimate reason for instructing you to do it. Performing that task may be unproductive but it is not an ethical issue. There is no problem ethically with performing that repetitive task.

When your Boss instructs you to open someone’s purse and go through the contents, then you’re being given a task that can and should be questioned. If the owner of the purse is having a seizure and requires medication or their cell phone to contact a family member due to the medical crisis, then that extenuating circumstance would make the ethical decision easier to make. A minor invasion of privacy to save a life or notify the emergency contact person of the emergency makes sense. To invade someone’s privacy on the instructions of your Boss for whatever reason the Boss thinks is acceptable, should cause any of us to question why?

If the Boss expects me to invade another person’s privacy for no good reason, I can expect my privacy to be invaded as well. It’s wrong for my Boss to do it, it is wrong of me to do it: I will stand my ground and refuse to invade a coworker’s privacy.

Honor is defined by a dictionary as “an abstract concept entailing a perceived quality of worthiness and respectability that affects both the social standing and the self-evaluation of an individual or corporate body such as a family, school, regiment or nation.”

Honor is an abstract that defines who we are as individuals. Our actions define us, when we act in a way that negatively impacts our character and our credibility we impact our own honor. Our honor is defined by our code of conduct in the world. I want my friends, family, and peers in the world to see me as a man of honor a man of integrity, not a mind numb robot who is willing to do whatever my Boss tells me to do regardless of the consequences.

Actions have consequences. We don’t live in a vacuum; whatever we do will impact the people in our lives. When you as an individual go into the refrigerator in the break room and drink a cold bottle of water that belongs to someone else, or take someone else’s lunch and eat it as your own, you’re creating an environment where suspicion and distrust will rise to the surface. You are now a thief and your integrity and honor will suffer, even if you’re never identified as the thief.

Currently there are three scandals in the news, one involving the AP and some subpoenas, one involving Benghazi and one involving the IRS. As time passes more and more information will come to light about all three of these, but where did they all start? Someone in a superior position instructed someone in a subordinate position to do something that was unethical. To do something that was wrong. Time will tell how far along the chain of command the instruction started, but where exactly this point is, is immaterial for now.

The recipient of the unethical instructions did what they were told. They took the unethical action, knowing they were in the wrong. At what point did Integrity and Honor lose out to job security and pleasing the Boss?

The individuals, who did what they were told, had to know they were doing the wrong thing. Could they have been so naïve that they believed in the higher good they were doing when they did what was wrong? Could it be that they never recognized that the tasks they performed were wrong? Could they have believed that it was not their fault, they were only following orders?

Whatever the answer is Integrity and Honor were never considered. How an individual’s actions impact their own integrity and honor never became part of the thought process as they did what they were told.

I’m not naïve; I understand that significant pressures were probably identified as the consequences of a failure to obey. Direct or indirect threats were made to gain compliance as well as plausible deniability. We spend a lifetime building a reputation of Honor and Integrity, but it takes a few minutes to lose it with a lapse of judgment, making decisions for the wrong reason.

The loss of a job is a significant event in a man or woman’s life, especially when jobs are hard to get and the cost of living is so expensive. These are the value judgments we have to make in our lives. Most of the ethical questions we have to deal with involve shades of grey and rarely distinct black and white lines. We must make them based on our lives and our reputations. Integrity and honor demand it. We must all draw our lines in the sand and live within the lines we draw.

When my Boss instructs me to step outside one of my lines, I have to make a decision based on my own reputation. Will I draw a new line and expand my box? Or stand my ground and insist I stay inside the boundaries I’m comfortable with?

From what I see in the news the boxes we live in have become far too big. Not enough of us are trying to stand our ground and defend our own integrity and honor.
As these scandals see the light of day the individuals involved closer to the unethical actions will pay the price, not the ones who masterminded the unethical behavior. Those who pay the price will wish that Integrity and Honor were more important to them earlier in the process.

Some jobs are worth losing. Most Bosses don’t have the Courage to challenge an individual who refuses to perform an unethical task. When you stand your ground and defend your box, a Boss who wants to keep their hands clean will usually not challenge you, but if they do, stand your ground and accept the consequences. As I said, some jobs are worth losing.

Find the Courage to defend your Honor and Integrity. It may hurt in the short term, but in the long run you’ll always come out ahead. Courage is not the absence of fear; it’s the ability to act when afraid. In the workplace we occasionally have an opportunity to defend our box. Rarely but occasionally there is a price to pay for defending the box; Courage, Integrity and Honor determine for each of us when, where, and how far, we are willing to go to defend our own Honor.

We need more concern about Integrity, Honor, and Courage, and less concern about security. Men and women of integrity and honor should be in positions to protect and defend our tax money.

The Free Market Economy in the 21st Century

The Free Market Economy in the 21st Century

The Free Market Economy, which is based on supply and demand with very little government interference, is still the best engine to move our economy along at a rapid rate. There are a few issues that are different today than about 30 years ago, but not in any way that prevents the free market from thriving and being effective.
Government is interfering more and more, that hurts all by itself and it slows growth and progress. The Free Market can still move forward, but not as fast and strongly as it would without so much government interference.

Blue collar jobs used to provide long term stability for blue collar workers but they are fewer and less stable than before. Unskilled and semi-skilled jobs are harder to find and harder to keep. Robots and technology can and will do more work for less money and do not require benefits or retirement.

The global economy provides the opportunity for unskilled and semi-skilled jobs to move to remote parts of the world where labor is significantly cheaper. The cost of labor in the US has become so expensive that outsourcing and contracting work out to remote corners of the world are practical alternatives. Government regulations, minimum wage requirements and health benefits have caused the cost of doing business in the US to become so expensive that producing many things thousands of miles away and shipping material across an ocean is cheaper than producing them here at home.

Government spending is out of control and as more and more tax payers and voters realize and understand the consequences of this, the very small steps we’re taking right now to get spending under control will become bigger and bigger steps. Government spending will get tighter and tighter as time moves on. Government excesses and poor spending decisions will be highlighted and even Elected Empty Suits will have to back off. Spending for the sake of spending will slow down and eventually stop.

The Defense Department is spending billions on defense; politicians (AKA Elected Empty Suits) are pushing for some spending that the military doesn’t even want in order to buy the love and loyalty of tax payers and voters in their district. The Abrams tank that the Army doesn’t need or want is a clear example.

The Army feels more tanks wouldn’t help, they would rather spend that money elsewhere. Elected Empty Suits disagree; they want the money spent in their home districts no matter what. No one has actually said this in their own words, but their actions are screaming “I don’t care if you need the product or not, spend the money in my voter’s back yard; we need to artificially support their businesses and let them keep their jobs and let them keep collecting money that the government can’t afford to spend. Damn the consequences take care of the voters I need to convince to love me by spending money that doesn’t belong to me.”

There are so many flaws with this argument I’m not sure where to begin. Let’s start with the Army doesn’t want the tanks. The Army has lots of them and they are a tremendous military weapon and asset, but the Generals responsible for making the decisions have decided that money identified to make more tanks should go elsewhere. Elected Empty Suits disagree; they don’t care what the customer says, they want to build and charge the government for a product that is not needed or wanted.

I won’t argue if the question is they don’t want or need any more tanks, or if in tough budget times they have other needs with a higher priority than buying more tanks, but the Generals who are responsible for the military should have more say than the Elected Empty Suits. The money identified to build more tanks either should not get spent at all, or should be used for the purpose that the Generals think is more important.

The Elected Empty Suits are charged with appropriating the money and making it available for the military to use, not to insist on spending, what is not needed or wanted. That’s clearly a waste of the tax payers’ money especially when they’re looking to tax us even more.

If the question is do we buy more tanks and artificially prop up the tank manufacturer and suppliers to keep thousands of employees working who would be out of jobs otherwise, or even to keep us from losing facilities that could build tanks in the future if we shut them down now, it’s still a bad idea.

My opinion is, let the companies die and let the employees go out of work, let us lose the tank building facilities. That’s a better choice than taxing all of us to make poor spending decisions now. The Free Market should be free to do its magic. If the tank building company let itself be dependent on the tank orders from the military they should go out of business. To survive and thrive they must make themselves diverse enough to survive a loss of a government contract not dependent on them for survival.
When businesses, especially defense companies, want money spent to benefit their companies, Elected Empty Suits make the spending happen. That adds to the burden of all taxpayers. We are spending money we don’t have. We have to borrow a portion of every check the government issues.

What are the consequences of thousands of people in a few small communities going out of business at the same time? It wouldn’t be pretty, but if the only way to prevent it is to spend too much money on something that isn’t needed, then let the pain start now so we can overcome the pain quickly. Communities across this country have survived this before and will have to again, some individuals will move some will stay new businesses will come in and new jobs will be had. It may take ten or twenty years but the answer cannot be piling more bad spending decisions on already bad spending decisions.

The free market will balance things out. Profit is an exciting motivator, and it works every time it’s tried. When a profit can be made there will be one or more smart people who will want to make that profit.

What we can’t accept is Elected Empty Suits compelling spending that is not needed

Aggravated Spending

Aggravated Spending

An assault is when a person threatens to commit bodily harm to another person and has the means to cause that harm. Aggravated assault is when a person commits the act and causes serious bodily harm.

Our government is committing aggravated spending on a daily basis. The most egregious example of their aggravated spending is the way the FAA is handling the cuts caused by the sequester. Air Traffic Controllers are being furloughed two days out of every month. More than 15,000 loyal dedicated professionals who perform a high stress job on a daily basis working ungodly shifts every day of the week including holidays are being asked to give up part of their pay to cover a requirement to reduce spending by less than 3 percent of the budget.

The cuts could easily be met by cutting other areas that would not affect people’s paychecks, or mission essentials funds. Other government agencies are meeting the goals by cutting a portion of consulting, supply and travel budgets and reducing or eliminating improvement programs. Those cuts would meet the requirement and not impact paychecks. The cuts are so small and could be achieved without affecting anything significant but those in charge can’t make it happen.

There is frequently so much fraud, waste, and abuse of government money that is present when management is not accountable for the bottom line; that fraud waste and abuse should be the first target to make cuts. A careful study of any government budget by competent professionals from the private sector would certainly show most budgets could stand a 20 percent cut and come out being more efficient and effective.

Cutting the paychecks of dedicated professional public servants responsible for the safety of the flying public is clearly aggravated spending.

There is no reasonable explanation for cutting pay checks and putting the flying public at risk when other choices are possible and smarter. There can only be two reasons for making those choices and neither of them are good.

Let’s assume the decision was made by the Administrator of the FAA. He made the decision based on his best judgment and business sense. Cutting the pay checks of his most critical employees instead of choosing the other choices identifies him as the biggest idiot in the FAA. If this is where the decision came from then he is demonstrating the decision making skills of a man in over his head in the job that he has.

Now let’s assume that the Administrator was directed to make those cuts instead of the smarter safer cuts available to him. Why would someone make him make that decision? Again there is no reasonable explanation, but then there is an unreasonable reason. To make a point about spending cuts at the risk of the flying public and at the expense of hard working dependable employees who keep the flying public safe all day every day. Some elected politicians feel that taxes must be higher so they can spend more. The decision is an attempt to scare the public into blaming those who are holding the line against tax increases.

It’s not possible that the best decision possible was to cut paychecks and put the public at risk. The cuts are so small and easily achieved that cutting into the pay checks of critical employees who protect the public could not be the best decision. There could not be a situation that justifies that decision.

That decision could only be achieved through stupid or malice. Politicians could make a decision like that, a public servant would not. This is such a clear example of aggravated spending made by politicians who have no clue how to serve the public.

This resistance to get spending under control and to stop punishing tax payers, while furthering their own agendas that do not necessarily serve the taxpaying public is appalling.

Public Servants will protect the tax payers and the voters, but they will also recognize that the tax payers have to shoulder the burden and their needs and interests come first. The resistance to spending cuts is criminal, especially in an environment where so much fraud waste and abuse is present. Spending cuts are necessary and must be significant. Taxes must be cut. We must be taxed as little as necessary to take care of the common good. Not taxed to excess to further the political agendas of politicians.

Aggravated Spending should be a criminal offense punishable by a tattoo across the forehead and an ankle bracelet. People that stupid or evil enough to put innocent women children and tax payers at risk to protect their personal political agendas need to be clearly identified and tracked.

If they really are they stupid they have to be looked after, if they are that evil we need to know where they are at all times. We must never turn our backs on them.

Vote them out every time.

The Cowboy Code

The Cowboy Code

As I’m getting I’ve been reading westerns, especially those written by Louis L’Amour. Cowboys and Cowgirls lived good decent lives. And they lived by a simple code that guided them through life:

• Live each day with courage
• Ride for the brand
• When you make a promise, keep it
• Your word is your bond
• When your friends are in trouble run towards them not away from them
• Talk less and say more
• Remember that some things are not for sale
• Take pride on your work
• Do what has to be done

Let’s look at these one at a time and relate them to our elected officials.
Live each day with courage. Our elected empty suits could really be effective if they lived by this. What kind of courage do they need? I want to see them demonstrate the courage to live by what they promised those who voted for them and especially for those who are paying taxes. I want to see them demonstrate the courage of their own convictions. When they speak I want them to say what they mean and what they believe and then live and act by those beliefs. Say what you mean and live by what you said, don’t change your position when you speak to different groups or when your handlers tell you to change what you believe.
Ride for the brand means that you’re loyal to your organization, the brand identified who owned the cattle. When you rode for the brand you felt an obligation to support your organization in every way possible. Loyalty and respect for your organization and the other members of that organization. Loyalty and trust are important at home and in public. Elected empty suits rarely ride for the brand; they ride for the highest bidder. Not necessarily for a crude cash payment to buy their vote, but by adjusting their position on a topic to adjust their vote in ways that don’t support or defend what they said when they were running for office. The tax payers and voters in their districts are their brand, they must show loyalty and respect to their brand.

When you make a promise, keep it. Your word is your bond. How simple is this to live up to? When you say something to get elected, do what you say. You said it in public to people who trust you, doing what you say should be an easy thing to live up to. Representing yourself as a decent hard working representative of the taxpaying public should make it easy to do what you promised. Do what you said you would do, every time, no exceptions. I can forgive stupid; I won’t forgive disloyal or untrustworthy.
Your reputation and credibility are built on your past actions. Lie to me today, and then try to sell your lie as a practical application of your pubic efforts on the tax payer’s behalf is a lie and will be seen as a lie by those who expect you to live by the code.

When your friends are in trouble run towards them not away from them. Personally and professionally stand by your family and friends. Stand by your family and friends no matter what. Friends and family make mistakes, sometimes serious mistakes, as far down as they go they need friends and family to help pick them up when they stumble. Friends do define you, but we can’t control the actions of our friends and we can’t choose our family. You don’t have to condone what they did wrong, but you can stand by them to help them get right after they fall. Run towards them never away from them. I won’t vote for a fair weather friend, anyone who turns against you for standing by a friend in deep deep trouble isn’t worth keeping with you. Do the right things regardless of what some people think.

Talk less and say more is good advice for everyone. Elected empty suits can learn from this. Most questions can be answered by a few simple words. Long multisyllabic responses to simple questions are a clear sign you’re lying. Most responses should be yes, no, I won’t do that ever, or I will do that every time I get a chance. A longer response only sets you up for an opportunity to do something different after you’re in office.

Remember that some things are not for sale. This should be obvious, but from what we’ve seen with elected officials they obviously need a reminder. Your word is your bond, when you make a promise you keep it, the respect and loyalty you are expected to have for the tax payers and voters who put their trust in you should be enough to keep you as an elected official to be your own man or woman while in office. Party leaders, campaign contributors, wealthy people in your district who want something special, which may not be in line with the position you took while campaigning for office. Don’t let your position change and have it appear you sold something that should not be sold. What you sold was the trust the tax payers had in you and their respect for you as a man or a woman.

Take pride on your work, be proud of who you are and who you represent. You’re riding for your brand and you should be proud that your friends and neighbors trusted you to represent their best interests. You should be proud that they trust and respect you. Do the job with pride and stand by your words. Make them proud that they voted for you. The tax payers in your district are paying for what you’re voting for, the voters in your district voted for you. Not all voters are tax payers, take care of your tax payers as well as your voters, but make sure you are mindful of the burden you’re placing on the tax payers.

Do what has to be done. Some jobs are difficult and some cause you to get beaten and bruised along the way. Do what has to be done and do it well. Do the right thing for the right reasons no matter what. You may have to take some lumps as you do the right thing, but do it and do it right. Make the tax payers who voted for you proud that they voted for you. If you have to take some lumps and bruises along the way make sure they are on the front of you, not on your back. Get hurt going towards the danger not running away from it.

If you want my vote Cowboy up and ride for your brand!!

More Tax and Spend

More Tax and Spend

Many people feel that more government spending is the answer to all of the country’s problems. These people are filled with good intentions but do not understand the economy or people very well.
Their good intentions are based on their belief that an unusually high number of people in this country need the help of government to live an independent and successful life because life isn’t fair and the rich have stacked the deck against those who are not rich. They also believe that the rich are successful because they took advantage of the poor. Even as they are convinced that the rich cheated and stole their riches they are equally convinced that the rich and successful, like themselves (the bleeding heart rich and successful) did not steal or cheat the poor and disadvantaged. The other rich guys did it and they must be made to pay for their bad deeds.

There are only four ways the bleeding hearts can perceive this situation:

The poor and disadvantaged need the help provided from a bleeding hearts and they are entitled to that help. The other rich and successful people are rich and successful therefore the poor and disadvantaged could not become rich. The poor and disadvantaged never had a chance and the rich and successful must pay the price for their success.

The other rich and successful guy could only become rich and successful at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged. Their riches are tainted and are the result of unfair actions on their part. They have too much and they don’t deserve it; so their riches must go back to the poorly treated because that is only fair and just.

The poor and disadvantaged will only vote for them (the bleeding hearts) if they help steal from the rich and give to the poor. They believe that those voters who qualify as the poor and disadvantaged will only vote for them if there is something in it for them. The Redistribution of Wealth, are acts of buying the love and loyalty of the poor and disadvantaged.

The fourth possibility is that the poor and disadvantaged are that way because they’re unable to care for themselves or become successful on their own. They don’t have the means to be successful on their own and must be supported by big government through the bleeding hearts to survive.

The Pygmalion theory which has been proven very effective in educational environments and the private sector says that if you treat a group as high performers the group will perform as high performers. If you treat a group with very low expectations you’ll receive little from that group. It will not allow you to create geniuses from an average student, but you will provide an environment where you will get above average performance from a normally average performer.

Here is my list of objections to their way of thinking. Life is not always fair some people grow up with more to start with than the other guy. Some of us are born with gifts that others will never have.
I know I will never live the life of a super model or rap star because I am missing the gifts inside me that make those career choices a possibility. I was born with a sense of responsibility, a good work ethic and an average intelligence. I am, and always have been self sufficient and independent. Just about everyone I know is self sufficient and independent. It’s expected of me and I meet the expectation. On occasion I exceed that expectation.

Some of the rich and successful may have taken advantage of someone or more than one someone in achieving their success, but if so they are a minority. By far most successful and independent people achieved their success and independence through hard work and a good work ethic.

The bleeding hearts argue that the rich have too much and should contribute more than the rest of us. That is a common opinion shared by those who feel an obligation to spend the tax payer’s money. The rich already give more than their fair share, but how much money does it take to be rich? All of us with a job are paying too much. 47% don’t pay taxes and the rest of us who aren’t millionaires are paying ungodly rates to make up for those who don’t pay at all.

Spending is the problem, spending on everything is the problem. Too much is spent and they, the bleeding hearts, always want more to spend. They are already spending more than they take in as tax revenue so the country, our children and grandchildren will have to pay the bill.

The debt gets bigger every year, and they don’t see it as a problem. They treat some as functional idiots who depend the helping hand of government when they should treat them as self sufficient and independent, because treat them that way and they will live that way.

They must stop spending money that they don’t have. They must cut taxes. We already contribute more than is necessary to care for the common good. We must go back to what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they formed this government. Limited Government and independence and self sufficiency are what they indented and it is a good system, let’s let it work for all of us.

Freedom, independence, and self sufficiency are some of the issues they fought the Revolution for. That’s not a bad way to live, let’s try it.

New York State Ethics Lessons

New York State Ethics Lessons

My misspent youth was the time I used to develop my sense of right and wrong. I’m not an over achiever in this field. I had trouble distinguishing some rights from wrongs. My parents were the first pair to try to teach me what was right and what was wrong, they worked closely with me to make me understand that pushing my older sister down the stairs was wrong, and then when I tried to swear to God that I was on business in Dallas when the alleged incident occurred, they became even more angry. That was a bit hard to accept from a 2 year old boy. They also mentioned the push, the lie and the blasphemy were all bad things. As I got older and tried to do several other meaner things to my sister and then started swearing to God some more about my innocence I started to see where they could have a point. As I did the bad things they were trying to teach me were wrong I was rewarded with a Time Out from my father. I had some time out from sitting on anything until the throbbing stopped after I felt his boot up my ass. I started to associate bad feeling with bad conduct. As time passed I learned that ignoring my sister as any self respecting teenage boy will do, did not result in any physical or verbal altercation with my mother or my father.

I started to see a trend. Do bad things get bad feelings, for example a kick in the ass from Pop or Mom beating me with a broom stick. Do good things and feel good, do bad things and feel bad. It’s a simple but effective concept. In Italian and Jewish families the mother was very good at sprinkling some guilt in amongst the beatings to make sure the important points stick.

So as a young adult, we learn that misleading, fabricating, distorting, avoidance, and outright lying are wrong. Telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth is very good. (Unless you’re with a hot young lady and you’re in that sort of mood, again, and you think she’s half a gullible as you are, then yes you will respect her in the morning, and no I have never done anything like this before) As time passed we even learned that the stories you tell women to “broaden” their experiences in life were also bad. That’s usually the last ethical lesson we take to heart. But it’s a lesson we must learn.

By the time we’re young adults we know right from wrong. In New York State we have some water pollution that seems to affect our ethical decisions. The source of the pollution seems to center around Albany. Once elected the young men and women start to lose sight of what’s right and what’s wrong.

If asked by their spouse if they shared any unlawful carnal knowledge with anyone other than their assigned spouse, they’re supposed to answer with a yes or a no. If their answer starts with a repeat of the original question as they stall for time, and start to recall who and what they’ve slept with lately, and then try to come up with an explanation, then you know they’ve been wrong. If their answer is “Of course not, what would make you think I could possibly spend any time with anyone other than you? They gave an answer that’s not an answer. As shallow as most elected officials are, their spouses will accept that as an acceptable answer. Far too many journalists will also accept that as an acceptable answer. Meanwhile the elected empty suit is despoiling one or two or more very sweet young things with a lower than a room temperature IQ, as well as some of the livestock.

When asked if they accepted campaign contributions from Attila the Hun, Jack the Ripper and The Boston Strangler. They will answer “The appropriations for the School Lunch Program is a worthwhile investment in the future of the state and should be passed immediately. Thank you for your time, but I have an urgent appointment with my spiritual advisor and I must leave right now.”

When asked if they traded their vote for Armand Farquar to become the next Majority L
eader for a $50,000 appropriation to their nonprofit Foundation for the Perpetually Broke, that is administered by the legislator’s spouse and they cannot produce any documents detailing where any of the money went, their answer should not be that the Foundation does such good work for the community.
I’m beginning to see another trend here. Why did I have to endure the ass kicking’s from My father and the beatings from my mother to learn not to lie and mislead people? The elected extortionists in this state confiscate my money through taxes and then redistribute it to their “foundations” and then tell me that I’m lucky to live in this state. Didn’t their parents love them enough to beat the Bejeesus out of them as they pulled that crap around the house when they were young and impressionable? Did they learn new ethics in Albany? Is it the water that’s tainted? Or do they just get stupid in the election process?

I have to go lie down now; I just gave myself a headache.