A Senator of Limited Capabilities

A Senator of Limited Capabilities

Senator Dick Durban has made some public statements questioning the business decisions of senior management of The Walgreen Company. It’s becoming apparent that The Walgreen Company is considering acquiring 55 percent of a Swiss based retailer. It’s not clear at this time what The Walgreen Company is trying to do with this acquisition. Are they planning a tax inversion where the acquisition will shield the overseas income from the greedy reach of the US government, or are they trying to become a Swiss based company and attempt to shield even more of their income from the greedy reach of the elected empty suits who write letters to big businesses about topics that they have not been adequately briefed on.

Senator Dick Durban has been a Senator from the state of Illinois, a well-run operation if I ever saw one, since 1997. He spent the 70’s, 80’s and most of the 90’s as a lawyer. A profession that provides a foundation in chasing ambulances and how to effectively wear a neck brace for fun and profit.

With this limited background Senator Durban has the intestinal fortitude to challenge The Walgreen Company on their plans. He reminds The Walgreen Company that most of its income comes from US taxpayers. I suspect that possibly 53% of its income comes from taxpayers and 47% comes from people who don’t pay taxes but actually get money back above and beyond what was withheld if any of them had a job. So this point besides being more than irrelevant is less than accurate.

The next point this Senator of Limited Capabilities tries to make is that much of the business and success enjoyed by The Walgreen Company over the past 113 years took advantage of taxpayer infrastructure paid for by those same taxpayers. This point is possibly even more irrelevant than the previous point. The infrastructure that has been built and improved and maintained over the past 113 years was paid for by taxpayers for the benefit of taxpayers. The Walgreen Company has been a taxpayer and an employer and a business partner in every community they service. They made significant contributions to the communities in the form of state and federal taxes for every one of the 113 years. They paid for the privilege and deserved to benefit from it.

Nowhere does this refugee from the ambulance chasing corps mention the investments, risks, hard work, and dedication required to maintain and grow a successful business for more than one hundred years. Perhaps that point escaped him. Perhaps he doesn’t realize that it is perfectly acceptable for senior management of a successful business to legally protect their assets and profits from the long reach of tax and spend elected empty suits.

This Senator of questionable skills and abilities mentions how the company profits from the beneficiaries of an assortment of government programs. Unfortunately that is true. Far too many people purchase goods, services, and medicines from the good graces of the 53% of the taxpayers who have to pay exorbitant taxes to support the 47% who DO NOT pay taxes. Far too many people spend far too much government money to support themselves. The tax bite for taxpayers is approaching the point where it is unbearable.

The Walgreen Company has been a successful company for 113 years. Its success is the result of good businessmen making good decisions and making the right decisions for the stockholders. The taxpayers who invest in The Walgreen Company by risking their money in Walgreen stock not only expect, they demand that senior management maximize profits and minimize expenses. Taxes are an expense that must be minimized.

Ambulance chasers, elected empty suits, and morons have a lot of trouble understanding this concept. Taxpayers and businesses are not on this earth to be squeezed and screwed out of as much money as possible by the tax man. Elected empty suits place the takers of the world in the primary position instead of the makers of the world. Taxpayers are the makers; they are squeezed and abused by the elected empty suits to support the free stuff the elected empty suits promise to the takers, in order to buy their love and affection on Election Day.

Ambulance chasers, elected empty suits and morons hate to see a taxpayer legally shield their income from the government. They lose sight of the hard work and effort earning a living requires, they do not agree that the taxpayer should get to keep as much of what they earn as possible.

They certainly do not see the need for a limited government.

My sympathies are with Walgreens, I hope Senator Durbin has to watch billions of dollars flee his grasp as Walgreens doubles the dividends paid to its shareholder.

God Bless the Free Market Economy!!!!

Posted in Economics, General Political Issues | Leave a comment

Tax Inversion and Patriotism

Tax Inversion and Patriotism

Several Politicians who like to spend more than the government takes in as tax revenue recently made statements that demonstrate how confused and wrong they are.

A topic of conversation among the dazed and confused in office has been “tax inversions”
The United States taxes citizens and corporations on income earned anywhere in the world. A large corporation which is based in the US and does business in the US and other countries is taxed on the business income that is earned in other countries.

That’s how the tax laws are written and that’s how deep into the pockets of big business our government gets. It seems a bit greedy to me.

Basically a tax inversion is a change in status of the company where the US government can no longer tax the business’s income in other countries. That sounds like a sound business move to me. In a free market economy a business exists to make profits to enrich the owners or shareholders, not elected empty suits who want more of our money to misspend!

I found a definition of tax inversion online in an article by Kathleen Pender:

“A U.S. company reincorporates overseas by getting acquired by a smaller company in a country where the corporate tax rate is much lower than the top U.S. rate of 35 percent. Generally, the U.S. firm’s management and operations remain in the United States, but it is no longer taxed on income earned outside the United States. It still pays taxes on income earned inside the U.S., but it gets easier to minimize that tax.”

Our elected empty suits are calling this maneuver unpatriotic and taking advantage of a loophole. I want to emphasize the thought process of the elected empty suit.

The business is in business to make profits for the owners of the business. That’s why they put their capital at risk to create a business. They do not exist to pay exorbitant taxes to support the tax and spend practices of professional elected empty suits. Minimizing expenses and maximizing profits is the principle job of the men and women who are running that business.

Patriotism is the devotion and loyalty to one’s country. Managing a successful company and maximizing profits is not unpatriotic. Let’s also highlight that the profits in other countries, not the profits in the US, are the profits shielded from the greedy elected empty suits.

It is not a loophole in the tax laws when a company manages their business in a way that the US government hasn’t written tax laws to cover. Essentially a tax inversion takes an overseas part of a business and converts it to a foreign company in a foreign country.

They become exactly like a small Italian butcher shop in the bowels of Naples. The US government cannot tax that butcher shop. When a US based multinational manufacturer of high end widgets allows its Italian branch to be acquired by that small butcher shop in the bowels of Naples the US government can no longer tax the bejesus out of that US based multinational manufacturer of high end widgets for the profits earned in Italy.

Identifying this as unpatriotic act shows how the mind of the elected empty suit works. The elected empty suits sees the primary purpose of a business as the willingness to give up profits to taxes. They cannot see that the purpose of business is to make profits. In their minds profits are evil.

Tax payers hate to pay taxes. Hard working tax payers are tired of supporting the tax a spend practices of elected empty suits. Elected empty suits promise free stiff to voters to buy the love and affection of voters. The cost of that practice is passed on to the tax payers, tax payers are getting tired of carrying the burden of the promise of free stuff to get votes.

Individuals and businesses are entitled to keep a larger portion of their hard earned money. Government is supposed to be limited and far less intrusive than it currently is.

We MUST start voting for better elected empty suits, this time let’s find some who want to cut spending and cut taxes.

Posted in General Political Issues, Patroitism | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Income Inequality

Income Inequality

We hear a lot of politicians complain about income inequality but none of them define it or offer any suggestions to correct the problem. The big problem seems to be that the successful make too much and that the unsuccessful don’t make enough. I don’t see that as a problem but apparently they do.

Do I really care how many millions of dollars a spoiled brat TV or movie star gets paid for their “acting”? In a free market economy if the spoiled brat actor can demand a million dollars a week for their acting and a TV studio or producer thinks that’s worth it and actually pays that spoiled brat actor the million dollars a week, I’m good with that.

The studio or producer thinks that’s worth the money and pays it then the actor earns it, that doesn’t affect me. I’m not making a million dollars a week, but I would like too. I’m jealous that the actor is making so much more money that I am, but I don’t want to stop the actor from getting what they can for their acting.

Now I’m also good with uneducated single mom earning under three hundred dollars a week as a part time waitress in a cheap diner in a seedy part of town.

Life is about choices. We are all the sum of the choices that we and our parents made over time. Uneducated single mom’s parents made some choices that led to a premature pregnancy that may or may not be responsible for the lack of education. The single mom indicates there is a father who is not being accountable for the child he fathered. Choices along the way created the situation that uneducated single mom has to live in.

No education with limited skills and a questionable family situation will have a negative impact on a person’s ability to earn a living. All of these choices have an impact on the earning potential of the uneducated single mom, however they have absolutely no impact on the earning potential of the spoiled brat actor, the spoiled brat actor is still earning a million dollars a week.

Other than some weak minded politicians complaining about the income inequality I don’t see the problem. If it is a problem, how do we fix it? Do we set a limit on how much the spoiled brat actor can earn in a week a month or a year? How would we enforce it? Setting a limit on how much a person earns will have a negative impact on tax revenues. Simple minded elected empty suits would get a bit weak in the knees when they discover that they limited the revenues into the public piggy bank that they are determined to misspend.

Another option is to try and artificially inflate the income for the uneducated single mom. Compel the cheap diner in the seedy part of town to pay the uneducated single mom far more than she’s worth just to artificially increase her income. The diner is cheap and in the seedy part of town because the owner has limited capital, possibly poor business skills and a really bad cook. Over paying the help doesn’t make the food any better or secure the few jobs the cheap diner maintains in the economy.

Both options stink. A free market economy must stay free. Let the skills, experience, and work ethic of each individual speak for the employee. Those who can demand a million dollars a week and can get it should get it. Those who can just barely earn three hundred dollars a week, because that’s just about what their skills, and experience call for then let them earn that and no more.

We all make choices and those choices result in the circumstances that we must live in later on in life. Actions have consequences.

Before uneducated single mom puts herself in a position to become pregnant and uneducated she must consider how her life and the life of her child will be if she must spend her life as an uneducated single mom. Her parents made choices that allowed her to make some bad choices along the way.

Choices, values, education, work ethic, and family are how we balance the income inequality situation. I refuse to call it a problem because it isn’t a problem, it the result of the choices we made.

Posted in Economics, Social Issues | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Intervention For Politicians

Intervention For Politicians

Some families have a loved one who due to unfortunate circumstances find themselves in a situation where they need some serious help. A family member may have a drinking or a drug problem that’s out of control, but the loved one can still be saved. You still love the family member who has made some poor choices and needs help. An intervention is where a group of loved ones gather together and confront the loved one who lost their way and present some clear alternatives to the wayward child.

This has often been effective because the wayward child knows they’re loved. They can see you want to help them and you are confronting them face to face with a reality they have been trying to deny. A successful intervention requires a great deal of sacrifice and hard work by everyone involved. One big element to the success is the ability to forgive.

As we start to discuss the possibility of a successful intervention with one or more of our elected hooligans we have to accept the fact that the lying thieving son of a bitch was never loved by anything who didn’t pay for the privilege. We all genuinely hope they choke on their own greed and lust for power. Failure is not only an option it’s the goal of this intervention. Make the thieving weasel understand how they betrayed those who elected the thief into office.

With all of the love in our hearts how can we conduct the right kind of intervention for our own personal elected empty suit? I think the first step is to make contact through the mail or through emails and express our displeasure in a meaningful way. Use the versatility of the English language to show how disappointed we are with them in their ability to take a good civil service job with very low expectations and fail to crawl above the bar of marginal performance. 99.9% of the elected thieves would have to significantly improve to be measured as a dismal failure in their job.

In the real world they would have been fired for the kind of performance we get out of them. They refuse to attempt to accomplish anything they campaigned on, because that was not the intention of their campaign promises. They told us what we wanted to hear to get us to vote for them, they never intended to accomplish or even attempt any of what they promised, why should they we knew they were lying when they promised us.

We all learned this technique in High School in the back seat of a car. He attempted to say the things she wanted to hear to get her to give him what he wanted. She knew he didn’t mean what he was promising, and she couldn’t possibly have expected him to live up to the crap that was coming out of his mouth. This is called the modern day mating ritual. We carry these techniques into adulthood.

Once we make contact with the lying weasel and let them know how they’ve disappointed us, we all must record their names in some prominent way. Because the next time we have an election we must all remember the lying weasel’s name and intervene him or her right out of office. But we must make sure we do it with all of the love we could find for our wayward child who needs a helping hand.

They need to be confronted by the ones who love them; we must love them we keep voting them into office. Now is the time to give them some tough love, in the form of unemployment. In this tough economy they should have the opportunity to find a new job using their skills learned while feeding from the public trough. Perhaps a job as a magician, who makes things appear to be something they’re not. Or a pick pocket, not that we need them, but that’s one of the skills they learned in office. Town drunk is another skill they’ve developed in office and Lord knows we need more of those, unfortunately once out of office they’ll have to find someone else (other than the public piggy bank) to pay for their adult beverages. We could let some become serial fornicators, not that we need any more sneaking around the neighborhood, but it appears to be a skill they picked up in office.

So if you love your own personal elected empty suit, show them some tough love and intervene them out of our pockets this coming fall.

Posted in General Political Issues, Humor, Social Issues | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Free Market Economy

A Free Market Economy

Today we’ll have a history lesson. Based on the title above some of the sharper among you may think this is going to be an economics lesson, but based on the current situation this concept may start to be a thing of the past, therefore this becomes a history lesson. I looked up this concept in Wikipedia:

“In social philosophy, a free market economy is a system for allocating goods within a society: purchasing power mediated by supply and demand within the market determines who gets what and what is produced, rather than the state.”

When we can get government to stay out of the mix the free market seems to work. I want a loaf of bread so I go to the baker and buy a loaf of bread for the price the baker sets. I get a nice loaf of bread; he sells a loaf and makes a profit on that loaf. As long as I’m happy with my loaf of bread it’s none of my business how big a profit the baker earned for the loaf. Now if I have a choice of bakers and a choice of loaves of bread I have to make a decision. Baker A, Baker B, and Baker C all sell their loaves for fifty cents a loaf (notice the price; I wanted this to be a real historical document). Baker D is real proud of his loaves he tries to sell them for a dollar a loaf.

Bakers A, B and C all sell about the same number of loaves. The public chooses based on their personal preferences for the individual baker’s style. Baker D rarely sells any bread; his price is out of line with the free market. Only the desperate and the stupid buy bread from this gamoke.

See how nice the free market works. If Baker D learns to control his costs, and become competitive he too will sell a fair share of the loaves, but when his price gets out of line, he’s baking bread for no apparent reason.
Now if we were to create a perversion to the free market by creating bread insurance, the customers could pay a fee or premium to an insurance company to help them pay for their bread. This would pervert the price the bakers receive for their effort; it would alter the price that the consumer pays for their loaves.

If I’m paying money, directly out of my paycheck so I lose sight of how much I’m paying for the insurance not to mention how much the bread costs. Bread becomes a freebie, its not like I’m really paying for it any more. Somebody else is.

The baker has his business perverted as well, now he gets paid based on the agreements with the insurance companies. Some insurance companies will pay him a price less than the customer used to pay but enough to cover his costs and provide a small profit. This works for a time, but costs rise and customer base grows and shrinks and nothing stays the same.

At some point it’s possible that the price of bread that costs forty cents to bake and used to sell at fifty cents, now costs 50 cents to bake but is selling for more than a dollar a loaf, because the insurance company has to cover its administrative costs and the baker has to hire a few people to process the claims to get paid and the consumer is paying more than fifty cents per loaf in insurance premiums.

There is no more competition when you don’t care how much you pay for a loaf of bread because you aren’t paying for it anymore. You buy it from Baker B because they’re affiliated with your bread insurance provider. You used to prefer Baker A because his bread was better, but you’re content to go to Baker B because it’s covered and your insurance pays for it.

A baker is entitled to make a much money baking and selling bread as he can. Personally I hope he becomes a millionaire selling bread, because if he can than anyone can, that’s part of what makes this country great. But for any baker or any person to be successful the free market economy is the engine to that success.
The free market sets fair prices and establishes reasonable costs without the layers of administration and rules and restrictions. The free market lets supply and demand establish the limits to production and consumption.
If you make a good loaf of bread, I’ll buy that loaf and pay your price; if you don’t make a good product for a good price then you won’t thrive and will not stay in business. Your products and your prices will determine that, not some agency or administrative process. Government needs to learn how to lower our taxes and spend less of our money and keep out of our economy as much as possible.

The sort of people who run for office are only good at fixing elections, they aren’t good at running a business. Once we finally get them out of office they’ll learn that as well. The sooner they’re unemployed the sooner our free market economy can get back to normal.

Posted in Economics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Class Warfare

Class Warfare

What is class warfare? Is it when the rich and successful get together and go out to the other side of the tracks with bats and chains and start beating up the less rich and less successful? Is it when the less rich and less successful cross the tracks and chase after the rich and successful to punish them for their success?
I don’t think it’s any of those things. The rich and successful have no hard feelings for the less rich and less successful. Politicians do their best to generate envy in the less rich and less successful toward the rich and successful.

The successful are successful because they work hard at achieving success. The earned it and they deserve it. Their success doesn’t prevent my success. Education, work ethic, and a positive attitude lead toward success. Those are things that our parents should teach us. If we don’t have two parents to teach us, then one of our parents should teach us. If we don’t have two parents then our Foster Parents have to teach us. If we don’t have anyone to teach us then we have to learn it on our own.

Success is the results of work. Could some luck be involved, yes it can, but luck alone won’t provide continued success. Hard work will. Smart people who have NOT enjoyed great success should look at those who have achieved success and learn from them. Discover some of what the successful are doing and do that. It worked for them it can work for you.

Politicians who don’t have anything positive to offer potential voters will point fingers and tell the gullible that you can’t make any more than you do because the rich made it before you could. Their success limits your success.

Let’s pick a number. Say $100 million. Let’s make believe that all the money in the country is $100 million and that’s it no more ever. If that’s the case and you make $50 million and three others make $10 million each that totals $80 million. Only $20 million left for the rest of us. Maybe the rest of us all earn $75,000 each and have a home and a family and live a good normal life. Maybe 100 of us don’t make anything and have to live off the kindness of others. Is all of that a bad thing? Why did that bum make $50 million, if he made less I could make more than I do. The rich guy screwed me.

If the economy worked that way I would agree the rich guy screwed us all, but he did it honestly and he earned more than we did. The little bit of money we make will still make me bitter, but I have no legitimate argument.
The problem is the economy doesn’t work that way. If it did when Congress ran out of money there wouldn’t be more to be spent. When you make $50 million I can still make $50 million. The rich didn’t screw us they are showing us how to be successful.

Only when politicians with nothing better to offer tell us the rich are screwing us do we have class warfare. Jealousy and envy are not what leaders rely on to motivate their followers.

Leaders tell us what we can achieve and then motivate us to take the journey to success. We need to know what we can do and how we can do it. We don’t need to vote because we feel we were cheated by the other guy.
A Leader is positive and will lead us to the solution. They will motivate us toward a goal. Look at history and read what great leaders said and did. Look at Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, and John F Kennedy. Did they blame someone else for the problems we faced? Did they tell us we were doomed because we couldn’t climb that mountain? Did they tell us that we faced a serious situation and we can get to the top together and be successful?
Did they make us feel good about ourselves and our chance at success? Effective leaders motivate and lead, they don’t blame others and tell us how bad we have it.

Leaders show us the way, politicians try to scare us out of success.

Posted in Leadership and Supervision | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Integrity and Confidence

Integrity and Confidence

Recently a political candidate for a national office has been accused of acting improperly more than 10 years ago. The accusations are being made by individuals from the candidate’s past and they may or may not have made a formal complaint at the time. Some other accusations are based on anonymous sources of anonymous victims with no detail to the accusations.

Another important part of these less than detailed accusations is that they only cover a short time period in the candidate’s multi decade career. Was this candidate a very bad person but only for a short time in his professional life? Were these accusations, along with the vague accusers with questionable motives, blown out of proportion and not a sign of questionable character traits possessed by this political candidate?

The media who are not always as consistent with who they gnaw at and who they don’t, are convinced that these questionable accusations are due as much coverage as they are giving them. Far more substantial accusations against other candidates received less scrutiny probably because the candidate involved had a different political agenda.

The current candidate who is still campaigning and staying on message is not fazed by these accusations. The media does have an agenda, the opposition also has their own agenda, but the candidate who is facing the accusations has to act independently based on their own integrity and self confidence.
None of us can go through life without the possibility of someone from our past coming forward who could make vague accusations based in fact that we would not appear in the best light. Do a few unguarded moments in a life time of achievement; disqualify an individual from future achievements? Do the vague accusations of people who were small players in a candidate’s life possess the power with the help of the media nullify the sum total of a candidates lifetime?

The answer is no if the candidate has lived a life of honor and integrity. The candidate must also have a great deal of self confidence. The total of an individual’s life counts far more than a few misdeeds real or imagined from a person’s past. An individual is a bum or an achiever based on their life not on individual actions. The willingness to grab hold of a few misdeeds, that may or may not rise to the level of facts, and use those alleged misdeeds to redefine a candidate’s character is a weakness of a small mind. The media has suffered from small minds since Watergate, and political opponents will always suffer small mindedness when the possibility exists to deal a body blow to tan opponent.

The candidate must rely on their own self confidence to overcome these challenges. Successful individuals have achieves success because of their belief in themselves. They have overcome significant obstacles in the past and will again in the future. Success requires that you believe in yourself and your abilities.

None of us have to suffer the effects of small minded attacks from small minded opponents, and the media is frequently just that, an opponent, instead of the public watchdog they should be.

A life of integrity and honor is the best defense against attack. You can not go backward in time and relive your life to sprinkle in integrity and honor; it has to be natural and has to happen as we go. The situations we all face every day provide us all the opportunity to demonstrate our honor and integrity. We can’t produce it to impress you; we have to live it to satisfy ourselves. A candidate who lived that life can easily defend against petty accusations from small minded people.

As we watch this battle take place between the small minded media and a candidate who refuses to be attacked, we will see who can win, a life time of honor and integrity or the ability to shape public opinion with small minded ideas.

Honor, Integrity and self confidence, qualities all of our candidates should have, but don’t.

Posted in Social Issues | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment